4 ms·

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

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.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    You disingenuously left out the first half of the definition: “the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope.” An epistemological debate would be over whether empiricism and the scientific method are even valid “ways of knowing”, whether “religious ideology” and “faith” were themselves valid forms of knowledge, et al. I addressed your question about the application of the scientific method to trust the science, not the scientists. We were not engaged in a discussion of epistemological theory, and your response is exactly the kind of two-bit sophistry I was referring to.
    - VikingCoder 4y ago
      So my belief that you are engaged in an epistemological debate is not justified? Got it. We absolutely 100% were engaged in a discussion of epistemology, whether you realize it or not. You are a single human, and we have to question your methods and scope of the analysis you claim is required, to "do better than the scientists." And I'm telling you, the world is far too complex for you to put up any kind of real front, on any but the most absolutely critical decisions of your life, and even on those, I assert your best bet is to have faith in the experts. How do you know lead is dangerous? You and I have a justified belief that it is, even though you and I are merely trusting scientists who have told us that.
      - teakettle42 4y ago
        > We absolutely 100% were engaged in a discussion of epistemology, whether you realize it or not. I was engaged in a debate about the inherent logical inconsistency of sciencism. That can be proven without appealing to epistemology. I explicitly bowed out of your attempt at a debate over epistemology. You’re welcome to discuss your belief in the validity of faith-based knowledge with others, but as I said, I’m not interested.
        VikingCoder 4y ago
        I have to ask, how is it "logically inconsistent" to believe in scientists? You might not get the best results, but it's absolutely logically consistent. It's logically consistent to believe in the Norse Pantheon as the sole source of wisdom. Again, that doesn't mean it results in the best predictions or the most accurate understanding of the cosmos. I assert that I have a justified belief in scientists. If you want to question that belief, you are engaged in epistemology. I also have a justified belief in the lab techs who gather data for doctors and other scientists. In the manufacturers who prepare the reagents, etc that the lab techs use. In the FDA process in evaluating the claims of those ingredients. In the agents of the FDA. In the media for looking for corruption in those agents. In the government for defending the media. And in the citizens of this country for ensuring that the government defends the media's freedom. I assert that I have a justified belief in scientists, all the way down through the whole scaffolding they stand upon. You can pretend to believe in science, in the abstract, but you do not have the capacity to even understand the scaffolding that scientists stand on, except possibly in a very narrow set of disciplines. And even then, down to only a few layers of abstractions. You are not a Full Stack scientist.
- chimprich 4y ago
  > If he came to the same conclusion, you’ve replicated the original findings. You used the scientific method! You most certainly have not. You have decided to trust two experts instead of one. > 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. What if you don't have the ability or expertise to understand the literature? If you're asking for a simplified version then you're just trusting the expert's understanding. (This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but still involves a level of trust in the authority of the expert). Out of interest, do you make sure you understand the science behind bridge technology and the engineering of every single bridge you cross, or do you trust in the expertise of certified bridge engineers?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

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.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  You disingenuously left out the first half of the definition: “the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope.” An epistemological debate would be over whether empiricism and the scientific method are even valid “ways of knowing”, whether “religious ideology” and “faith” were themselves valid forms of knowledge, et al. I addressed your question about the application of the scientific method to trust the science, not the scientists. We were not engaged in a discussion of epistemological theory, and your response is exactly the kind of two-bit sophistry I was referring to.
  - VikingCoder 4y ago
    So my belief that you are engaged in an epistemological debate is not justified? Got it. We absolutely 100% were engaged in a discussion of epistemology, whether you realize it or not. You are a single human, and we have to question your methods and scope of the analysis you claim is required, to "do better than the scientists." And I'm telling you, the world is far too complex for you to put up any kind of real front, on any but the most absolutely critical decisions of your life, and even on those, I assert your best bet is to have faith in the experts. How do you know lead is dangerous? You and I have a justified belief that it is, even though you and I are merely trusting scientists who have told us that.
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      > We absolutely 100% were engaged in a discussion of epistemology, whether you realize it or not. I was engaged in a debate about the inherent logical inconsistency of sciencism. That can be proven without appealing to epistemology. I explicitly bowed out of your attempt at a debate over epistemology. You’re welcome to discuss your belief in the validity of faith-based knowledge with others, but as I said, I’m not interested.
      - VikingCoder 4y ago
        I have to ask, how is it "logically inconsistent" to believe in scientists? You might not get the best results, but it's absolutely logically consistent. It's logically consistent to believe in the Norse Pantheon as the sole source of wisdom. Again, that doesn't mean it results in the best predictions or the most accurate understanding of the cosmos. I assert that I have a justified belief in scientists. If you want to question that belief, you are engaged in epistemology. I also have a justified belief in the lab techs who gather data for doctors and other scientists. In the manufacturers who prepare the reagents, etc that the lab techs use. In the FDA process in evaluating the claims of those ingredients. In the agents of the FDA. In the media for looking for corruption in those agents. In the government for defending the media. And in the citizens of this country for ensuring that the government defends the media's freedom. I assert that I have a justified belief in scientists, all the way down through the whole scaffolding they stand upon. You can pretend to believe in science, in the abstract, but you do not have the capacity to even understand the scaffolding that scientists stand on, except possibly in a very narrow set of disciplines. And even then, down to only a few layers of abstractions. You are not a Full Stack scientist.
chimprich 4y ago
> If he came to the same conclusion, you’ve replicated the original findings. You used the scientific method! You most certainly have not. You have decided to trust two experts instead of one. > 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. What if you don't have the ability or expertise to understand the literature? If you're asking for a simplified version then you're just trusting the expert's understanding. (This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but still involves a level of trust in the authority of the expert). Out of interest, do you make sure you understand the science behind bridge technology and the engineering of every single bridge you cross, or do you trust in the expertise of certified bridge engineers?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]