3 ms·
I am not fond of the author's substitute suggestion - "Scientists: Snake Oil Doesn’t Work". This turns scientists into a priesthood of experts, and that is not
by cturner 3y ago
I am not fond of the author's substitute suggestion - "Scientists: Snake Oil Doesn’t Work". This turns scientists into a priesthood of experts, and that is not what science is about.
Science is a process, not an authority. We should not "trust the science". We should analyse and question it for ourselves.
I think the essential problem with the style of journalism from the article is that it reduces the substance of stories into an appeal-to-authority. It is not a trustworthy authority - there is plenty of history for people employed as scientists to make assertions that now look ridiculous.
Journalists should put more focus to the arguments and less to the conclusions.
- taeric 3y agoI thought there was some subtlety where snake oil does, in fact, work? The problem was "snake oil" sold by people that were deceptive as to what they were actually selling. Do I remember that history wrong?
- VoodooJuJu 3y ago>This turns scientists into a priesthood of experts >We should not "trust the science" Unfortunately, those are accurate descriptions of many people's relationship with science, including many academics and scientists themselves. Whether by malice or subconscious self-deception, the most used and useful part of scientific studies is the conclusion, without regard for the reproducibility and efficacy of the experiments or observations. The veracity of these conclusions is weighted by two things: 1. The existence of data-gathering and experimenting rituals, but not necessarily the soundness of the data or experiments 2. How aligned the conclusion is with the expectations and beliefs of the scientists, their funders, and their target prospects