5 ms·

OK, let's get one thing straight. Everyone claims to be pro-science. There is literally no political party on earth that stands up and says "we hate science".

OK, let's get one thing straight. Everyone claims to be pro-science. There is literally no political party on earth that stands up and says "we hate science". When you describe people as pushing back against "science" what you mean is they disagree with you about whether certain claims are in fact true claims, whether they are high quality science or not. They are not saying they reject your beliefs because they reject science, they are saying you should reject those beliefs because they are pseudo-science: something that looks superficially like science, but isn't. "it is been successfully self-correcting for quite a long time" It's not self correcting, that's a myth. You asked for more evidence, fine, it exists in abundance. Go research. Consider that people started talking about a replication crisis in psychology more than a decade ago yet it's still a huge problem. Claims are still being made today that clearly won't replicate when the underlying studies are briefly checked. Or look at the recent IPCC report. In the summary for policymakers it introduces a long since debunked graph that doesn't appear anywhere in the actual report itself (because it's wrong). So the IPCC is presenting a document that claims to be a summary of the science yet isn't. Guess what - the point who point out this sort of thing tend to be conservatives, or they get labelled as such, simply because non-conservatives refuse to criticize academia.

lanstin 4y ago
Certainly very few say that they hate science (tho those people who think evolutionists and round-earthers are demonic are certainly out there: https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1967/08/deception-through-science https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1967/08/deception-t... But the conservative party has a history of ignoring science. The scientists asserting this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-reason-some-republicans-mistrust-science-their-leaders-tell-them-to/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-reason-some-r... The mainstream media asserting this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-gop-has-a-long-history-of-ignoring-science-trump-turned-it-into-policy/2020/10/09/53574602-0917-11eb-859b-f9c27abe638d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-gop-has-a-long-hi... It is often said that science changes one funeral at a time, but I have certainly read a lot about efforts to fix the replication crisis. And ten years isn't long to change the behavior of a large number of independent actors. The discourse about the replication crisis comes from scientists and is being fixed by the scientific process. It supports my thesis. Your next example, one diagram in the non-scientific portion of the IPCC report that you don't like doesn't really invalidate the "science is self-correcting." Perhaps you have more details on this supposed diagram? If you ever attend a scientific conference, you will certainly hear scientists criticizing each other. More biting than the most wooly eyed back-woods preacher and more informed than the poshest petroleum funded climate sceptic. But they don't argue about perpetual motion, flat earth, evolution, or global warming due to the carbon burn.
- revelio 4y ago
  "Scientists" and "journalists" are the very people being accused of propagating pseudo-science so who cares what they think? To resolve disputes about whether certain claims are scientific you can't just ask one side and say, "Well? Are you right?". "The discourse about the replication crisis comes from scientists and is being fixed by the scientific process." I've also read a lot. Unfortunately, it's not being fixed. There is a small amount of discourse in a small segment of a small set of fields, which has had absolutely no impact whatsoever on common practice in those fields, let alone the wider government research enterprise. Also, mind that replicability is only one tiny part of the problem. There's also huge problems with papers that misrepresent their own data, use invalid (but replicable) methodologies, abuse statistics, are entirely fraudulent to begin with, are based on logical fallacies, encode extremely ideologically biased ideas into their study design, are based on buggy programs or invalid assumptions, cite documents that contradict the claims being made and so on. Inability to replicate is not the only problem here, even though it's the only one that really gets discussed. "one diagram in the non-scientific portion of the IPCC report" It's not a diagram, it claims to be a graph of long term temperature history and is thus the core claim that supports the entire thesis of the summary, and yet it's known to be fraudulent and was previously dropped from IPCC reports for being so. And non-scientific?! The IPCC supposedly a summary of a scientific report, which is itself reporting on and summarizing the science! You don't get to put claims about temperature in the summary that don't appear anywhere in the science, then claim to be summarizing science. Yet they do, and this is just an example. Fraud in apparently scientific claims is out of control, but only conservatives are willing to call it out. Then they get labelled as science deniers. It's actually the other way around though: it's the people who blindly accept anything that looks superficially like science, who are denying true science. https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/ https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick...

lanstin 4y ago

Certainly very few say that they hate science (tho those people who think evolutionists and round-earthers are demonic are certainly out there: https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1967/08/deception-through-science https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1967/08/deception-t... But the conservative party has a history of ignoring science. The scientists asserting this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-reason-some-republicans-mistrust-science-their-leaders-tell-them-to/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-reason-some-r... The mainstream media asserting this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-gop-has-a-long-history-of-ignoring-science-trump-turned-it-into-policy/2020/10/09/53574602-0917-11eb-859b-f9c27abe638d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-gop-has-a-long-hi... It is often said that science changes one funeral at a time, but I have certainly read a lot about efforts to fix the replication crisis. And ten years isn't long to change the behavior of a large number of independent actors. The discourse about the replication crisis comes from scientists and is being fixed by the scientific process. It supports my thesis. Your next example, one diagram in the non-scientific portion of the IPCC report that you don't like doesn't really invalidate the "science is self-correcting." Perhaps you have more details on this supposed diagram? If you ever attend a scientific conference, you will certainly hear scientists criticizing each other. More biting than the most wooly eyed back-woods preacher and more informed than the poshest petroleum funded climate sceptic. But they don't argue about perpetual motion, flat earth, evolution, or global warming due to the carbon burn.

revelio 4y ago
"Scientists" and "journalists" are the very people being accused of propagating pseudo-science so who cares what they think? To resolve disputes about whether certain claims are scientific you can't just ask one side and say, "Well? Are you right?". "The discourse about the replication crisis comes from scientists and is being fixed by the scientific process." I've also read a lot. Unfortunately, it's not being fixed. There is a small amount of discourse in a small segment of a small set of fields, which has had absolutely no impact whatsoever on common practice in those fields, let alone the wider government research enterprise. Also, mind that replicability is only one tiny part of the problem. There's also huge problems with papers that misrepresent their own data, use invalid (but replicable) methodologies, abuse statistics, are entirely fraudulent to begin with, are based on logical fallacies, encode extremely ideologically biased ideas into their study design, are based on buggy programs or invalid assumptions, cite documents that contradict the claims being made and so on. Inability to replicate is not the only problem here, even though it's the only one that really gets discussed. "one diagram in the non-scientific portion of the IPCC report" It's not a diagram, it claims to be a graph of long term temperature history and is thus the core claim that supports the entire thesis of the summary, and yet it's known to be fraudulent and was previously dropped from IPCC reports for being so. And non-scientific?! The IPCC supposedly a summary of a scientific report, which is itself reporting on and summarizing the science! You don't get to put claims about temperature in the summary that don't appear anywhere in the science, then claim to be summarizing science. Yet they do, and this is just an example. Fraud in apparently scientific claims is out of control, but only conservatives are willing to call it out. Then they get labelled as science deniers. It's actually the other way around though: it's the people who blindly accept anything that looks superficially like science, who are denying true science. https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/ https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick...