4 ms·

> Just search 'anti-science' in the US. And marvel at the pseudoscientific claims, that purely coincidentally get a free pass from science. Don't forget thoug

> Just search 'anti-science' in the US. And marvel at the pseudoscientific claims, that purely coincidentally get a free pass from science. Don't forget though: the claim is "We have no idea what is real, throw away all technology and lets live in the trees". I am anti-science, but I am not the strawman described above - I wonder how many others are like me, and I also wonder how many in the pro-science camp actually care about such details, despite how important interpersonal relations are when it comes to people's beliefs (something fairly well studied by science, ironically). > It pre-dates Covid by a few years, and Covid just ramped it up. Was it the virus itself, or might it have been the mass psychological phenomenon surrounding covid that got people all worked up? > We are having measles outbreaks. Polio is coming back. The US is turning more towards a religious Fundamentalism, and science just doesn't fit their world view. That's right! I recommend scientists take off their fundamentalist hats and put their science hats back on, lest even more misfortune befall them, and us. > (of course, i'm assuming you were making a comment about my internal model being that the US is turning anti-science, and based on models being imperfect, maybe i'm over-stating it.) "I have a bee in my bonnet" is probably a decent description of my ire lol. Joking aside though: I am literally serious about what I say, and I propose it is very far from guaranteed that I do not have a valid and causally important point.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Not sure where you are coming from. Science has the Scientific method for proving hypothesis. They developed a measles vaccine. Measles was almost eradicated. Deaths gone. Anti-Science proponents stopped taking the vaccine. Those people started getting sick with Measles again. And dying. That seems pretty clear. A->B. You don't have to invoke any mystical aspect of a belief in science that is causing misfortune. Same with Covid. Red states/counties that are more anti-science, did not take as much Covid vaccine. Their per-capital adoption was lower, and they had more sickness and death per-capita. You can graph it and look with your own eyes. No mystical beliefs happening.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > No mystical beliefs happening. Not in that text, but you cleverly avoided addressing my actual complaint, which I indicated by quoting the specific text of yours I was agreeing with before posting my disagreement. There is a mystical belief here though: >> What is up with people throwing out science these days? >> How did we go from: >> Our simplified model Ignored friction. >> to >> We have no idea what is real, throw away all technology and lets live in the trees. I asked in response: > How many people actually do this though, as opposed to how many people's models contain other people doing this? Your reply: >> Was going to add some citations, but really there are too many. >> Just search 'anti-science' in the US. >> There are literally hundreds of articles, and studies slicing the data by any metric you desire. Here you are speaking as if ALL returned hits (ALL instances of anti-science) match your prior framing: "We have no idea what is real, throw away all technology and lets live in the trees." So, you dodged my criticism, while representing that science, and pro-science thinkers, are better at thinking...while demonstrating otherwise. That most any pro-science person I engage with tends to follow this methodology is a part of the reason for my anti-science stance: the combination of deceit/disingenuousness combined with implied superiority (times the percentage frequency of this behavior in my experience) bothers me.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    >> "That most any pro-science person I engage with tends to follow this methodology is a part of the reason for my anti-science stance: the combination of deceit/disingenuousness combined with implied superiority (times the percentage frequency of this behavior in my experience) bothers me." Because scientist test their theories. If the test fails, then that become part of the known false things. If the test passes, then they become known true. There are no ''things that are believed true because of science as some pseudo religious belief'', they must all be proved true. So to be anti-science, you are automatically saying that you would ignore true results. That truth does not matter. Or be willing to believe false things. This happened a lot during Covid. 'Scientist' would offer very narrow results on exactly what was tested and known. And people really didn't like that, and either wanted to read too much into the results, or mad the results conflicted with their belief.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

Not sure where you are coming from. Science has the Scientific method for proving hypothesis. They developed a measles vaccine. Measles was almost eradicated. Deaths gone. Anti-Science proponents stopped taking the vaccine. Those people started getting sick with Measles again. And dying. That seems pretty clear. A->B. You don't have to invoke any mystical aspect of a belief in science that is causing misfortune. Same with Covid. Red states/counties that are more anti-science, did not take as much Covid vaccine. Their per-capital adoption was lower, and they had more sickness and death per-capita. You can graph it and look with your own eyes. No mystical beliefs happening.

mistermann 3y ago
> No mystical beliefs happening. Not in that text, but you cleverly avoided addressing my actual complaint, which I indicated by quoting the specific text of yours I was agreeing with before posting my disagreement. There is a mystical belief here though: >> What is up with people throwing out science these days? >> How did we go from: >> Our simplified model Ignored friction. >> to >> We have no idea what is real, throw away all technology and lets live in the trees. I asked in response: > How many people actually do this though, as opposed to how many people's models contain other people doing this? Your reply: >> Was going to add some citations, but really there are too many. >> Just search 'anti-science' in the US. >> There are literally hundreds of articles, and studies slicing the data by any metric you desire. Here you are speaking as if ALL returned hits (ALL instances of anti-science) match your prior framing: "We have no idea what is real, throw away all technology and lets live in the trees." So, you dodged my criticism, while representing that science, and pro-science thinkers, are better at thinking...while demonstrating otherwise. That most any pro-science person I engage with tends to follow this methodology is a part of the reason for my anti-science stance: the combination of deceit/disingenuousness combined with implied superiority (times the percentage frequency of this behavior in my experience) bothers me.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  >> "That most any pro-science person I engage with tends to follow this methodology is a part of the reason for my anti-science stance: the combination of deceit/disingenuousness combined with implied superiority (times the percentage frequency of this behavior in my experience) bothers me." Because scientist test their theories. If the test fails, then that become part of the known false things. If the test passes, then they become known true. There are no ''things that are believed true because of science as some pseudo religious belief'', they must all be proved true. So to be anti-science, you are automatically saying that you would ignore true results. That truth does not matter. Or be willing to believe false things. This happened a lot during Covid. 'Scientist' would offer very narrow results on exactly what was tested and known. And people really didn't like that, and either wanted to read too much into the results, or mad the results conflicted with their belief.