3 ms·
I mostly agree, but I think you are confounding two things here. The actual argument doesn't have to contain a better alternative than the current best explanat
by atleta 4y ago
I mostly agree, but I think you are confounding two things here. The actual argument doesn't have to contain a better alternative than the current best explanation. It's enough to show the errors of the current explanation - as long as you are doing it using the scientific method.
I.e. it's enough to point out flaws in a scientific theory even if you don't have a better one yet. E.g. if talking about covid, it's indeed valuable to prove that the virus does not use the receptor, suggested by the status quo, to get into the cells. One could do this without identifying the actual receptor it does use (by showing that it can infect cells that lack the said receptors). Another example would be showing that a specific medication that is thought to work, actually does not. (Say hydroxychloroquine...)
> You can't just say, "Science has gotten it wrong in the past so it probably has got it wrong now, and therefore you should pay attention to my crackpot theory."
Now I fully agree with this. But where these guys go completely off the rail is that they try to discredit the scientific method by saying that it's wrong, because it provided erronous results in the past. And try to use this as an argument for why their suggested alternative solution doesn't need to pass the test of science.
And here is where they can be challenged with having to come up with a proven better alternative to the scientific method. (Which is kind of nonsense, because science is a self-improving/self-correcting system anyway.)
- lisper 4y ago> It's enough to show the errors of the current explanation Not if you want to argue in favor of a specific alternative. I can point out the discrepancies between theory and observation, for example, with regards to the orbital velocities of the outer arms of galaxies. But that does not give me license to hypothesize that this is caused by leprechauns and expect to be taken seriously. > it's indeed valuable to prove that the virus does not use the receptor, suggested by the status quo, to get into the cells That's true. But again, you have to show some actual evidence that the current-best-explanation is wrong. You can't just proclaim it.
- atleta 4y ago>> It's enough to show the errors of the current explanation > Not if you want to argue in favor of a specific alternative. Sure, but this is not what you actually said in your original comment. You said "if you want to challenge the scientific status quo you need an actual argument, i.e. you need propose a better alternative to the current-best explanation" and that's different. You can challenge the status quo by proving it wrong and that doesn't mean that you have to propose a better alternative. Now what was happening with covid and the crakcpots you mentioned is where you would be right to say that they need to prove they have a better alternative. Because they did claim that but all they had was criticism for the existing solutions. E.g. "vaccines cause side effects, so let's use ivermectin". (Without proving that ivermectin works better than vaccines for preventing e.g. deaths.) But in theory someone could come around and prove that vaccines "don't work" (i.e. not worth using) without suggesting a better alternative. They would just need to show the data/supporting evidence. And actually that's exactly what real scientists did with Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine: they have proven that neither of them work for any sensible endpoint. > But again, you have to show some actual evidence that the current-best-explanation is wrong. You can't just proclaim it. Sure. That's what I said too. (I even included it in the example how you would do it ;) )
- lisper 4y agoFair enough.
- popcube 4y agothe famous example is, if they find any problems do not be resolved, it mean their gods is true!