8 ms·

Yikes, quite the scathing article and example of a the politicization of science. “Trust the science” has always bothered me for two reasons: 1) science is fre

• senderista 2y ago
  "Trust the science" is the very antithesis of the scientific spirit. The essence of science is to distrust authority and received wisdom. If you treat scientists as some sort of infallible priesthood then you've missed the whole point of science.
  • yks 2y ago
    > The essence of science is to distrust authority and received wisdom. This is not "the essence of science" by any means.
    • dekhn 2y ago
      The motto of the Royal Society: "The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' was adopted in its First Charter in 1662. is taken to mean 'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment." It's highly consistent with the statement above and in many ways is consistent with science as it is practiced.
      • itishappy 2y ago
        ... source? (sorry, couldn't resist) https://royalsociety.org/about-us/who-we-are/history https://royalsociety.org/about-us/who-we-are/history
      • davorak 2y ago
        The motto here does not align with how I read it compared to: > The essence of science is to distrust authority and received wisdom "take nobody's word for it" -> anyone can say anything, that is just a claim, things other than that matter like data, replication, etc. That is different and superior than a simple, broad, statement to 'distrust'.
    • marcus_holmes 2y ago
      "Science advances one funeral at a time" [0] The Scientific Principle (hypothesis -> experiment -> conclusion and all that) does not pay any heed to authority and received wisdom. And it should not; the experiment results are all that matter. Academia, the set of very human organisations that have grown to manage our implementation of the Scientfic Principle, are a long way from perfect and are heavily influenced by authority and received wisdom. So yeah, I don't think it's the essence of science, but distrusting authority and received wisdom definitely required to practice good science. [0] https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/science-really-does-advance-one-funeral-at-a-time-study-suggests/3010961.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/science-really-does-adva...
      • yks 2y ago
        One funeral at a time is true but “standing on the shoulders of giants” is also true and there is absolutely good science done without redoing all experiments since Newton, like there is a bad science standing on the sand hill of the other bad science. Having distrust by itself will not make one a good scientist and so it can’t be “the essence of science”.
        • marcus_holmes 2y ago
          Which is what I said...
    • elevatedastalt 2y ago
      The Scientific process does not have any authority except observed natural phenomena.
      • yks 2y ago
        Yes, therefore trusting or distrusting authorities is irrelevant. One can distrust authorities and do bad science, one can trust authorities and do good science, and other combinations.
      • cryptonector 2y ago
        The scientific method has no authorities, but science does.
        • mrguyorama 2y ago
          It literally doesn't. Even Nobel Prize winners do not get a free pass to make baseless claims. There's an entire realm of people who did great science, won a Nobel prize, and then went on to make absurd unfounded claims about shit they do not know.
          • cryptonector 2y ago
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle Why do you suppose he said that? Do you really think it's different now? It's not.
  • elashri 2y ago
    > The essence of science is to distrust authority and received wisdom The essence of science is the use of scientific method which have specific meaning and way of doing things. It relies on evidence based knowledge not on any distrust. It does not have to do with authority but you would question if your tools you are using is good (calibrated and not interfering with measurements in an unaccounted way ..etc) or if your methodology is flawed.
    • KK7NIL 2y ago
      So when someone says "trust the science!" they mean "define your null hypothesis, design an experiment to test it, run said experiment, analyze the data for statistical significance and submit for peer review"? Or do they really mean "trust the scientists"?
      • elashri 2y ago
        I think when someone say something you are confused or have doubts about what they mean, then you ask them what they mean. This sentence can be used to mean many things (including mocking up scientists ot trolling). So please next time you see or hear someone says that please ask them that. If I would use it personally I will probably use it to mean trust the evidence based knowledge that the scientific community is using.
        • KK7NIL 2y ago
          > If I would use it personally I will probably use it to mean trust the evidence based knowledge that the scientific community is using. Where can one find this knowledge? Are you suggesting regular folk go out and review the literature themselves (most of which is paywalled)? And even if they did and were able to understand the contents, they'd still lack the required context to weigh contradicting results, dismiss old studies now known to be wrong, etc etc. And that's why "trust the science" ends up being an appeal to authority. I'm not saying I have a better alternative than the scientific method, I'm just pointing out that the "scientific consensus" isn't some magical spark that is immediately obvious when one reads the literature, it's something that evolves over many decades of research, conferences, etc. And that's assuming there is a consensus for a given topic at a given time. And I'm not even going to get into why reasonably questioning the scientific consensus is a good thing (otherwise it stops being science).
