5 ms·

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

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.

teakettle42 4y ago
> I have to ask, how is it "logically inconsistent" to believe in scientists? I said sciencism is logically inconsistent. Sciencism pretends to the fact-finding authority of science while abandoning the scientific method. That’s the inconsistency. If you want to promote a faith-based belief in scientists, or even even an enforced orthodoxy based on the same, that’s not internally inconsistent, but it’s also not a scientific belief system, and it’s subject to the same flaws (and prone to the same systemic abuses) of any faith-based belief system and orthodoxy. If you want to further argue the value or validity of your faith-based orthodoxy with someone, then — again — you should find someone else.
- VikingCoder 4y ago
  It's sad to watch you completely dodge my questions. How do you know lead is unsafe to consume? I'm asking that to force you to admit that you are a hypocrite, engaging in exactly the kind of behavior you condemn. At the core, you trust scientists. As you should. Your argument is bad, and if you honestly answered my question, you might realize it.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    > At the core, you trust scientists. As you should. I trust science — not scientists — as a method for continually refining our knowledge of the truth. I also clearly don’t subscribe to your faith-based orthodoxy, because it’s anti-scientific. However, I’m not going to use words like “should”, or posit what you should do, because I’m not selling you a religion. > How do you know lead is unsafe to consume? The scientific method. I don’t have to trust scientists, just science. The lead toxicity hypothesis is falsifiable, and the empirical results in support of said hypothesis are extensively, independently reproduced.
    - VikingCoder 4y ago
      Science is implemented by scientists, and you will literally never have the time or expertise to do more than trust what scientists are telling you, except possibly in an incredibly narrow field. You have not followed the scientific method to know lead is unsafe. You have to trust scientists to implement science properly. Science does not exist in a vacuum. It is implemented by scientists. And you have probably never advanced or refined our knowledge of the truth once in your entire life, unless you happen to have published some research. Have you? You benefit from scientists, but claim they are the flawed part of the duality. You have this platonic view of the algorithm, and it appears to me a complete lack of understanding of how scientists implement it. Or how you receive the benefits of science. Or of the flaws in how we currently implement science. It will take humans to improve how we practice science. I feel like that guy who's trying to explain fiat money to someone. That's great you believe in money. Money is meaningless. It only has value because we say it does. Science is almost meaningless. It's a way for scientists to think and approach questions and problems. It's the best method we know of, but that's only because scientists have done that work. And need to continue to improve it. Because science itself can be broken. Science isn't perfect, as you seem to think it is.
      - teakettle42 4y ago
        > You have to trust scientists to implement science properly. We fundamentally disagree as to what science is. I think it’s the recursive application of the scientific method in a way that admits falsifiability at every level, and allows one to independently verify — and rely on independent verification — without having to trust scientists instead of science. If multiple independent scientists perform the same experiment and achieve the same results, I’m trusting in the science — the methodology — not the scientists. However, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand science, particularly the fact that it exists as a continual and open process. The scientific process is incompatible with your faith-based system of belief, which admits the enforcement of orthodoxy as a necessity, despite that doing so eliminates falsifiability, and is thus inherently anti-scientific. You are of course free to proselytize your religious sciencism and its faith-based orthodoxy, but it’s inaccurate to pretend to the trappings of actual science. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’ll never support anti-science ideology, including the suppression of viewpoints inconvenient to your orthodoxy.

teakettle42 4y ago

> I have to ask, how is it "logically inconsistent" to believe in scientists? I said sciencism is logically inconsistent. Sciencism pretends to the fact-finding authority of science while abandoning the scientific method. That’s the inconsistency. If you want to promote a faith-based belief in scientists, or even even an enforced orthodoxy based on the same, that’s not internally inconsistent, but it’s also not a scientific belief system, and it’s subject to the same flaws (and prone to the same systemic abuses) of any faith-based belief system and orthodoxy. If you want to further argue the value or validity of your faith-based orthodoxy with someone, then — again — you should find someone else.

VikingCoder 4y ago
It's sad to watch you completely dodge my questions. How do you know lead is unsafe to consume? I'm asking that to force you to admit that you are a hypocrite, engaging in exactly the kind of behavior you condemn. At the core, you trust scientists. As you should. Your argument is bad, and if you honestly answered my question, you might realize it.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  > At the core, you trust scientists. As you should. I trust science — not scientists — as a method for continually refining our knowledge of the truth. I also clearly don’t subscribe to your faith-based orthodoxy, because it’s anti-scientific. However, I’m not going to use words like “should”, or posit what you should do, because I’m not selling you a religion. > How do you know lead is unsafe to consume? The scientific method. I don’t have to trust scientists, just science. The lead toxicity hypothesis is falsifiable, and the empirical results in support of said hypothesis are extensively, independently reproduced.
  - VikingCoder 4y ago
    Science is implemented by scientists, and you will literally never have the time or expertise to do more than trust what scientists are telling you, except possibly in an incredibly narrow field. You have not followed the scientific method to know lead is unsafe. You have to trust scientists to implement science properly. Science does not exist in a vacuum. It is implemented by scientists. And you have probably never advanced or refined our knowledge of the truth once in your entire life, unless you happen to have published some research. Have you? You benefit from scientists, but claim they are the flawed part of the duality. You have this platonic view of the algorithm, and it appears to me a complete lack of understanding of how scientists implement it. Or how you receive the benefits of science. Or of the flaws in how we currently implement science. It will take humans to improve how we practice science. I feel like that guy who's trying to explain fiat money to someone. That's great you believe in money. Money is meaningless. It only has value because we say it does. Science is almost meaningless. It's a way for scientists to think and approach questions and problems. It's the best method we know of, but that's only because scientists have done that work. And need to continue to improve it. Because science itself can be broken. Science isn't perfect, as you seem to think it is.
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      > You have to trust scientists to implement science properly. We fundamentally disagree as to what science is. I think it’s the recursive application of the scientific method in a way that admits falsifiability at every level, and allows one to independently verify — and rely on independent verification — without having to trust scientists instead of science. If multiple independent scientists perform the same experiment and achieve the same results, I’m trusting in the science — the methodology — not the scientists. However, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand science, particularly the fact that it exists as a continual and open process. The scientific process is incompatible with your faith-based system of belief, which admits the enforcement of orthodoxy as a necessity, despite that doing so eliminates falsifiability, and is thus inherently anti-scientific. You are of course free to proselytize your religious sciencism and its faith-based orthodoxy, but it’s inaccurate to pretend to the trappings of actual science. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’ll never support anti-science ideology, including the suppression of viewpoints inconvenient to your orthodoxy.