5 ms·

Yes, you are absolutely right, and this in turn has led to people disbelieving science and things which were once a bipartisan issue, such as climate change, ha

Yes, you are absolutely right, and this in turn has led to people disbelieving science and things which were once a bipartisan issue, such as climate change, has now been termed a conspiracy by people on the right. This has only happened because people do not trust scientists and science anymore.

wakawaka28 2y ago
What if science and politics really are corrupt enough to corroborate the conspiracy theories? We need an International Journal of Conspiracy Studies right now!
Mountain_Skies 2y ago
Funny how the unabashedly partisan are the ones who make partisan statements in the same breath as their denouncements of partisanship.
Ar-Curunir 2y ago
Declining trust in science is not because of lack of open-access publications. The right is not ignoring research because it is behind a paywall or because it hasn’t been reproduced. In fact, the right has chosen to willingly ignore research that has been painstakingly reproduced, all in service of the god of greed and ideology.
- DataDive 2y ago
  In my opinion the declining trust is science is due to science being far less apolitical and far less objective and less validated than in the past.
  - Ar-Curunir 2y ago
    Which era of science was apolitical, exactly? The one where Galileo was prosecuted by the church? Or one where the US military invested billions of dollars into early computer science? Or one where nearly every physicist was staunchly anti-proliferationist ? Science has not, and will never be, apolitical. It is just that you are noticing that the politics of some scientists does not align with yours or with some politicians, and so you’re noticing the difference.
  - josephg 2y ago
    Do you have any evidence for this? I suspect in the 60s and 70s science was (in the public imagination) wrapped up in a positive story of the future, full of space travel and prosperity for all. And now science is wrapped in a story (at least for some) of doom and gloom. Climate wars, or creeping authoritarian governments telling people what to think. I suspect the experience of actual scientists, in labs trying things out, hasn’t changed anywhere near as much as the public’s stories of science have changed.
  - kergonath 2y ago
    How is science political? I am happy to work from that premise, but it needs more than an assertion to be taken seriously. My experience is that people complaining about science being partisan (which they tend to mean by “political”) do not understand much about science or how it works. I am willing to believe that you are not one of those people, but what you write is a bit close. So, could you give some particular examples or facts rather than empty phrases?
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Yeah definitely dude. Climate disbelievers are actually doing good faith deep dives into the studies and identifying specific, real problems, and pushing for better science to be done. This is evidenced by… wait… what exactly?
zaik 2y ago
I'm not sure about the direction of causality here. Anti-vax people or climate change deniers also object to well-replicated results and would believe what they want to believe anyways.
- jononor 2y ago
  It does give them some ammo for low-brow dismissal of the entire field of science. Which the more extreme may use to convince the more reasonable people. Even though the argument is rarely done in good faith, we do need some strategy for dealing with it... Being perfect is not really a realistic option though - mistakes will be made in such a complex endeavour as science. But if we can no longer legitimately say "it only _a few_ bad apples", then we must improve things drastically - or risk loosing all the credibility.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  Replicable is not a synonym for correct even though some discourse about the science crisis treats it that way. It's necessary but not sufficient. The academic literature is full of studies that will replicate every time but the methods are lacking rigor or are just outright invalid. The classic correlation/causation fallacy pops up everywhere, to pick one example. A paper that shows a correlation then declares a causation will replicate just fine but still yield wrong conclusions.
- vixen99 2y ago
  Can you please define terms so that I can understand exactly what you mean? Meanwhile I decided to check Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial says Climate change denial (also global warming denial) is a form of science denial characterized by rejecting, refusing to acknowledge, disputing, or fighting the scientific consensus on climate change. I cannot assume this corresponds with your own use of the term which is why I suggest defining terms but I'm wondering if anyone reading this sees some slight problem in the Wiki wording? Let's assume any disputation will have to include peer-reviewed evidence if it's to be seriously considered though according to Wiki, it won't be, whatever the evidence. This is science - according to an anonymous editor of Wikipedia? As described by Wiki, this is a religion.

wakawaka28 2y ago

What if science and politics really are corrupt enough to corroborate the conspiracy theories? We need an International Journal of Conspiracy Studies right now!

Mountain_Skies 2y ago

Funny how the unabashedly partisan are the ones who make partisan statements in the same breath as their denouncements of partisanship.

Ar-Curunir 2y ago

Declining trust in science is not because of lack of open-access publications. The right is not ignoring research because it is behind a paywall or because it hasn’t been reproduced. In fact, the right has chosen to willingly ignore research that has been painstakingly reproduced, all in service of the god of greed and ideology.

DataDive 2y ago
In my opinion the declining trust is science is due to science being far less apolitical and far less objective and less validated than in the past.
- Ar-Curunir 2y ago
  Which era of science was apolitical, exactly? The one where Galileo was prosecuted by the church? Or one where the US military invested billions of dollars into early computer science? Or one where nearly every physicist was staunchly anti-proliferationist ? Science has not, and will never be, apolitical. It is just that you are noticing that the politics of some scientists does not align with yours or with some politicians, and so you’re noticing the difference.
- josephg 2y ago
  Do you have any evidence for this? I suspect in the 60s and 70s science was (in the public imagination) wrapped up in a positive story of the future, full of space travel and prosperity for all. And now science is wrapped in a story (at least for some) of doom and gloom. Climate wars, or creeping authoritarian governments telling people what to think. I suspect the experience of actual scientists, in labs trying things out, hasn’t changed anywhere near as much as the public’s stories of science have changed.
- kergonath 2y ago
  How is science political? I am happy to work from that premise, but it needs more than an assertion to be taken seriously. My experience is that people complaining about science being partisan (which they tend to mean by “political”) do not understand much about science or how it works. I am willing to believe that you are not one of those people, but what you write is a bit close. So, could you give some particular examples or facts rather than empty phrases?
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Yeah definitely dude. Climate disbelievers are actually doing good faith deep dives into the studies and identifying specific, real problems, and pushing for better science to be done. This is evidenced by… wait… what exactly?

zaik 2y ago

I'm not sure about the direction of causality here. Anti-vax people or climate change deniers also object to well-replicated results and would believe what they want to believe anyways.

jononor 2y ago
It does give them some ammo for low-brow dismissal of the entire field of science. Which the more extreme may use to convince the more reasonable people. Even though the argument is rarely done in good faith, we do need some strategy for dealing with it... Being perfect is not really a realistic option though - mistakes will be made in such a complex endeavour as science. But if we can no longer legitimately say "it only _a few_ bad apples", then we must improve things drastically - or risk loosing all the credibility.
mike_hearn 2y ago
Replicable is not a synonym for correct even though some discourse about the science crisis treats it that way. It's necessary but not sufficient. The academic literature is full of studies that will replicate every time but the methods are lacking rigor or are just outright invalid. The classic correlation/causation fallacy pops up everywhere, to pick one example. A paper that shows a correlation then declares a causation will replicate just fine but still yield wrong conclusions.
vixen99 2y ago
Can you please define terms so that I can understand exactly what you mean? Meanwhile I decided to check Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial says Climate change denial (also global warming denial) is a form of science denial characterized by rejecting, refusing to acknowledge, disputing, or fighting the scientific consensus on climate change. I cannot assume this corresponds with your own use of the term which is why I suggest defining terms but I'm wondering if anyone reading this sees some slight problem in the Wiki wording? Let's assume any disputation will have to include peer-reviewed evidence if it's to be seriously considered though according to Wiki, it won't be, whatever the evidence. This is science - according to an anonymous editor of Wikipedia? As described by Wiki, this is a religion.