  • itishappy 2y ago
    Somewhat disagree. Science requires trust. In fact, it's the process for building that trust up from nothing. Are you friend or foe? I'm going to assume one but watch you closely until I have enough evidence to trust you. Hurray, that's science! I totally agree that the phrase is often misused to mean "trust my favorite authority figure" or "trust the status quo," which is distinctly unscientific. Good news though, if we're willing to actually do the work (the hard part) trust in science is what allows us to change the status quo!
  • atmavatar 2y ago
    No, the antithesis of the scientific spirit is to believe anything joe nobody posts on facebook or twitter that fits your worldview, regardless of (or perhaps especially due to) the presence of contradictory facts. The essence of science, and what is meant by "trust the science", is to accept theories that fit the existing data until such time as new data contradicts them, while encouraging people to ruthlessly search for just such data which would falsify them. Sadly, there are a lot of people whose only standard of proof for conspiracy theories is that it contradicts what experts claim.
    • OCASMv2 2y ago
      Just like there's people whose only standard of proof is the word of "experts", regardless of (or perhaps especially due to) the presence of contradictory facts.
    • refurb 2y ago
      Maybe you saw “trust the science” used in different ways, but the way I saw it used was: - to shut down any debate as the science was “settled” - to argue for censorship as any discussion that went outside the approved borders of “settled science” was by default false and dangerous to expose people to - to argue that the “flavor of the month” study was the final word no matter how rigorous the research study was
  • twixfel 2y ago
    Science is built on trust because in reality it’s not practical to check every single result in a paper. Often it’s literally impossible (e.g the result from a one of a kind, billion dollar machine).
  • UncleMeat 2y ago
    The process involves collecting data or performing analysis. Simply saying "ugh, why should we listen to received wisdom" and declaring that the experts are idiots is not the scientific spirit.
  • anigbrowl 2y ago
    If someone hand-waves away the conclusions of scientists without doing any science of their own I feel no obligation to take them seriously.
  • immibis 2y ago
    Is science authority? If science is not authority, then distrusting authority and trusting science are not in opposition.
• rayiner 2y ago
  The second point is critical. Relevant testimony from the former head of the NIH during the pandemic, Francis Collins: https://www.bladenjournal.com/opinion/72679/confession-of-a-public-health-expert https://www.bladenjournal.com/opinion/72679/confession-of-a-... > “If you’re a public-health person and you’re trying to make a decision, you have this very narrow view of what the right decision is.” “So you attach infinite value to stopping the disease and saving a life. You attach zero value to whether this actually totally disrupts people’s lives, ruins the economy, and has many kids kept out of school in a way that they never quite recover from.”
  • lmm 2y ago
    While I agree with the fundamental point, I find that a kind of ironic choice of examples. I wonder what kind of person attaches so much value to keeping kids in school whether it's good for them or not.
    • readthenotes1 2y ago
      Or masking kids when it's actively harmful to them?
    • cpursley 2y ago
      I think most reasonable and quite frankly, honest, people understood now and then, that taking the kids out of school would fuck them up pretty bad. When the actual science was suggesting we take care of the medically vulnerable and elderly. But hey, there’s an election to win!
      • tzs 2y ago
        Who do you think closed schools in order to try to get an electoral advantage?
    • rayiner 2y ago
      It was well established before COVID that missing in-school days has a major adverse effect on learning. Keeping kids out of school had exactly the predicted effect—reading and math scores fell significantly: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/news/24/01/despite-progress-achievement-gaps-persist-during-recovery-pandemic https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/news/24/01/despite-progres.... We also knew early on that COVID posed little risk to kids themselves. So it was entirely rational for parents, especially of young children, to value keeping those kids in school over the negligible health risks (to the kids) of COVID exposure.
• tekla 2y ago
  Anyone who unironically says “Trust the science” automatically tells me that they are probably not an informed person. I trust that most research is done in good faith and at least some of it is useful. Saying 'Trust the science' might as well be saying 'Trust in God'
  • davorak 2y ago
    > I trust that most research is done in good faith and at least some of it is useful. Saying 'Trust the science' might as well be saying 'Trust in God' Hopefully this is hyperbole. Any faith I have is separate from, for example, if I cancer, I am going to trust the science on the next steps of treatment.
