4 ms·

> The essence of science is to distrust authority and received wisdom. This is not "the essence of science" by any means.

by yks 2y ago

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.

> The essence of science is to distrust authority and received wisdom. This is not "the essence of science" by any means.

by 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.