3 ms·

The thing that's really interesting to me is how "science" has arguably turned into what it was originally against. Originally, science outright rejected the id

The thing that's really interesting to me is how "science" has arguably turned into what it was originally against. Originally, science outright rejected the ideas of specialization and credentialism. And it was founded on opposition to the "scientific consensus" that was enforced by groups like the Catholic Church (though, contrary to popular misconception, it wasn't hostile to religion and in fact scientists like Newton also were interested in trying to reconcile the Bible with the discoveries of science). So much of what passes for "science" today consists of outright logical fallacies like the appeal to authority and the appeal to consensus. And the peer review process is often flawed with self interested reviewers using the process to demand citations to their own work or block papers they disagree with. On any politically sensitive topic, I don't trust any "peer reviewed research" unless I can plausibly answer yes to the following question: "If this paper found the opposite result, would it be published?" Often, the answer is that a paper finding the opposite result would be career ending for the author. Which means there is no disinterested search for truth on that topic and papers on it are just dogma masquerading as science.

germandiago 3y ago
This is also my opinion.
- Freedom2 3y ago
  And also mine.
- botlp 3y ago
  So you two reached a consensus …but your credentials (experience) don’t matter so who cares what you think? No divine mandate exists that puts upon me obligation to you specifically. … It’s possible old philosophy is miserly to the point of silliness.
8bitsrule 3y ago
I upvoted the first 2 para's of this reply. Now, as to this old saw: >there is no disinterested search for truth In studying the history of science, I've seen that: what the word 'scientist' means has changed a great deal in the past two centuries (since the more generalist 'natural philosophers'). Also that: for most of that time it has never been a disinterested search (let alone 'for truth' ... a word as undefinable as 'god'). Prime example: The existence of rocks falling from the sky was rejected by the faithful simply because Newton said space is -empty-. (There are hundreds more salient examples.) The rise of specializations is like the rise of Guilds; inevitable for multiple practical reasons. (Recently I tried to read a paper on Paleoneurobiology. Nope, not going there.)

germandiago 3y ago

This is also my opinion.

Freedom2 3y ago
And also mine.
botlp 3y ago
So you two reached a consensus …but your credentials (experience) don’t matter so who cares what you think? No divine mandate exists that puts upon me obligation to you specifically. … It’s possible old philosophy is miserly to the point of silliness.

8bitsrule 3y ago

I upvoted the first 2 para's of this reply. Now, as to this old saw: >there is no disinterested search for truth In studying the history of science, I've seen that: what the word 'scientist' means has changed a great deal in the past two centuries (since the more generalist 'natural philosophers'). Also that: for most of that time it has never been a disinterested search (let alone 'for truth' ... a word as undefinable as 'god'). Prime example: The existence of rocks falling from the sky was rejected by the faithful simply because Newton said space is -empty-. (There are hundreds more salient examples.) The rise of specializations is like the rise of Guilds; inevitable for multiple practical reasons. (Recently I tried to read a paper on Paleoneurobiology. Nope, not going there.)