4 ms·

We trust in the humans to implement the science. Because the science itself is often wrong in ways that we trust humans to correct. You also do not have a noz

We trust in the humans to implement the science. Because the science itself is often wrong in ways that we trust humans to correct. You also do not have a nozzle labeled "scientific results" which come out whole formed from an abstract machine. It's a messy, human process. Variously helped and hindered by awful human politics. You trust humans to get the truth out, as close as they can, as quickly as they can. You have this romanticized version of "science" which is just not the real world at all. Do you have any idea how many times scientific reports were censored? How often scientists had to risk their livelihood to publish results? So you paint trusting scientists as a straw-man orthodoxy. You treat it as though it's uncritical, when nothing could be further from the truth. It's because we recognize that we're forced to rely on scientists, that we are especially critical of them. That we worry so much about how they are funded and influenced. That we watch out for their results being censored. Science itself doesn't provide legal protections for whistle-blowers. But those legal protections are critical to protect scientists. Because science is messy. And you honestly seem to not get that. I don't trust government. I trust my representatives. Because I can hold them accountable. In the abstract, sure, you can trust the Constitution. But you're forced, by reality, to trust human agents to uphold the Constitution.

teakettle42 4y ago
You seem very confused about what the scientific method is, and how it eliminates the need to trust scientists instead of science. I doubt we’ll ever establish shared meaning between us, much less agreement. It’s like trying to argue with any other deeply religious individual — we disagree too much on the fundamental nature of truth, and trying to reconcile that epistemological disagreement is a waste of everyone’s time. You can prosthelytize whatever faith-based belief system you want — just don't call it science. Attempts to enforce orthodoxy in the name of science is eliminating falsifiability, and is inherently anti-science. I’ve suggested “sciencism” as a label for your belief system. You’re welcome to propose an alternative, but it’s clearly not science.
- VikingCoder 4y ago
  > You seem very confused about what the scientific method is, and how it eliminates the need to trust scientists instead of science. You seem very confused about how science is implemented. The scientific method absolutely does not eliminate the need to trust scientists. Have you even heard of ethics boards? Institutional Review Boards? The Hippocratic Oath? You are trusting in scientists in the collective. You think that somehow makes the scientific method immune to the problems of human behavior. If anything, it exacerbates it, and it is only because of the diligence of scientists, almost completely orthogonal to the scientific method, that progress is made. > eliminating falsifiability It's hilarious to watch you claim this, while I've listed multiple examples of how we investigate scientists OUTSIDE of the scientific method. Corruption. Blackmail. Bribery. Because I recognize that we do in fact trust in the scientist, and I know that trust can be misplaced, I am MORE alert to the problems that can corrupt scientific findings than you are. You would seem to be dumbfounded, "How on earth could TWO scientists BOTH be bribed by the same corporation?!?"
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    Your position has no bearing on the question of whether sciencism is internally inconsistent and incompatible with the scientific method. If you really want to grandstand to an audience of none about your philosophy of human behavior, I suggest a blog.
    - VikingCoder 4y ago
      What evidence would convince you that any of the arguments you have made, or the way you have characterized my beliefs, is wrong? If you can't come up with any way to falsify your claims, how do you know you're not fooling yourself?

teakettle42 4y ago

You seem very confused about what the scientific method is, and how it eliminates the need to trust scientists instead of science. I doubt we’ll ever establish shared meaning between us, much less agreement. It’s like trying to argue with any other deeply religious individual — we disagree too much on the fundamental nature of truth, and trying to reconcile that epistemological disagreement is a waste of everyone’s time. You can prosthelytize whatever faith-based belief system you want — just don't call it science. Attempts to enforce orthodoxy in the name of science is eliminating falsifiability, and is inherently anti-science. I’ve suggested “sciencism” as a label for your belief system. You’re welcome to propose an alternative, but it’s clearly not science.

VikingCoder 4y ago
> You seem very confused about what the scientific method is, and how it eliminates the need to trust scientists instead of science. You seem very confused about how science is implemented. The scientific method absolutely does not eliminate the need to trust scientists. Have you even heard of ethics boards? Institutional Review Boards? The Hippocratic Oath? You are trusting in scientists in the collective. You think that somehow makes the scientific method immune to the problems of human behavior. If anything, it exacerbates it, and it is only because of the diligence of scientists, almost completely orthogonal to the scientific method, that progress is made. > eliminating falsifiability It's hilarious to watch you claim this, while I've listed multiple examples of how we investigate scientists OUTSIDE of the scientific method. Corruption. Blackmail. Bribery. Because I recognize that we do in fact trust in the scientist, and I know that trust can be misplaced, I am MORE alert to the problems that can corrupt scientific findings than you are. You would seem to be dumbfounded, "How on earth could TWO scientists BOTH be bribed by the same corporation?!?"
- teakettle42 4y ago
  Your position has no bearing on the question of whether sciencism is internally inconsistent and incompatible with the scientific method. If you really want to grandstand to an audience of none about your philosophy of human behavior, I suggest a blog.
  - VikingCoder 4y ago
    What evidence would convince you that any of the arguments you have made, or the way you have characterized my beliefs, is wrong? If you can't come up with any way to falsify your claims, how do you know you're not fooling yourself?