4 ms·

Outside of COVID can you give some examples of this "majority of popular references to science fall into the logical fallacy category of appeal to authority".

by dekhn 4y ago

Outside of COVID can you give some examples of this "majority of popular references to science fall into the logical fallacy category of appeal to authority". Note that appeal to authority isn't a logical fallacy- because scientific arguments are not pure logic. Instead, we use priors (authority) to evaluate the quality of statements. | I don't agree the pandemic response was filled with malicious falsehoods; the public health officials acted in good faith. I think most people haven't benen public health officials during a global emergency and fail to appreciate the challenges of threading all the needles simultaneously.

Chris2048 4y ago
I think there are a lot of social-science topics, where claims are made that are supposedly "backed by science", but looking into that yields stuff less solid, such as dubious methods, lack of replication or claims based on surveys or non-academic studies, inappropriate or overreaching conclusions e.g. specificities derived from generalizations, etc. I think the clearest example is IAT (implicit bias testing), which has dubious foundations, but seems to have taken off as a "scientific" thing, at least in the corporate world. Sometimes accompanied by a motte-and-bailey where the results of the test, and the correct conclusions of the results, are left vague; or what a "bias" is left undefined so you can easily be lead to believe it equates to e.g. racism.
- dekhn 4y ago
  I'm not including social science, sorry, I should have pointed that out. I am including physics (excluding string theory), chemistry and biology; all quantitative things with falsifiable experiments. I agree entirely that social science news reporting is crap. I should have been much clearer about that.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    I think you highlighted it though. There is a spectrum of science. In the middle there are the hard verifiable objective things. And on the ends are subjective or unprovable theories. The goal is to increase that middle band over time. Science, scientific papers, scientists, universities have always been subject to weaponizing in the past. Tell me... Are eggs good for you or not?
Chris2048 4y ago
> the public health officials acted in good faith Here's a question - is it "correct" that health officials should lie if they believe it will lead to net positive outcome? Is this still good faith? To what extend should net population outcomes compete with individual outcomes? e.g. downplaying risks of the vaccine, such that individuals with complications are essentially sacrificed in favor of the larger number of people without.
- dekhn 4y ago
  Me personally, I believe it is correct for health officials to be not entirely transparent if they have knowledge that doing so would lead to net-negative outcomes for society as a whole. Is that good faith? I suppose it's arguable from a philosophical perspective, but since I see them as operating rationally to achieve a goal with no intent to harm individuals, I see it as good faith. Remember, the health officials promoting vaccines now lived through the antivax movement that occurred pre-COVID. That movement greatly overhyped vaccine risks in a way that convinced large numbers of people to not get vaccinated. How would you, as a good faith public health official, respond if your opponents are extreme liars with no scientific basis?
lamontcg 4y ago
Not just outside of COVID. There were a few very notable cases early in the pandemic where the messaging was completely mis-managed. What has spread to nearly every corner of the debate around COVID is that since they clearly mis-managed a few things they must have mis-managed everything and the presence of a single biorxiv preprint which agrees with you means that the bulk of professional virologists and epidemiologists are all wrong.
motohagiography 4y ago
Instead of a litany of examples, I would refer you to "bad science journalism" as a search term, and to ask any scientist about how they feel research is represented in media. The results may be shocking. Regarding intent and threading needles, I spent the pandemic working in a public health system, after over a decade in health information privacy policy and systems, so I lack this comment's uncertainty about malice. Anyone who worked in health and thought or even said anti-vaxxers were hateful and better off dead was not providing honest service. In healthcare and in particular public health, I'd argue that's not a mere opinion, it's something much darker and more culpable. G-word level questions arise. If we are dealing in truth, we are dealing in logic, and the last best empirical result is not exempt from that standard unless we actively dispense with it. Science is practiced, it is not litigated, or worse: advocated.

by dekhn 4y ago

Chris2048 4y ago

I think there are a lot of social-science topics, where claims are made that are supposedly "backed by science", but looking into that yields stuff less solid, such as dubious methods, lack of replication or claims based on surveys or non-academic studies, inappropriate or overreaching conclusions e.g. specificities derived from generalizations, etc. I think the clearest example is IAT (implicit bias testing), which has dubious foundations, but seems to have taken off as a "scientific" thing, at least in the corporate world. Sometimes accompanied by a motte-and-bailey where the results of the test, and the correct conclusions of the results, are left vague; or what a "bias" is left undefined so you can easily be lead to believe it equates to e.g. racism.

dekhn 4y ago
I'm not including social science, sorry, I should have pointed that out. I am including physics (excluding string theory), chemistry and biology; all quantitative things with falsifiable experiments. I agree entirely that social science news reporting is crap. I should have been much clearer about that.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  I think you highlighted it though. There is a spectrum of science. In the middle there are the hard verifiable objective things. And on the ends are subjective or unprovable theories. The goal is to increase that middle band over time. Science, scientific papers, scientists, universities have always been subject to weaponizing in the past. Tell me... Are eggs good for you or not?

Chris2048 4y ago

> the public health officials acted in good faith Here's a question - is it "correct" that health officials should lie if they believe it will lead to net positive outcome? Is this still good faith? To what extend should net population outcomes compete with individual outcomes? e.g. downplaying risks of the vaccine, such that individuals with complications are essentially sacrificed in favor of the larger number of people without.

dekhn 4y ago
Me personally, I believe it is correct for health officials to be not entirely transparent if they have knowledge that doing so would lead to net-negative outcomes for society as a whole. Is that good faith? I suppose it's arguable from a philosophical perspective, but since I see them as operating rationally to achieve a goal with no intent to harm individuals, I see it as good faith. Remember, the health officials promoting vaccines now lived through the antivax movement that occurred pre-COVID. That movement greatly overhyped vaccine risks in a way that convinced large numbers of people to not get vaccinated. How would you, as a good faith public health official, respond if your opponents are extreme liars with no scientific basis?

lamontcg 4y ago

Not just outside of COVID. There were a few very notable cases early in the pandemic where the messaging was completely mis-managed. What has spread to nearly every corner of the debate around COVID is that since they clearly mis-managed a few things they must have mis-managed everything and the presence of a single biorxiv preprint which agrees with you means that the bulk of professional virologists and epidemiologists are all wrong.

motohagiography 4y ago

Instead of a litany of examples, I would refer you to "bad science journalism" as a search term, and to ask any scientist about how they feel research is represented in media. The results may be shocking. Regarding intent and threading needles, I spent the pandemic working in a public health system, after over a decade in health information privacy policy and systems, so I lack this comment's uncertainty about malice. Anyone who worked in health and thought or even said anti-vaxxers were hateful and better off dead was not providing honest service. In healthcare and in particular public health, I'd argue that's not a mere opinion, it's something much darker and more culpable. G-word level questions arise. If we are dealing in truth, we are dealing in logic, and the last best empirical result is not exempt from that standard unless we actively dispense with it. Science is practiced, it is not litigated, or worse: advocated.