5 ms·

This is a reasonable criticism. But it is primarily a criticism of science reporting and public health policy. Many people agree with what you are saying, but i

This is a reasonable criticism. But it is primarily a criticism of science reporting and public health policy. Many people agree with what you are saying, but instead of deciding we need changes to the way the media and government handle science, they decide science is bullshit and we end up with a major and growing political movement based on proud ignorance.

_aavaa_ 4y ago
Is this not a understandable (and even predictable) reaction to "trust the science" being used as a rally cry and cudgel by science reporting and public health policy?
- standardUser 4y ago
  No, choosing to live in a fantasy world and believing in provably false conspiracy theories is not an understandable response. If I grew up hating the way history was taught and communicated because of pro-Western biases and whitewashing atrocities and American exceptionalism, and my response is to decide history is bullshit and I'm going to believe instead in some gibberish I found on a blog or a podcast, that is not understandable. It's a dramatic and seemingly emotional overreaction that not only fails to solve the issue, but significantly undermines my own ability to effectively view and understand the world in other ways. The difference of course is that anti-vaxxers and other anti-science types were and are literally dying due to their belief in nonsense and conspiracies.
  - _aavaa_ 4y ago
    Before disparaging all of these people, consider the "provably false conspiracy theories" in light of the public health approach taken by the government and major tech companies. The beginning of the pandemic, especially, featured a great deal of noble lies and "following the science". These things have yet to be acknowledged and there hasn't been an honest discussion and apology from those involved and there has been no indication that the right lesson has been learned. > that is not understandable. It's a dramatic and seemingly emotional overreaction I think what you mean is "rational" in some platonic sense of the word rational. It is entirely understandable that humans, as sometimes irrational and always emotional creatures could react this way. It is not all history that we're talking about, as your own example demonstrates, merely the "history" and the institutions that provided the history that you grew up with. > The difference of course is that anti-vaxxers and other anti-science types were and are literally dying due to their belief in nonsense and conspiracies. Plenty of innocent people died and had their lives ruined or negatively impacted because of the nonsense beliefs and decisions made by the "follow the science" crowd. Which science was being followed when hospitals decided they did not need a stockpile of masks? Which science was being followed when it was decided that schools must be closed? Which science was being followed when it was decreed that masking children would have no negative impact on their development?
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > No, choosing to live in a fantasy world and believing in provably false conspiracy theories is not an understandable response. A problem: you are falling victim to the very same phenomenon as the "people" you criticize: mistaking your perception of affairs to be an accurate representation of actual affairs. You do not actually possess knowledge about what is going on in the minds of your outgroup members, you only have belief. If Normies could get their own affairs sorted out, maybe they could demonstrate by example how to think in a logically an epistemically sound manner, but until they do me and my fellow conspiracy theorists (as flawed as they are) will continue being a thorn in your sides. > If I grew up hating the way history was taught and communicated because of pro-Western biases and whitewashing atrocities and American exceptionalism, and my response is to decide history is bullshit and I'm going to believe instead in some gibberish I found on a blog or a podcast, that is not understandable. To what degree is this actually happening though? If you cannot question the accuracy of your beliefs, why should the members of your outgroup? Also, note that "not understandable" has a dependency on your abilities as well. > The difference of course is that anti-vaxxers and other anti-science types were and are literally dying due to their belief in nonsense and conspiracies. And taking others with them! Best put on our thinking caps and figure out what's actually happening if you ask me.
Chris2048 4y ago
Maybe we should talk about "science communication" rather than science. This is an entirely different category, and SC not mirror science e.g in it's process following scientific processes/principles, despite the dependencies between the fields. For post talks about what "policymakers and scientists really think" - it doesn't matter what scientists think (in this context), this is about policymakers and science-communicators (who may or may not also be scientists, or have such a background). TLDR, scientific authority has been "weaponised", and the backlash is as much against the weapon as the wielder. Not a surprise the true wielders are scapegoating "scientists" as the instigators.
motohagiography 4y ago
The proud ignorance risk I agree with, as those movements have prominent historical precedents, but they didn't form from mere ignorance. They were rejections and reactions, from the bolshevik condemnations of the imperial "Whites" in Russia to fascists attacking so-called decadence with slogans like "I don't care." I grew up in Toronto with a lot of immigrants whose families fled both fascist (italy, greece, portugal) and communist regimes (poland, former soviet states, vietnam and cambodia, etc.) and unless you were from New York, or maybe Chicago, these diaspora stories about movements like this probably weren't formative, and I would argue there is a naivety among the current generation of scientists and educated people in general about 20th century history. My own naivety is that I believed an education obligates one to have intellectual courage. When actual scientists align with people whose best arguments are to chant slogans like "denialists!", "source!", "pandemic of the unvaccinated!", "misinformation!", "hateful!" they are complicit. The scientists who went along to get along did so at the cost of betraying their fellow citizens who lost their jobs and livelihoods over matters of principle, and indeed some of their lives to the consequences of pandemic policy. It's quite serious. A scientist or doctor mouthing talking points for attention on twitter is an expression of that betrayal, and worse, a contempt that is difficult to reconcile. I hope people are unnerved enough by it to reflect a bit more deeply.

