4 ms·

Trying things is science, and any experiment can be retried to see if results replicate. People who aren't scientists or don't have time or equipment to be scie

Trying things is science, and any experiment can be retried to see if results replicate. People who aren't scientists or don't have time or equipment to be scientific about a thing have to decide where the balance lies, between how much science they're capable/willing to do vs. how many assumptions they're willing to make based on other people's science. There's no belief system called science and you can't be pro- or anti-science. Science ironically is pretty questioning and skeptical, so questioning some piece of science, is scientific. Certainty and the temptation toward it is your enemy if you would maintain a "scientific" worldview. Politics demands certainty, simplicity. Fascism, especially so.

blix 4y ago
> There's no belief system called science There are two belief systems called science. The less common one is the one you outline immediately after denying its existence: it's about asking questions and trying to establish evidence-based models to make predictions and testing/validating the assumptions in those models. It's probably more accurate to call this belief system empiricism. The more common one is a deferral to expert authority, where experts are designated by certain established scientific institutions. Because many lack the time/will/ability to independently verify claims made by authoritative figures, this deferral requires substantial trust in these institutions to come up with good answers. This second belief system is what most people mean when they label themselves or others as pro- or anti-science. Paradoxically, even though the authoritative institutions ostensibly produce information empirically, expressing skepticism and asking questions is often perceived as a lack of faith, and therefore anti-science.
- rdiddly 4y ago
  Fine but it's an approach to knowledge, not a belief system.
  - blix 4y ago
    I feel this is distinction without a difference. All belief systems are approaches to knowledge and information at the end of the day. The institutional science belief system really has a lot in common with religion. In fact the instutions we now trust to train scientists and dispense scientific information largely grew out of instutions with a major focus to train clergy and dispense religious information. Empiricism is not really in that same subcategory, but it also rests on some set of ultimately unverifiable assumptions. In fact, I'd argue that one of the central assumptions of classical empiricism, that all systems are locally deterministic, is demonstrably false. The early quantum pioneers had a hard time coming to grips with this and there are still several competing interpretations of QM. This huge shift still hasn't fully percolated to many other fields of science, which often still assume local determinism and pretend QM doesn't exist.

blix 4y ago

> There's no belief system called science There are two belief systems called science. The less common one is the one you outline immediately after denying its existence: it's about asking questions and trying to establish evidence-based models to make predictions and testing/validating the assumptions in those models. It's probably more accurate to call this belief system empiricism. The more common one is a deferral to expert authority, where experts are designated by certain established scientific institutions. Because many lack the time/will/ability to independently verify claims made by authoritative figures, this deferral requires substantial trust in these institutions to come up with good answers. This second belief system is what most people mean when they label themselves or others as pro- or anti-science. Paradoxically, even though the authoritative institutions ostensibly produce information empirically, expressing skepticism and asking questions is often perceived as a lack of faith, and therefore anti-science.

rdiddly 4y ago
Fine but it's an approach to knowledge, not a belief system.
- blix 4y ago
  I feel this is distinction without a difference. All belief systems are approaches to knowledge and information at the end of the day. The institutional science belief system really has a lot in common with religion. In fact the instutions we now trust to train scientists and dispense scientific information largely grew out of instutions with a major focus to train clergy and dispense religious information. Empiricism is not really in that same subcategory, but it also rests on some set of ultimately unverifiable assumptions. In fact, I'd argue that one of the central assumptions of classical empiricism, that all systems are locally deterministic, is demonstrably false. The early quantum pioneers had a hard time coming to grips with this and there are still several competing interpretations of QM. This huge shift still hasn't fully percolated to many other fields of science, which often still assume local determinism and pretend QM doesn't exist.