3 ms·

> a single name of a scientist or paper Unlike philosophy or religion, science does not rest on the laurels of one accomplished prophet. The idea that somethin

by feoren 3y ago

> a single name of a scientist or paper Unlike philosophy or religion, science does not rest on the laurels of one accomplished prophet. The idea that something is only true if it comes out of the words of a famous scientist is antithetical to science. Compare the temperature of the inside of your car to the outside on a hot sunny day if you want an example of the greenhouse effect.

kragen 3y ago
scientific conclusions rest on specific arguments in specific papers by specific people, including specific evidence. the people don't have to be famous or prophets; they just have to provide evidence but it is the antithesis of science to repeat that 'scientists say' something without knowing which scientists say them and why. it's just as easily used to support false statements as true ones; for example, climate change deniers often say that scientists say we are in more danger of global cooling, or that scientists say that volcanic emissions of carbon dioxide vastly exceed anthropogenic emissions
- haswell 3y ago
  > but it is the antithesis of science to repeat that 'scientists say' something without knowing which scientists say them and why There are a few issues mixed up in this. First, we all hold core beliefs about the world that we can’t justify from first hand experience. Many of those beliefs boil down to “scientists say”, but they’ve been in the public consciousness for long enough that the beliefs no longer evoke deference to scientific figures, e.g. very few people believe the earth is flat, but would not be able to tell you why, or who was involved in proving this. While climate change deniers may pull the “scientists say” card, and while I think it’s worth being extra wary of claims that falsely invoke science, I think that this kind of science denialism is orthogonal to the ongoing practice/reality of “trusting science”, which is something that most people must do for practical reasons. Put another way, most of us have to “trust the science”, mostly blindly, and there’s very little we can do about that. Helping people discern who they should trust seems like the most important area of focus.
  - kragen 3y ago
    i don't think it's orthogonal at all; i think this kind of science denialism is the inevitable result of the ongoing practice of "trusting science" instead of actually doing science, which is how you can discern who you should trust
  - feoren 3y ago
    > Many of those beliefs boil down to “scientists say” The beliefs don't "boil down" at all: they form an interconnected web of theory and explanations that support and reinforce each other. You're acting like anything that one hasn't independently verified is something one is taking on faith, but that's not true. These aren't independent propositions that can be falsified on their own without dragging down an entire body of scientific understanding -- including things you have verified yourself.
    - kragen 3y ago
      +1 insightful
    - haswell 3y ago
      I think my use of "boil down" didn't come across as intended. My point was that many/most people do not have the ability to independently verify the claims of experts in various scientific fields, nor do they care to. They instead trust the institutions that have been built throughout history and entrusted with the task of getting things right. Their beliefs really are roughly "this is what scientists say so I believe it". I'm not saying they don't have a good reason to believe it, just that this is the reality of the dynamic. I think this is important because it underscores the criticality of institutions, and the importance of maintaining the health of the ones we have. > You're acting like anything that one hasn't independently verified is something one is taking on faith To be clear, this is definitely not what I'm saying.

by feoren 3y ago

kragen 3y ago

scientific conclusions rest on specific arguments in specific papers by specific people, including specific evidence. the people don't have to be famous or prophets; they just have to provide evidence but it is the antithesis of science to repeat that 'scientists say' something without knowing which scientists say them and why. it's just as easily used to support false statements as true ones; for example, climate change deniers often say that scientists say we are in more danger of global cooling, or that scientists say that volcanic emissions of carbon dioxide vastly exceed anthropogenic emissions

haswell 3y ago
> but it is the antithesis of science to repeat that 'scientists say' something without knowing which scientists say them and why There are a few issues mixed up in this. First, we all hold core beliefs about the world that we can’t justify from first hand experience. Many of those beliefs boil down to “scientists say”, but they’ve been in the public consciousness for long enough that the beliefs no longer evoke deference to scientific figures, e.g. very few people believe the earth is flat, but would not be able to tell you why, or who was involved in proving this. While climate change deniers may pull the “scientists say” card, and while I think it’s worth being extra wary of claims that falsely invoke science, I think that this kind of science denialism is orthogonal to the ongoing practice/reality of “trusting science”, which is something that most people must do for practical reasons. Put another way, most of us have to “trust the science”, mostly blindly, and there’s very little we can do about that. Helping people discern who they should trust seems like the most important area of focus.
- kragen 3y ago
  i don't think it's orthogonal at all; i think this kind of science denialism is the inevitable result of the ongoing practice of "trusting science" instead of actually doing science, which is how you can discern who you should trust
- feoren 3y ago
  > Many of those beliefs boil down to “scientists say” The beliefs don't "boil down" at all: they form an interconnected web of theory and explanations that support and reinforce each other. You're acting like anything that one hasn't independently verified is something one is taking on faith, but that's not true. These aren't independent propositions that can be falsified on their own without dragging down an entire body of scientific understanding -- including things you have verified yourself.
  - kragen 3y ago
    +1 insightful
  - haswell 3y ago
    I think my use of "boil down" didn't come across as intended. My point was that many/most people do not have the ability to independently verify the claims of experts in various scientific fields, nor do they care to. They instead trust the institutions that have been built throughout history and entrusted with the task of getting things right. Their beliefs really are roughly "this is what scientists say so I believe it". I'm not saying they don't have a good reason to believe it, just that this is the reality of the dynamic. I think this is important because it underscores the criticality of institutions, and the importance of maintaining the health of the ones we have. > You're acting like anything that one hasn't independently verified is something one is taking on faith To be clear, this is definitely not what I'm saying.