_aavaa_ 4y ago

Is this not a understandable (and even predictable) reaction to "trust the science" being used as a rally cry and cudgel by science reporting and public health policy?

standardUser 4y ago
No, choosing to live in a fantasy world and believing in provably false conspiracy theories is not an understandable response. If I grew up hating the way history was taught and communicated because of pro-Western biases and whitewashing atrocities and American exceptionalism, and my response is to decide history is bullshit and I'm going to believe instead in some gibberish I found on a blog or a podcast, that is not understandable. It's a dramatic and seemingly emotional overreaction that not only fails to solve the issue, but significantly undermines my own ability to effectively view and understand the world in other ways. The difference of course is that anti-vaxxers and other anti-science types were and are literally dying due to their belief in nonsense and conspiracies.
- _aavaa_ 4y ago
  Before disparaging all of these people, consider the "provably false conspiracy theories" in light of the public health approach taken by the government and major tech companies. The beginning of the pandemic, especially, featured a great deal of noble lies and "following the science". These things have yet to be acknowledged and there hasn't been an honest discussion and apology from those involved and there has been no indication that the right lesson has been learned. > that is not understandable. It's a dramatic and seemingly emotional overreaction I think what you mean is "rational" in some platonic sense of the word rational. It is entirely understandable that humans, as sometimes irrational and always emotional creatures could react this way. It is not all history that we're talking about, as your own example demonstrates, merely the "history" and the institutions that provided the history that you grew up with. > The difference of course is that anti-vaxxers and other anti-science types were and are literally dying due to their belief in nonsense and conspiracies. Plenty of innocent people died and had their lives ruined or negatively impacted because of the nonsense beliefs and decisions made by the "follow the science" crowd. Which science was being followed when hospitals decided they did not need a stockpile of masks? Which science was being followed when it was decided that schools must be closed? Which science was being followed when it was decreed that masking children would have no negative impact on their development?
- mistermann 4y ago
  > No, choosing to live in a fantasy world and believing in provably false conspiracy theories is not an understandable response. A problem: you are falling victim to the very same phenomenon as the "people" you criticize: mistaking your perception of affairs to be an accurate representation of actual affairs. You do not actually possess knowledge about what is going on in the minds of your outgroup members, you only have belief. If Normies could get their own affairs sorted out, maybe they could demonstrate by example how to think in a logically an epistemically sound manner, but until they do me and my fellow conspiracy theorists (as flawed as they are) will continue being a thorn in your sides. > If I grew up hating the way history was taught and communicated because of pro-Western biases and whitewashing atrocities and American exceptionalism, and my response is to decide history is bullshit and I'm going to believe instead in some gibberish I found on a blog or a podcast, that is not understandable. To what degree is this actually happening though? If you cannot question the accuracy of your beliefs, why should the members of your outgroup? Also, note that "not understandable" has a dependency on your abilities as well. > The difference of course is that anti-vaxxers and other anti-science types were and are literally dying due to their belief in nonsense and conspiracies. And taking others with them! Best put on our thinking caps and figure out what's actually happening if you ask me.

Chris2048 4y ago

Maybe we should talk about "science communication" rather than science. This is an entirely different category, and SC not mirror science e.g in it's process following scientific processes/principles, despite the dependencies between the fields. For post talks about what "policymakers and scientists really think" - it doesn't matter what scientists think (in this context), this is about policymakers and science-communicators (who may or may not also be scientists, or have such a background). TLDR, scientific authority has been "weaponised", and the backlash is as much against the weapon as the wielder. Not a surprise the true wielders are scapegoating "scientists" as the instigators.

motohagiography 4y ago

The proud ignorance risk I agree with, as those movements have prominent historical precedents, but they didn't form from mere ignorance. They were rejections and reactions, from the bolshevik condemnations of the imperial "Whites" in Russia to fascists attacking so-called decadence with slogans like "I don't care." I grew up in Toronto with a lot of immigrants whose families fled both fascist (italy, greece, portugal) and communist regimes (poland, former soviet states, vietnam and cambodia, etc.) and unless you were from New York, or maybe Chicago, these diaspora stories about movements like this probably weren't formative, and I would argue there is a naivety among the current generation of scientists and educated people in general about 20th century history. My own naivety is that I believed an education obligates one to have intellectual courage. When actual scientists align with people whose best arguments are to chant slogans like "denialists!", "source!", "pandemic of the unvaccinated!", "misinformation!", "hateful!" they are complicit. The scientists who went along to get along did so at the cost of betraying their fellow citizens who lost their jobs and livelihoods over matters of principle, and indeed some of their lives to the consequences of pandemic policy. It's quite serious. A scientist or doctor mouthing talking points for attention on twitter is an expression of that betrayal, and worse, a contempt that is difficult to reconcile. I hope people are unnerved enough by it to reflect a bit more deeply.