4 ms·

This hits close to home with all the appeals to authority over the last few years. With absolute confidence they were holders of the truth, "trust the science!

by ta8645 3y ago

This hits close to home with all the appeals to authority over the last few years. With absolute confidence they were holders of the truth, "trust the science!".

andrewflnr 3y ago
Kinda, but most of the anti-scientific bullshit out there is a symptom of precisely this phenomenon. Actual science cannot offer absolute certainly, so people reach for whatever alternate theory offers the feeling of certainty. Blind faith in "the science" kind of works, and even gets pretty decent practical results, but you know what's structurally really hard to disprove and thus amenable to feeling certain? Conspiracy theories!
- ta8645 3y ago
  > Conspiracy theories! I hear what you're saying. In the end, we have to believe something -- on less than perfect information. But understanding human nature, isn't a conspiracy theory. And accepting obviously overreaching statements of "fact", that literally nobody had the data to state unequivocally, is not following the science. It wasn't so long ago, that most people understood big pharma was a profit seeking machine, that wasn't primarily motivated by what is best for humanity. Overstating the risks of Covid, and pretending that we faced an existential threat, made everyone forget that truth, and unquestioningly believe that only the purest of intentions motivated the industrial/media response.
  - andrewflnr 3y ago
    > we have to believe something No. This is the exact trap. We have to act, but we have to keep our actual belief in line with the evidence.
    - ta8645 3y ago
      > we have to keep our actual belief in line with the evidence. That's what everyone does. Just with varying degrees of success and with differing levels of intellect and experience. But we are all faced with the same conundrum of evidence being less than perfect. Everything comes down to a best-guess in the end. Even for the most rigorous scientist, all conclusions are provisional, and susceptible to the emergence of new evidence.
      - andrewflnr 3y ago
        > That's what everyone does. Just with varying degrees of success ... If by "varying degrees of success" you mean "mostly abject failure", I guess we can agree. But no, not everyone does that. Most people broke in the early pandemic, either toward trusting "the science" or toward weird bullshit.

by ta8645 3y ago

This hits close to home with all the appeals to authority over the last few years. With absolute confidence they were holders of the truth, "trust the science!".

andrewflnr 3y ago

Kinda, but most of the anti-scientific bullshit out there is a symptom of precisely this phenomenon. Actual science cannot offer absolute certainly, so people reach for whatever alternate theory offers the feeling of certainty. Blind faith in "the science" kind of works, and even gets pretty decent practical results, but you know what's structurally really hard to disprove and thus amenable to feeling certain? Conspiracy theories!

ta8645 3y ago
> Conspiracy theories! I hear what you're saying. In the end, we have to believe something -- on less than perfect information. But understanding human nature, isn't a conspiracy theory. And accepting obviously overreaching statements of "fact", that literally nobody had the data to state unequivocally, is not following the science. It wasn't so long ago, that most people understood big pharma was a profit seeking machine, that wasn't primarily motivated by what is best for humanity. Overstating the risks of Covid, and pretending that we faced an existential threat, made everyone forget that truth, and unquestioningly believe that only the purest of intentions motivated the industrial/media response.
- andrewflnr 3y ago
  > we have to believe something No. This is the exact trap. We have to act, but we have to keep our actual belief in line with the evidence.
  - ta8645 3y ago
    > we have to keep our actual belief in line with the evidence. That's what everyone does. Just with varying degrees of success and with differing levels of intellect and experience. But we are all faced with the same conundrum of evidence being less than perfect. Everything comes down to a best-guess in the end. Even for the most rigorous scientist, all conclusions are provisional, and susceptible to the emergence of new evidence.
    - andrewflnr 3y ago
      > That's what everyone does. Just with varying degrees of success ... If by "varying degrees of success" you mean "mostly abject failure", I guess we can agree. But no, not everyone does that. Most people broke in the early pandemic, either toward trusting "the science" or toward weird bullshit.