3 ms·
This is a false barrier to critique of the scientific establishment. Many foundational questions can always be asked about the claims that scientists make, such
by rgrieselhuber 3y ago
This is a false barrier to critique of the scientific establishment. Many foundational questions can always be asked about the claims that scientists make, such as, how is research funded, where are the moral hazards, who benefits from certain conclusions, is the data open sourced, how are dissenting opinions treated, has repeatability been demonstrated, why is fraud not a concern, etc.
Simple and rational questions can go a long way here.
- skybrian 3y agoThose aren't foundational questions, though, they're circumstantial evidence. They don't get at whether the scientists did a good job or not. "Why is fraud not a concern" is kinda useless in proving fraud. Maybe they help you feel a bit more or less confident? I think reading a paper and asking "okay, what did they actually do, and how could it go wrong" might be a good start, or better yet asking some other scientist who know the field about that?
- rgrieselhuber 3y agoThey are the questions that journalists should be asking in order to do their jobs. There are real political and economic consequences to the impact of science today, especially when funded by special interests.