4 ms·

It's not just an "appeal", it's a "belief". Not based in fact or logic but in faith. They seem to think that if scientists said it, it must be real, and anyon

It's not just an "appeal", it's a "belief". Not based in fact or logic but in faith. They seem to think that if scientists said it, it must be real, and anyone that tries to say otherwise is just wrong.

potta_coffee 4y ago
Media propaganda promoting that view of "science" isn't helping much.
Xeoncross 4y ago
We crave an authority that will give us knowledge and control of the unknown. Even bad information gives us a small sense of power and security.
haunter 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
happytoexplain 4y ago
I think this observation is mostly overblown. I'm sure some people "worship" science to an irrational degree, whatever that means in each case, but it seems like in most cases what we're seeing is actually this: If you see two opposing opinions, and one is ostensibly derived in whole or in part by science, and the other isn't, then, prior to further information or extenuating circumstances, it makes sense to defer to the latter when making decisions or forming opinions. That doesn't mean you are sure it is correct, it means you are sure it is more likely to be correct than the alternative, which is far more reasonable. It might look like people are picking the ostensibly-science-backed choice with unthinking faith, when the majority of them are simply making the more statistically likely choice given the information available. In most cases, it's impossible to tell the difference, and this gives rise to a lot of political rhetoric that exploits that ambiguity.
- 300bps 4y ago
  I think it’s more political. If you agree with the political conclusion of a study then it’s science. If you disagree then it’s fake news.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    To the extent a study has a political conclusion, it's not science, but relatively few really do. (Some have conclusions that policy entrepreneurs find useful to support a political agenda, either because of what they actually say or because of what people can be deceived into understanding them to say, but that's a different thing than actually having a political conclusion.)
    - GenerocUsername 4y ago
      Is Plankton dying political? You would not think so but it definitely is. Republicans would be quick to dismiss the article assuming it is another attack in economic success, global warming etc... Democrats would be quick to point to the article as support for reasons to support progressive policies. Literally everything is political today
- ksdale 4y ago
  I disagree that it's overblown. For every study that's utterly failed to replicate over the past however many decades, people have been "sure it is more likely to be correct than the alternative" and that's literally not the case. The word "science" has been invoked in a way that makes people believe that they have more information about the world than they do. Updating towards a study that wasn't properly conducted is worse than the study not existing, because it removes uncertainty that you should still possess, but it is touted as "science" in popular media all the same.
  - codemonkey-zeta 4y ago
    Especially in areas like psychology or sociology, where studies over the past few decades are more likely not to be replicable than they are to be replicable. Compounded with the disgusting state of pop "scientific" "journalism", it's probably a better heuristic at this point not to believe most scientific news to be correct.
bvirb 4y ago
In my experience I think it usually comes from a mistaken idea that all fields of science are equally predictive, which I think comes from a popular misconception that "science" = "physics". I think we colloquially get drawn into thinking that science-as-in-physics is the same thing as science-as-in-biology is the same thing as science-as-in-economics, especially when it comes to what they all mean by "fact" and "proven". Media then takes advantage of this general misunderstanding to make "weather facts" sound like they are just as concrete as "fundamental physics facts" because it gets more attention. Then we find ourselves arguing about climate science with the same level of self-assured veracity we might argue about billiard balls on an ideal surface in a vacuum.

potta_coffee 4y ago

Media propaganda promoting that view of "science" isn't helping much.

Xeoncross 4y ago

We crave an authority that will give us knowledge and control of the unknown. Even bad information gives us a small sense of power and security.

haunter 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

happytoexplain 4y ago

I think this observation is mostly overblown. I'm sure some people "worship" science to an irrational degree, whatever that means in each case, but it seems like in most cases what we're seeing is actually this: If you see two opposing opinions, and one is ostensibly derived in whole or in part by science, and the other isn't, then, prior to further information or extenuating circumstances, it makes sense to defer to the latter when making decisions or forming opinions. That doesn't mean you are sure it is correct, it means you are sure it is more likely to be correct than the alternative, which is far more reasonable. It might look like people are picking the ostensibly-science-backed choice with unthinking faith, when the majority of them are simply making the more statistically likely choice given the information available. In most cases, it's impossible to tell the difference, and this gives rise to a lot of political rhetoric that exploits that ambiguity.

300bps 4y ago
I think it’s more political. If you agree with the political conclusion of a study then it’s science. If you disagree then it’s fake news.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  To the extent a study has a political conclusion, it's not science, but relatively few really do. (Some have conclusions that policy entrepreneurs find useful to support a political agenda, either because of what they actually say or because of what people can be deceived into understanding them to say, but that's a different thing than actually having a political conclusion.)
  - GenerocUsername 4y ago
    Is Plankton dying political? You would not think so but it definitely is. Republicans would be quick to dismiss the article assuming it is another attack in economic success, global warming etc... Democrats would be quick to point to the article as support for reasons to support progressive policies. Literally everything is political today
ksdale 4y ago
I disagree that it's overblown. For every study that's utterly failed to replicate over the past however many decades, people have been "sure it is more likely to be correct than the alternative" and that's literally not the case. The word "science" has been invoked in a way that makes people believe that they have more information about the world than they do. Updating towards a study that wasn't properly conducted is worse than the study not existing, because it removes uncertainty that you should still possess, but it is touted as "science" in popular media all the same.
- codemonkey-zeta 4y ago
  Especially in areas like psychology or sociology, where studies over the past few decades are more likely not to be replicable than they are to be replicable. Compounded with the disgusting state of pop "scientific" "journalism", it's probably a better heuristic at this point not to believe most scientific news to be correct.

bvirb 4y ago

In my experience I think it usually comes from a mistaken idea that all fields of science are equally predictive, which I think comes from a popular misconception that "science" = "physics". I think we colloquially get drawn into thinking that science-as-in-physics is the same thing as science-as-in-biology is the same thing as science-as-in-economics, especially when it comes to what they all mean by "fact" and "proven". Media then takes advantage of this general misunderstanding to make "weather facts" sound like they are just as concrete as "fundamental physics facts" because it gets more attention. Then we find ourselves arguing about climate science with the same level of self-assured veracity we might argue about billiard balls on an ideal surface in a vacuum.