5 ms·

I'm sorry, but it's like you're describing how awesome navigation has gotten, but ignoring the fact that ship's captains don't trust sextants and watches. The

I'm sorry, but it's like you're describing how awesome navigation has gotten, but ignoring the fact that ship's captains don't trust sextants and watches. The march of scientific progress is awesome, but unless it can be applied, it's kind of useless. What I'm lamenting, and I think others are too, is that we don't have a society that says, "Well, science provides the best tools we have to understand the universe, and so, we will trust scientists to guide our decisions." Picture if we learned about vaccinating against HPV, but no one agreed to do it. What good would it do us to know the virus causes cancer, and to have developed a vaccine, if almost no one trusted the safety and efficacy of the vaccine? And frankly, no one has the expertise to be properly skeptical of the science that affects our daily lives. We all have to trust in authorities, like peer review. Don't believe me? How do you know lead is harmful? No, really, walk me through it. Are you properly skeptical of that claim? How have you proven it to your own satisfaction? Lead may be beneficial to developing brains, for all you know. Maybe even especially beneficial in high concentrations. Maybe you should start giving lead to every child you encounter. Or just admit that you take it on faith that the conclusions you've heard repeated are coming from scientific institutions that you hope will get it right, eventually. If you're lost at sea, trust the navigator to tell you which way to row the lifeboat. Call it "Sciencism" if you want to. All else being equal, trust the experts to guide you. Run experiments if you can. Verify if you have the time and resources. But really, we all have to trust the institutions and authority. If you want to invest some more, put money towards duplicating important findings, or auditing the math and methodology of foundational research.

