4 ms·

I have not heard working scientists say “Trust the science” as much as “Trust the scientific method”. And that method is precisely the motto of the Royal Societ

• brutusborn 3y ago
  'Trust the scientific method' begs the question: what is the scientific method? Duhem-Quine thesis and Feyerabend's criticisms suggest that Poppers falsificationism isn't actually useful in practice. I had the false idea drummed into me that the demarcation problem was solved, and this attitude leads to a lot of epistemological arrogance in many fields. Lakatos must be mentioned alongside Feyerabend. His 'Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes' is a solution to many of the problems people identify with scientific methods. It hasn't been applied to many fields because of the difficulty of converting existing research into explicit research programmes, but I think that soon digital tooling will make it possible. What we currently use to determine 'truth' ('scientific consensus') is closer to Kuhn's 'scientific paradigms' which is almost the complete opposite of nullius in verba. One example of the 'trust the science' is from Australia's chief scientist! Her proposed method to get people to 'trust in science' is to simply make sure scientists have 'integrity.' As if the only thing preventing scientists from making false claims is fraud. I think this attitude is common and fits with the article's criticism of state pressure damaging science. https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/news-and-media/trust-science https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/news-and-media/trust-scien...
• nvm0n2 3y ago
  Whether you heard them or not, they have been saying it on loud repeat and most of us did hear them. For example: "So it’s easy to criticize, but they’re really criticizing science because I represent science." -- Fauci or https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-antiscience-movement-is-escalating-going-global-and-killing-thousands/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-antiscience-m... "[Antiscience] targets prominent scientists and attempts to discredit them. The destructive potential of antiscience was fully realized in the U.S.S.R. under Joseph Stalin." - Dr Peter Hotez And please don't play No True Scotsman games, Fauci was employed due to his scientific credentials and was therefore very much a working scientist. Moreover, one who controlled most of the others, as has been seen in the various virology related leaks. Hotez is a professor of molecular virology, has testified in front of governments and frequently appeared on TV to make false or blatantly illogical/incoherent claims [1] like "this two dose vaccine has always needed three doses". Hotez isn't some fringe lunatic disowned by other scientists, far from it. Here's the editor of a journal literally called Science claiming that asking Hotez to engage in debate is a "classic anti-science setup": https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/scientists-shouldn-t-debate-gaslighters https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/scientists-shouldn... Last weekend, Twitter and later the mainstream media exploded with a controversy surrounding an invitation to prominent vaccine scientist Peter Hotez to debate anti-vax charlatan and spoiler presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr on the podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience. There was an immediate rally around Hotez by scientists and celebrities on Twitter and lots of discussion about why this invitation is a classic anti-science setup. The picture you're projecting of what scientists do is a pleasant daydream, not the nightmarish reality. Scientists constantly attack anyone who doubts their proclamations even when the criticism is scientifically based, and frequently call for outright censorship of anyone who disagrees with them. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj6-QDVYbv8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj6-QDVYbv8