3 ms·

It's not ironic. It's a reflection of the fact that "scientists" are not an homogeneous group, and we are currently living through a slow-moving revolution in w

It's not ironic. It's a reflection of the fact that "scientists" are not an homogeneous group, and we are currently living through a slow-moving revolution in which some scientists are, broadly, taking a stand against fraud and attempting to dismantle the power/incentive structures that make it possible to perpetuate. The system is imperfect, and the work is in progress. "Trust the science" is a poorly-phrased attempt to counter the persistent conspiracy theories that various science disciplines, and the scientists that work therein, are part of this or that conspiracy to reduce your freedoms, mislead the public, etc. Or the related conspiracy theory that science broadly is bullshit and that the primary motivation of any scientific study is the continued justification of funding, rather than pursuit of knowledge. The fact that scientists can be wrong, some studies are faked or their results are overstated, etc. has little or nothing to do with it. > I refuse to be browbeaten by priests in lab coats or their acolytes. If you cite scientific papers in front of me trying to make a political case for a course of action, I will use my own judgment, informed by he paper as well as other factors like motivations and so forth. And this is exactly the kind of attitude that I described above. It's the ACAB approach applied to scientists, where it makes no sense if you look at what scientists actually do and care about. A huge number of scientists are persistently and actively fighting against the "priest in lab coat" archetype.

trompetenaccoun 3y ago
Do you work in science? Because since I have, I agree with some of the "conspiracy theories". I didn't before but as someone who'd always been fascinated with knowledge, research and human progress from a young age, I was thoroughly disappointed when I discovered the reality of it isn't as I had imagined in my almost religious belief in science. The reality was I found people who worked in it like a regular job. They were not driven by by a desire to further truth and expand human knowledge, but rather just like most other people they care about their salaries, funding, promotions, intrigues/political games, etc. The mistake is thinking there must be a conspiracy to make it true. In reality it's just human nature and group behavior. One might think some of the most critical thinkers work in science, and it can be true in some cases, but more often than not those are actually the ones that get filtered out. Ironically, you must not question too much if you're a researcher who wants to receive funding. The safest thing to do is research one of the latest hypes and have findings similar to what other groups find. Don't go against the current, that gets you in trouble.
isaacremuant 3y ago
> "Trust the science" is a poorly-phrased attempt to counter the persistent conspiracy theories that various science disciplines, and the scientists that work therein, are part of this or that conspiracy to reduce your freedoms, mislead the public, etc. Or the related conspiracy theory that science broadly is bullshit and that the primary motivation of any scientific study is the continued justification of funding, rather than pursuit of knowledge Actually no. It's a purely anti science/authoritarian approach to avoid any dissent when politically convenient. Covid policies were the perfect example and labeling/censoring instead of debating (even other scientists like those on the great Barrington declaration) shows that it's not really about science but about control. Corruption is not a grand conspiracy but a natural thing that occurs in bureocratic institutions and, nonetheless, accusing and exposing corruption and inconsistency was a big no in anything related covid (lockdowns, mandates, censorship, etc). Freedoms WERE limited unconstitutionally and selectively but people would be telling you "my fredumbs, grandmakiller, conspiracy theorist" because they couldn't really argue except via way of appeals to authority and slogans such as trust the science. The science wasn't one and wasn't uniform, but you couldn't even compare "sciences". You only had to take it. Those of us who engage in science are not afraid to expose our results and hypothesis and don't need censorship.

trompetenaccoun 3y ago

Do you work in science? Because since I have, I agree with some of the "conspiracy theories". I didn't before but as someone who'd always been fascinated with knowledge, research and human progress from a young age, I was thoroughly disappointed when I discovered the reality of it isn't as I had imagined in my almost religious belief in science. The reality was I found people who worked in it like a regular job. They were not driven by by a desire to further truth and expand human knowledge, but rather just like most other people they care about their salaries, funding, promotions, intrigues/political games, etc. The mistake is thinking there must be a conspiracy to make it true. In reality it's just human nature and group behavior. One might think some of the most critical thinkers work in science, and it can be true in some cases, but more often than not those are actually the ones that get filtered out. Ironically, you must not question too much if you're a researcher who wants to receive funding. The safest thing to do is research one of the latest hypes and have findings similar to what other groups find. Don't go against the current, that gets you in trouble.

isaacremuant 3y ago

> "Trust the science" is a poorly-phrased attempt to counter the persistent conspiracy theories that various science disciplines, and the scientists that work therein, are part of this or that conspiracy to reduce your freedoms, mislead the public, etc. Or the related conspiracy theory that science broadly is bullshit and that the primary motivation of any scientific study is the continued justification of funding, rather than pursuit of knowledge Actually no. It's a purely anti science/authoritarian approach to avoid any dissent when politically convenient. Covid policies were the perfect example and labeling/censoring instead of debating (even other scientists like those on the great Barrington declaration) shows that it's not really about science but about control. Corruption is not a grand conspiracy but a natural thing that occurs in bureocratic institutions and, nonetheless, accusing and exposing corruption and inconsistency was a big no in anything related covid (lockdowns, mandates, censorship, etc). Freedoms WERE limited unconstitutionally and selectively but people would be telling you "my fredumbs, grandmakiller, conspiracy theorist" because they couldn't really argue except via way of appeals to authority and slogans such as trust the science. The science wasn't one and wasn't uniform, but you couldn't even compare "sciences". You only had to take it. Those of us who engage in science are not afraid to expose our results and hypothesis and don't need censorship.