teakettle42 4y ago
Honestly, arguing against religious ideology is an exhausting exercise and I’m happy to let someone else do it from here on out. I’ll just note that you should trust the science, not the scientists. Blind trust in institutions and authority is just religious thinking, with all the pitfalls inherent therein.
- VikingCoder 4y ago
  Why are you insisting that my trust is "blind"? I'm looking at predictive power and track records. Yes, it's entirely possible that an institution has played the long con, revealing one verifiable truth after another, only to tell me a giant lie. Or that an institution can be suborned and corrupted. If there's some cutting edge field, with an urgent and important finding, I have to trust the scientists. You and I do not have the expertise to verify their findings. We can try. But it takes a deep understanding to make valid and constructive criticisms. I mean, let me walk you through this - your doctor says you have condition X, and need treatment Y. Being a skeptic, you get a second opinion, but it concurs. Tell me how you are not merely trusting the scientists? Feel free to explain like I'm five, I won't be offended.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    > I mean, let me walk you through this - your doctor says you have condition X, and need treatment Y. Being a skeptic, you get a second opinion, but it concurs. Tell me how you are not merely trusting the scientists? Feel free to explain like I'm five, I won't be offended. So, you repeat the experiment and get the same results? The second doctor presumably re-ran tests, gave you his independent interpretation, etc? If he came to the same conclusion, you’ve replicated the original findings. You used the scientific method! This should have occurred at every step of the process, and you can (and should!) review the literature to the best of your ability and get it explained to you as throughly as possible. You’re not trusting the scientists, you’re trusting the science. (If you want to deploy sophistic epistemological arguments to claim you’re really just trusting the doctors, fine. I’ll bow out of the conversation, because arguing epistemology is an exhausting waste of everyone’s time). Now imagine that instead, you’re not allowed to ask another doctor. Trust the science. No second opinions, the institution has already spoken. Or the institution’s spokespeople, as is the case with (invariably poor) science reporting and politically-driven science bodies.
    - VikingCoder 4y ago
      > I’ll bow out of the conversation, because arguing epistemology is an exhausting waste of everyone’s time I'm sorry, but I have to laugh at you. "Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion." You yourself started this epistemological debate by arguing that belief in scientific institutions and authority was not justified.
- SantalBlush 4y ago
  >Honestly, arguing against religious ideology is an exhausting exercise and I’m happy to let someone else do it from here on out. Good. The term "religious ideology" here is so loaded that it doesn't deserve serious consideration.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    It’s accurate. If you have a better description for the observed phenomena, I’m all ears.
    - VikingCoder 4y ago
      I presented graphs to a friend, and he asserted the data had been faked. His belief that the process is corrupted supersedes any other evidence I could give him. His description of the observed phenomena is a perfect trap, preventing any revisions. He's not the only one I've had this discussion with. One person questioned my ability to understand science, asserting, "Yes, smallpox disappeared about the same time as the smallpox vaccine, but correlation doesn't equal causation." She is convinced that smallpox was faked, and that the vaccine was one of many devices meant to teach us to obey governmental authoritarianism. You tell me, how could I possibly break through to her? She is 100% convinced she has the best description for the observed phenomena. And you know what? That's fine. It's fine that you're also a skeptic. I don't need everyone to adhere to the church of scientific instutitions. But as a society, I think our representatives would be fools to think they have a better instrument to observe the world, than through the lenses of the scientific institutions. Use their own brains to interpret the data, and to decide how to behave, of course. But to provide them with the best theory that fits the observed data. Watching someone in Congress assert that oceans are rising because soil is eroding into the oceans... I mean... It's heartbreaking. [1] [1] : https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/20/opinions/erosion-sea-level-rise-scientific-analysis-lincoln/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/20/opinions/erosion-sea-level-ri...
    - SantalBlush 4y ago
      >If you have a better description for the observed phenomena, I’m all ears. I actually don't believe you are. Using the term "religious ideology" is laughably dishonest.
FeepingCreature 4y ago
> What I'm lamenting, and I think others are too, is that we don't have a society that says, "Well, science provides the best tools we have to understand the universe, and so, we will trust scientists to guide our decisions." That would be a horrible idea. It's trying to package the whole edifice up in a nice "just tell me who I can unequivocally trust" bow. No-one! Nullius in verba! You can trust no-one! There is no faith, only degrees of confidence.
- VikingCoder 4y ago
  What is your degree of confidence in an alert coming out of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that warns of a Category 5 Hurricane making landfall in the next 6 hours, with accompanying dangerously high winds and a record-setting storm surge? Is that enough to warrant forced evacuations from homes? This isn't a hypothetical. Do you, or do you not, think that we as a society should immediately act upon information from the NOAA about hurricanes?
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    I’m sure I’ll regret wading into the epistemological debate over your faith-based belief system, but here we are. Over the past few months, I have received two completely incorrect fire evacuation notices from our local emergency services. This occurred as a result of complaints after our last major fire; people complained that the alerts were insufficiently broad. In response, our emergency operations center sent out over-broad alerts that inaccurately geo-targeted recipients. Should I have immediately acted on those alerts, loading my possessions and pets into the car and hightailing it out of the area? Should we be forced to evacuate based on the invalid geotargeting? Should communication providers and social networks censor contrary information? I’m just trying to gauge what degree of uncritical trust and faith you think we should place in fallible authorities and institutions, and how strictly we should enforce your orthodoxy, rather than requiring presentation of evidence and leaving open the door for critical scientific examination. To be very clear, I’m on the local fire department and the invalidity of the evacuation notices is beyond question. They were incorrect and counterproductive.

teakettle42 4y ago

Honestly, arguing against religious ideology is an exhausting exercise and I’m happy to let someone else do it from here on out. I’ll just note that you should trust the science, not the scientists. Blind trust in institutions and authority is just religious thinking, with all the pitfalls inherent therein.

