3 ms·

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

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?

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?