    • exoverito 2y ago
      Medicine is extremely complex and medical errors are the 4th leading cause of death in the US. The science on the next steps of treatment is often incomplete, variable, and dependent on the practitioners' experience. You shouldn't simply trust your doctor, but instead get a second opinion at minimum, and probably a third and fourth if you're able. It's best to triangulate on the problem, searching out varying perspectives from subject matter experts, listening to how they disagree, in order to better understand reality.
      • davorak 2y ago
        I would describe what you said here as a procedure for how to gather and apply the science/knowledge you are going to use for your treatment. So trusting the science, just more details on how to go about doing that. > Medicine is extremely complex and medical errors are the 4th leading cause of death in the US. Do you have the source for this? I have never seen it on the list of leading causes of death. For example: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db492-tables.pdf#4 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db492-tables.pdf#4
        • nradov 2y ago
          Preventable medical errors are one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. This was well documented in the Institute of Medicine report "To Err Is Human" in 2000. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/9728/to-err-is-human-building-a-safer-health-system https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/9728/to-err-is-hum... Since then there have been positive system changes in terms of things like quantitative care quality measures and use of checklists. But it's still a huge problem. Whether it's the 4th leading cause of death is unclear, it depends on how you analyze the data and what assumptions you make. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0738 https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0738
• nickpsecurity 2y ago
  Scientific facts aren’t facts. Empiricism only tells you when you are wrong or have enough data to believe something for now. At any point, something we believe can be proven wrong. To even get there requires independent, skeptical, peer review. That often doesn’t happen. It’s questionable how many scientific facts are even science. Much less factual.
• cryptonector 2y ago
  > while scientific facts are facts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• TheBigSalad 2y ago
  I don't think people who say "Trust the science" are saying that science has it all figured out. It's telling people that they should weigh scientific data into their thought process. In reality many people make all of their decisions based on emotions and "feels".
  • lowkeyoptimist 2y ago
    "Trust the science" really came into its full form during the pandemic and was a veiled line in appealing to authority. The CDC, Dr. Fauci, NIH, or any governing body issuing mandates during the pandemic would tell you to trust the science, when in reality they just didn't want people to question their decisions. As it turns out, some of the people questioning school closures or masks were correct! Questioning vaccine safety for young men was and is correct, as long as there were not comorbidities. The people or institutions that were yelling "trust the science" the loudest were indeed saying that they had it all figured out and that anyone that questioned them was wrong. "Trust the science" became a campaign slogan during the pandemic, and fell into the same realm as "defund the police" or "trust all women". So yes, "trust the science" does mean what you said that it is a process that should take data new and old into account. However, the sad thing is it was co-opted by people who used it as a cudgel to silence anyone that didn't toe the line.
    • TheBigSalad 2y ago
      It's true that some of the people who questioned the science were right, but not because they knew something scientists didn't. A broken clock is right twice a day. If something like that happens again we may need to be more cautious than we were last time. It certainly makes sense to be as cautious as possible until we know for sure how deadly some new disease is. Another side effect is that people took sides and trenched in. When it started becoming clear that masks weren't as useful as once thought (at least for sure cloth masks), the other side refused to admit it. What we should do (but are incapable of) is make the best decision based on the current information and change practices as new information comes in or conditions change.
    • immibis 2y ago
• nonethewiser 2y ago
  There is a pure form of science which are basically just methods and principles. Then there is stuff around that like institutions. Some further the core methods and principles. And sometimes it's quite literally a religion. There is also a weird thing where people will attribute simple natural phenomena to science. Conflating the subject matter with science itself. I recall seeing a post with these colored ants and a caption like "Isnt Science Cool?" https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/these-rainbow-colored-transparent-ants-are-what-they-eat-25521112 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/these-rainbow-... Thats not science. Those are ants being colored by food coloring... that would be true with or without the scientific method and you don't even need it to observe the effect. And when you do need science to discover some phenomena (say the nature of black holes) its not science that is amazing if you are simply talking about how amazing black holes are. Its the method applied to understand them that can show how amazing science is. Black holes arent science.
• chrisbrandow 2y ago
  all of the "Trust/Believe X" statements would be profoundly improved by substituting "Take X seriously". It makes the same point without posing the obvious problems with trust and believe
  • jbstjohn 2y ago
    But that wouldn't capture how it tends to be meant -- an instruction to take things on faith without any questioning, even if it contradicts other known facts or your direct experience.