VikingCoder 4y ago
Why are you insisting that my trust is "blind"? I'm looking at predictive power and track records. Yes, it's entirely possible that an institution has played the long con, revealing one verifiable truth after another, only to tell me a giant lie. Or that an institution can be suborned and corrupted. If there's some cutting edge field, with an urgent and important finding, I have to trust the scientists. You and I do not have the expertise to verify their findings. We can try. But it takes a deep understanding to make valid and constructive criticisms. I mean, let me walk you through this - your doctor says you have condition X, and need treatment Y. Being a skeptic, you get a second opinion, but it concurs. Tell me how you are not merely trusting the scientists? Feel free to explain like I'm five, I won't be offended.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  > I mean, let me walk you through this - your doctor says you have condition X, and need treatment Y. Being a skeptic, you get a second opinion, but it concurs. Tell me how you are not merely trusting the scientists? Feel free to explain like I'm five, I won't be offended. So, you repeat the experiment and get the same results? The second doctor presumably re-ran tests, gave you his independent interpretation, etc? If he came to the same conclusion, you’ve replicated the original findings. You used the scientific method! This should have occurred at every step of the process, and you can (and should!) review the literature to the best of your ability and get it explained to you as throughly as possible. You’re not trusting the scientists, you’re trusting the science. (If you want to deploy sophistic epistemological arguments to claim you’re really just trusting the doctors, fine. I’ll bow out of the conversation, because arguing epistemology is an exhausting waste of everyone’s time). Now imagine that instead, you’re not allowed to ask another doctor. Trust the science. No second opinions, the institution has already spoken. Or the institution’s spokespeople, as is the case with (invariably poor) science reporting and politically-driven science bodies.
  - VikingCoder 4y ago
    > I’ll bow out of the conversation, because arguing epistemology is an exhausting waste of everyone’s time I'm sorry, but I have to laugh at you. "Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion." You yourself started this epistemological debate by arguing that belief in scientific institutions and authority was not justified.
SantalBlush 4y ago
>Honestly, arguing against religious ideology is an exhausting exercise and I’m happy to let someone else do it from here on out. Good. The term "religious ideology" here is so loaded that it doesn't deserve serious consideration.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  It’s accurate. If you have a better description for the observed phenomena, I’m all ears.
  - VikingCoder 4y ago
    I presented graphs to a friend, and he asserted the data had been faked. His belief that the process is corrupted supersedes any other evidence I could give him. His description of the observed phenomena is a perfect trap, preventing any revisions. He's not the only one I've had this discussion with. One person questioned my ability to understand science, asserting, "Yes, smallpox disappeared about the same time as the smallpox vaccine, but correlation doesn't equal causation." She is convinced that smallpox was faked, and that the vaccine was one of many devices meant to teach us to obey governmental authoritarianism. You tell me, how could I possibly break through to her? She is 100% convinced she has the best description for the observed phenomena. And you know what? That's fine. It's fine that you're also a skeptic. I don't need everyone to adhere to the church of scientific instutitions. But as a society, I think our representatives would be fools to think they have a better instrument to observe the world, than through the lenses of the scientific institutions. Use their own brains to interpret the data, and to decide how to behave, of course. But to provide them with the best theory that fits the observed data. Watching someone in Congress assert that oceans are rising because soil is eroding into the oceans... I mean... It's heartbreaking. [1] [1] : https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/20/opinions/erosion-sea-level-rise-scientific-analysis-lincoln/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/20/opinions/erosion-sea-level-ri...
  - SantalBlush 4y ago
    >If you have a better description for the observed phenomena, I’m all ears. I actually don't believe you are. Using the term "religious ideology" is laughably dishonest.

FeepingCreature 4y ago

> What I'm lamenting, and I think others are too, is that we don't have a society that says, "Well, science provides the best tools we have to understand the universe, and so, we will trust scientists to guide our decisions." That would be a horrible idea. It's trying to package the whole edifice up in a nice "just tell me who I can unequivocally trust" bow. No-one! Nullius in verba! You can trust no-one! There is no faith, only degrees of confidence.

VikingCoder 4y ago
What is your degree of confidence in an alert coming out of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that warns of a Category 5 Hurricane making landfall in the next 6 hours, with accompanying dangerously high winds and a record-setting storm surge? Is that enough to warrant forced evacuations from homes? This isn't a hypothetical. Do you, or do you not, think that we as a society should immediately act upon information from the NOAA about hurricanes?
- teakettle42 4y ago
  I’m sure I’ll regret wading into the epistemological debate over your faith-based belief system, but here we are. Over the past few months, I have received two completely incorrect fire evacuation notices from our local emergency services. This occurred as a result of complaints after our last major fire; people complained that the alerts were insufficiently broad. In response, our emergency operations center sent out over-broad alerts that inaccurately geo-targeted recipients. Should I have immediately acted on those alerts, loading my possessions and pets into the car and hightailing it out of the area? Should we be forced to evacuate based on the invalid geotargeting? Should communication providers and social networks censor contrary information? I’m just trying to gauge what degree of uncritical trust and faith you think we should place in fallible authorities and institutions, and how strictly we should enforce your orthodoxy, rather than requiring presentation of evidence and leaving open the door for critical scientific examination. To be very clear, I’m on the local fire department and the invalidity of the evacuation notices is beyond question. They were incorrect and counterproductive.