5 ms·

I don’t think that’s what OP is talking about. For me an example would be the early “masks don’t work” rhetoric, but then simultaneously also telling the publi

I don’t think that’s what OP is talking about. For me an example would be the early “masks don’t work” rhetoric, but then simultaneously also telling the public not to buy masks because healthcare workers need them. The early recode article mocking Silicon Valley for avoiding contact early on and “panicking” because it was “just the flu” and concern was anti-China racism. Later on the repeated stories pushed by MSM about the lab leak hypothesis being a “conspiracy theory” when it remains if not the most likely source, still a probable one. Science is about testing a hypothesis, updating, and discussing tradeoffs honestly - often “believe in science” types are not about science at all, but about authority and political partisanship/cognitive bias. The tragedy is this erodes trust. Then when something important is actually true like the vaccines are very effective and people should take them they lie about that too (zero risks, 100% effective, etc.) vs. being honest about it (very effective, but not 100%, risks are rare and better on net than contracting disease etc.) The dishonesty makes it easy for more harmful conspiracy to arise because they’ve lost trust of the public (for good reason imo). Most people that think independently outside of consensus will do it poorly.

pjc50 4y ago
Possibly, but there's a horrible elision going on there; you've listed a bunch of individual actions which range between simple error to negligence, taken by various governmental and media individuals and organisations, but then attributed them to "science" as a whole?
- gonehome 4y ago
  I’m not attributing it to little-s science, I’m attributing it to “believe in science” - people are using “science” to mean something different than the scientific method and following evidence where it takes you. It’s being used as a proxy for authority. “Believe in science” was used to defend the (wrong) stuff in my comment, it’s a proxy for believe authority or believe media. If we want people to understand the value of science we should share the evidence and explain what the hypothesis is with the nuance and uncertainty present rather than patronizingly play 3D-chess because we assume the public is too dumb to know what’s good for them. Some people and institutions did this, but most did not. Science as an institution is no stranger to this kind of bullshit either: radical mastectomy and halsted’s “theories” of cancer, skinner and behaviorism (really all of psychology due to the replication crisis), mendel’s peas being ignored for 40yrs, phrenology, etc. When it becomes believe the authority instead of about the evidence bad things happen.

pjc50 4y ago

Possibly, but there's a horrible elision going on there; you've listed a bunch of individual actions which range between simple error to negligence, taken by various governmental and media individuals and organisations, but then attributed them to "science" as a whole?

gonehome 4y ago
I’m not attributing it to little-s science, I’m attributing it to “believe in science” - people are using “science” to mean something different than the scientific method and following evidence where it takes you. It’s being used as a proxy for authority. “Believe in science” was used to defend the (wrong) stuff in my comment, it’s a proxy for believe authority or believe media. If we want people to understand the value of science we should share the evidence and explain what the hypothesis is with the nuance and uncertainty present rather than patronizingly play 3D-chess because we assume the public is too dumb to know what’s good for them. Some people and institutions did this, but most did not. Science as an institution is no stranger to this kind of bullshit either: radical mastectomy and halsted’s “theories” of cancer, skinner and behaviorism (really all of psychology due to the replication crisis), mendel’s peas being ignored for 40yrs, phrenology, etc. When it becomes believe the authority instead of about the evidence bad things happen.