4 ms·

Science is primarily a methodology, and secondarily a body of provisional knowledge discovered and tested via that methodology. As non practitioners, if we tru

Science is primarily a methodology, and secondarily a body of provisional knowledge discovered and tested via that methodology. As non practitioners, if we trust in the methodology, then to some extent we have to take a shortcut and make decisions based on the consensus judgement of expert practitioners. And, unlike some religious people, accept we can never act in absolute certainty.

verisimi 3y ago
I absolutely hold to the scientific method. But do you think you find that method in science? In science journals, academic departments? I don't think you do, and I for one don't trust. Science, like religion, like academia, like government - and all those individuals therein - are all in thrall to money, not truth. I don't think there is any doubt that the proclamations we receive from whichever institution are about providing us with information that is expedient for us to believe (not verify). The provided information is about control of minds. If whatever-it-is does have a relation to the underlying reality (and who checks?), that relationship is accidental/beneficial for whatever story we are currently being sold.
- anonymous_sorry 3y ago
  Yes. Science is a human institution, with all of the mess that entails. But at least the ability to challenge authority with evidence is science's central dogma (rather than "this book is infallable"). It means one way to find fame and fortune in science is to conclusively disprove some accepted wisdom, in a way that others can repeat and see for themselves. That's not to say you won't meet resistance, partly because of human nature, and partly because, heuristically, most unexpected results turn out to be flawed on further examination. I'm interested in specifics of which scientific institutions you think are trying to influence us in what way, and to what purpose.
  - verisimi 3y ago
    Do you ever challenge any evidence? Have you even tried to put information out there that is outside the norm? I have and can confirm that most places - eg HN - is an echo chamber. This specific environment is cultivated by the administrators. Now, I don't mind administration, but it is clear to me that on certain hot button topics there is only one direction of discussion allowed - it is a controlled conversation. > which scientific institutions you think are trying to influence us in what way, and to what purpose Its a bigger issue than a specific institution. When you think about science in the US - it is all funded by one of 2 (or 3) sources - government (military) and corporations. If you then consider that government and corporations are really the same overarching control structure (eg FDA officials will go to work for pharmaceuticals, corporate lobbyists write the legislation for government officials to approve) you can argue that, in a sense there is only 1 source of funding! Funding is centralised. Say you then want to prove/'have it widely believed' that helium is beneficial (I'm making a ridiculous hypothesis up to show the methodology in play) and you undertake 10 studies. The results are that 2 studies are supportive, 6 are neutral, and 2 are against. If you then promote the 2 that are supportive in journals, and fund more similar studies, and repeat that process for a while, you will soon end up with reams of supportive evidence. I think this shows any agenda can be promoted by funding alone, regardless of the assumed good intentions of the scientists who receive the funding. Does that method help understand truth? No. Will your agenda appear to be very well supported - yes. Now think, if it is your business to administer people in general - isn't it better to have those people desire for themselves the solution that you already have in mind? That it is better to engineer people's consent? If so, why wouldn't you use science, history, academia or whatever to engineer people into wanting whatever you have to sell? Why not provide the studies that move the people in the direction you want them to move to? You could say the studies are to get the turkeys voting for Christmas.
    - anonymous_sorry 3y ago
      Ok, I partially agree. Favourable studies getting to publication, and unfavourable ones getting left in the desk drawer is a thing. But the same thing can happen with surprising results vs boring results. It is why some argue for preregistration of studies [0]. There is more than one government in the world, and corporations are in competition with each other. I'm not convinced that they amount to a single funding source. That's not to say that there is a perfect plurality. Academics are also in competition with each other, and can make their name by demolishing a false consensus. They are also often motivated by things other than money, otherwise they would be quants or something. So there are balancing forces to those that would distort the truth. At this point we're both just describing, without much evidence, how we think the world works. I agree there is plenty of shady shit and bullshit science going on, it just doesn't make sense to me that all the bad actors would be super-competent and pulling in the same direction on everything. At least not to the extent that it amounts to something akin to mind control. Consider, there has been a hell of a lot of oil money poured into science funding, but the consensus has settled on "fossil fuels are heating up the planet". There examples where a powerful lobby has held back the tide for years (tobacco, for example), but we know about them because the truth reasserted itself. I'm not particularly familiar with HN moderation. I have expressed some reasonably controversial opinions in a calm and reasonable tone, and not been moderated. But perhaps my opinions are not among those you believe to be surpressed. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preregistration_(science) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preregistration_(science)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

