4 ms·

> 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 y

> 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.
- mistermann 3y ago
  It is very frustrating that I cannot safely critique this, there are many flaws/untruths.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    You want to critique the scientific method? Because it is flawed? And not sure how to? Where to start? Sure, scientific research has its issues. Models aren't always as exact as 'reality'. Testing methodologies could be flawed. Various assumptions could be incorrect. And even proved wrong in future testing. The point is, it is a process, and all results can be re-evaluated, re-tested. But nobody is believing something that was proved false. Something was proved false, but "I'm going to ignore the science and just believe what I want". Which is what a lot of Covid and Climate conspiracy theorist do.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      > You want to critique the scientific method? Because it is flawed? Yes, which is consistent with the scientific method, by definition at least. > And not sure how to? Where to start? I have a very long list of ideas, the vast majority of which I've borrowed from various domains, science being one of them (the very idea of the scientific method, abstractly, is very powerful, and can be applied in a variety of ways over and above what science currently does). > Sure, scientific research has its issues. > Models aren't always as exact as 'reality'. Agree, but there is a true/false binary representation, and then there is the degree to which these things are true, and more! This tends to not be of interest though. > But nobody is believing something that was proved false. I am opposed to practicing logic using technically misinformative figures of speech like this. > Something was proved false, but "I'm going to ignore the science and just believe what I want". Which is what a lot of Covid and Climate conspiracy theorist do. Agreed[1], but here is something everyone does: believes that what seems true, is true. Our culture teaches us to think in binary, which is a dangerous form of logic when applied to non-binary domains, like reality. [1] Though, how much worse are they, in fact, compared to those who suffer from normative cognition? And perhaps even more important: how many individuals are in each set? Which set causes more harm? Where should our critical attention be?

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.

mistermann 3y ago
It is very frustrating that I cannot safely critique this, there are many flaws/untruths.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  You want to critique the scientific method? Because it is flawed? And not sure how to? Where to start? Sure, scientific research has its issues. Models aren't always as exact as 'reality'. Testing methodologies could be flawed. Various assumptions could be incorrect. And even proved wrong in future testing. The point is, it is a process, and all results can be re-evaluated, re-tested. But nobody is believing something that was proved false. Something was proved false, but "I'm going to ignore the science and just believe what I want". Which is what a lot of Covid and Climate conspiracy theorist do.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > You want to critique the scientific method? Because it is flawed? Yes, which is consistent with the scientific method, by definition at least. > And not sure how to? Where to start? I have a very long list of ideas, the vast majority of which I've borrowed from various domains, science being one of them (the very idea of the scientific method, abstractly, is very powerful, and can be applied in a variety of ways over and above what science currently does). > Sure, scientific research has its issues. > Models aren't always as exact as 'reality'. Agree, but there is a true/false binary representation, and then there is the degree to which these things are true, and more! This tends to not be of interest though. > But nobody is believing something that was proved false. I am opposed to practicing logic using technically misinformative figures of speech like this. > Something was proved false, but "I'm going to ignore the science and just believe what I want". Which is what a lot of Covid and Climate conspiracy theorist do. Agreed[1], but here is something everyone does: believes that what seems true, is true. Our culture teaches us to think in binary, which is a dangerous form of logic when applied to non-binary domains, like reality. [1] Though, how much worse are they, in fact, compared to those who suffer from normative cognition? And perhaps even more important: how many individuals are in each set? Which set causes more harm? Where should our critical attention be?