4 ms·
> For example, when a judge last week ordered federal Fluoride standards to be re-examined. It doesn't need to be a total vindication of the conspiracy theorist
by yongjik 2y ago
> For example, when a judge last week ordered federal Fluoride standards to be re-examined. It doesn't need to be a total vindication of the conspiracy theorists, for trust to be substantially damaged.
This is such a weird way of looking at it.
Imagine, for simplicity, there's an optimal amount of fluoride to add, which is X. Also imagine science can guess the number but, obviously, it's not perfect.
What will happen is that we will start at some number, and gradually change it as we get more knowledge. Sometimes we'll be below X, sometimes we'll be above X. When we're above X, and we find it out, we'll say "Oops it was too much fluoride, let's reduce it a bit."
And obviously policymakers need to work on imperfect information, so sometimes we have to add Y amount of fluoride even though we know it's not optimal - because, the alternative, adding zero fluoride, would be actually worse.
This is totally natural way of how science works, and saying that this undermines public trust of science is actually a point in support of GP, namely, the American public has poor understanding of how science works, due to poor education.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoYou assume that if people were better educated, they would trust science and wouldn't be so upset. I think it's the other way around: If people understood this is how science works, they would laugh off anything they disagreed with, as likely to be overturned a decade from now.
- yongjik 2y ago> If people understood this is how science works, they would laugh off anything they disagreed with, as likely to be overturned a decade from now. I'm sorry, but it starts to sound like you have a poor understanding of how science works.
- an_guy 2y agoWhen gov insist on a certain position, just to track back to conclusions of conspiracy theories, it does raise questions about where else they were wrong or lying. > This is totally natural way of how science works, and saying that this undermines public trust of science is actually a point in support of GP, namely, the American public has poor understanding of how science works, due to poor education. So what exactly would an educated person do if they were led to believe something based on false premises which affected their life? Are they not supposed to question the authority who makes decision based on such information? Or question the source that provides such information consistently? Or just ignore it because it doesn't aligns with their political view? Or are they supposed to just shut up and accept it because... SCIENCE(holy text)?