verisimi 3y ago

I absolutely hold to the scientific method. But do you think you find that method in science? In science journals, academic departments? I don't think you do, and I for one don't trust. Science, like religion, like academia, like government - and all those individuals therein - are all in thrall to money, not truth. I don't think there is any doubt that the proclamations we receive from whichever institution are about providing us with information that is expedient for us to believe (not verify). The provided information is about control of minds. If whatever-it-is does have a relation to the underlying reality (and who checks?), that relationship is accidental/beneficial for whatever story we are currently being sold.

anonymous_sorry 3y ago
Yes. Science is a human institution, with all of the mess that entails. But at least the ability to challenge authority with evidence is science's central dogma (rather than "this book is infallable"). It means one way to find fame and fortune in science is to conclusively disprove some accepted wisdom, in a way that others can repeat and see for themselves. That's not to say you won't meet resistance, partly because of human nature, and partly because, heuristically, most unexpected results turn out to be flawed on further examination. I'm interested in specifics of which scientific institutions you think are trying to influence us in what way, and to what purpose.
- verisimi 3y ago
  Do you ever challenge any evidence? Have you even tried to put information out there that is outside the norm? I have and can confirm that most places - eg HN - is an echo chamber. This specific environment is cultivated by the administrators. Now, I don't mind administration, but it is clear to me that on certain hot button topics there is only one direction of discussion allowed - it is a controlled conversation. > which scientific institutions you think are trying to influence us in what way, and to what purpose Its a bigger issue than a specific institution. When you think about science in the US - it is all funded by one of 2 (or 3) sources - government (military) and corporations. If you then consider that government and corporations are really the same overarching control structure (eg FDA officials will go to work for pharmaceuticals, corporate lobbyists write the legislation for government officials to approve) you can argue that, in a sense there is only 1 source of funding! Funding is centralised. Say you then want to prove/'have it widely believed' that helium is beneficial (I'm making a ridiculous hypothesis up to show the methodology in play) and you undertake 10 studies. The results are that 2 studies are supportive, 6 are neutral, and 2 are against. If you then promote the 2 that are supportive in journals, and fund more similar studies, and repeat that process for a while, you will soon end up with reams of supportive evidence. I think this shows any agenda can be promoted by funding alone, regardless of the assumed good intentions of the scientists who receive the funding. Does that method help understand truth? No. Will your agenda appear to be very well supported - yes. Now think, if it is your business to administer people in general - isn't it better to have those people desire for themselves the solution that you already have in mind? That it is better to engineer people's consent? If so, why wouldn't you use science, history, academia or whatever to engineer people into wanting whatever you have to sell? Why not provide the studies that move the people in the direction you want them to move to? You could say the studies are to get the turkeys voting for Christmas.
  - anonymous_sorry 3y ago
    Ok, I partially agree. Favourable studies getting to publication, and unfavourable ones getting left in the desk drawer is a thing. But the same thing can happen with surprising results vs boring results. It is why some argue for preregistration of studies [0]. There is more than one government in the world, and corporations are in competition with each other. I'm not convinced that they amount to a single funding source. That's not to say that there is a perfect plurality. Academics are also in competition with each other, and can make their name by demolishing a false consensus. They are also often motivated by things other than money, otherwise they would be quants or something. So there are balancing forces to those that would distort the truth. At this point we're both just describing, without much evidence, how we think the world works. I agree there is plenty of shady shit and bullshit science going on, it just doesn't make sense to me that all the bad actors would be super-competent and pulling in the same direction on everything. At least not to the extent that it amounts to something akin to mind control. Consider, there has been a hell of a lot of oil money poured into science funding, but the consensus has settled on "fossil fuels are heating up the planet". There examples where a powerful lobby has held back the tide for years (tobacco, for example), but we know about them because the truth reasserted itself. I'm not particularly familiar with HN moderation. I have expressed some reasonably controversial opinions in a calm and reasonable tone, and not been moderated. But perhaps my opinions are not among those you believe to be surpressed. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preregistration_(science) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preregistration_(science)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]