5 ms·

Almost nobody is "anti-science". The source of that labeling and division came from appeals to authority. You must do or believe this because it's "the science.

Almost nobody is "anti-science". The source of that labeling and division came from appeals to authority. You must do or believe this because it's "the science." If you don't, or you disagree, then you are anti-science. It has nothing to do with science, but rather people not finding that a sufficient justification for unpopular actions. For instance it's 100% certain that banning sugary drinks would dramatically improve public health, reduce healthcare costs, increase life expectancy, and just generally make society better in every single way. So should we ban sugary drinks? It'd be akin to me trying to claim that if you say no then you're anti-science, anti-health, or whatever else. It's just a dumb, divisive, and meaningless label - exactly the sort politicians love so much now a days. Of course there's some irony in that it will become a self fulfilling prophecy. The more unpopular things done in the name of 'the science', the more negative public sentiment to 'the science' will become. Probably somewhat similar to how societies gradually became secular over time, as it became quite clear that actions done in the name of God were often not exactly pious.

tensor 1y ago
Yes, there are a lot of people who are anti-science. As in they do not believe the scientific method is a good way to find truth. There are people today who are rejecting very basic science that was accepted over a century ago.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  No, there aren't. Most people don't realize when they're being trolled by things like e.g. flat earth types. Go read one of the groups, it's a trolling meme largely turned into something by the internet + media. Thanks to social media even if let's say 0.1% of English speakers believe (or pretend to believe) something, that'd be 1.6 million people, so you can get a false impression, especially when the media takes the trolling and then amplifies it with a straight face largely to amplify these dumb and farcical divides.
  - tbrownaw 1y ago
    I've seen science (the process, not just the results of that process) denounced as an aspect or tool of Western colonialism / imperialism. And there's that related "indigenous ways of knowing" thing that Canada has going on. --- Also the flat earth people actually aren't trying to argue against science (the process). They're arguing that everyone except them made either observational errors or reasoning errors.
- emp17344 1y ago
  Science is a great way to model reality. It’s unclear whether science accurately describes reality. It’s also unclear whether science is capable of determining metaphysical truth. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#WhatScieReal https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#WhatS... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessimistic_induction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessimistic_induction
godelski 1y ago
> Almost nobody is "anti-science". Last I checked: - 15% of Americans don't believe in Climate Change[0] - 37% believe God created man in our current form within the last ~10k years (i.e. don't believe in evolution)[1] I don't think these are just rounding errors. They're large enough numbers that you should know multiple people who hold these beliefs unless you're in a strong bubble. I'm obviously with you in news and pop-sci being terrible. I hate IFuckingLoveScience. They're actually just IFuckingLoveClickbait. My point was literally about this bullshit. 90% of the time it is news and pop-sci miscommunicating papers. Where they clearly didn't bother to talk to authors and likely didn't even read the paper. "Scientists say <something scientists didn't actually say>". You see this from eating chocolate, drinking a glass of red wine, to eating red meat or processed meat. There are nuggets of truth in those things but they're about just as accurate as the grandma that sued McDonalds over coffee that was too hot. You sure bet this stuff creates distrust in science [0] https://record.umich.edu/articles/nearly-15-of-americans-deny-climate-change-study-finds/ https://record.umich.edu/articles/nearly-15-of-americans-den... [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/647594/majority-credits-god-humankind-not-creationism.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/647594/majority-credits-god-hum...
- vixen99 1y ago
  The stats you mention seem to suggest you are a believer in `The Science` - an anti scientific idea if ever there was one and one that's undergoing erosion day by day.
  - godelski 1y ago
    I'll bite, what's "The Science" Me? I barely believe in the results of my experiments. But I also know what this poll is intending to ask and yeah, I read enough papers, processed enough data, did enough math, and tracked enough predictions that ended up coming true. That's enough to convince me it's pretty likely that those spending a fuck more time on it (and are the ones making those predictions that came true!) probably know what they're talking about.
- pessimizer 1y ago
  According to your model, scientists who believe in God are anti-science. That's almost weirder than declaring that 15% of people not believing in anthropogenic global warming is some sort of crisis. It's a theory that seems to fit the data (with caveats), not an Axiom of Science. It's actually bizarre that 85% of people trust Science so much that they would believe in something that they have never seen any direct evidence of. That's a result of marketing. The public don't believe in global warming because it's "correct"; they have no idea if it's correct, and they often believe in things that are wrong that people in white coats on television tell them.

tensor 1y ago

Yes, there are a lot of people who are anti-science. As in they do not believe the scientific method is a good way to find truth. There are people today who are rejecting very basic science that was accepted over a century ago.

somenameforme 1y ago
No, there aren't. Most people don't realize when they're being trolled by things like e.g. flat earth types. Go read one of the groups, it's a trolling meme largely turned into something by the internet + media. Thanks to social media even if let's say 0.1% of English speakers believe (or pretend to believe) something, that'd be 1.6 million people, so you can get a false impression, especially when the media takes the trolling and then amplifies it with a straight face largely to amplify these dumb and farcical divides.
- tbrownaw 1y ago
  I've seen science (the process, not just the results of that process) denounced as an aspect or tool of Western colonialism / imperialism. And there's that related "indigenous ways of knowing" thing that Canada has going on. --- Also the flat earth people actually aren't trying to argue against science (the process). They're arguing that everyone except them made either observational errors or reasoning errors.
emp17344 1y ago
Science is a great way to model reality. It’s unclear whether science accurately describes reality. It’s also unclear whether science is capable of determining metaphysical truth. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#WhatScieReal https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#WhatS... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessimistic_induction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessimistic_induction

godelski 1y ago

> Almost nobody is "anti-science". Last I checked: - 15% of Americans don't believe in Climate Change[0] - 37% believe God created man in our current form within the last ~10k years (i.e. don't believe in evolution)[1] I don't think these are just rounding errors. They're large enough numbers that you should know multiple people who hold these beliefs unless you're in a strong bubble. I'm obviously with you in news and pop-sci being terrible. I hate IFuckingLoveScience. They're actually just IFuckingLoveClickbait. My point was literally about this bullshit. 90% of the time it is news and pop-sci miscommunicating papers. Where they clearly didn't bother to talk to authors and likely didn't even read the paper. "Scientists say <something scientists didn't actually say>". You see this from eating chocolate, drinking a glass of red wine, to eating red meat or processed meat. There are nuggets of truth in those things but they're about just as accurate as the grandma that sued McDonalds over coffee that was too hot. You sure bet this stuff creates distrust in science [0] https://record.umich.edu/articles/nearly-15-of-americans-deny-climate-change-study-finds/ https://record.umich.edu/articles/nearly-15-of-americans-den... [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/647594/majority-credits-god-humankind-not-creationism.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/647594/majority-credits-god-hum...

vixen99 1y ago
The stats you mention seem to suggest you are a believer in `The Science` - an anti scientific idea if ever there was one and one that's undergoing erosion day by day.
- godelski 1y ago
  I'll bite, what's "The Science" Me? I barely believe in the results of my experiments. But I also know what this poll is intending to ask and yeah, I read enough papers, processed enough data, did enough math, and tracked enough predictions that ended up coming true. That's enough to convince me it's pretty likely that those spending a fuck more time on it (and are the ones making those predictions that came true!) probably know what they're talking about.
pessimizer 1y ago
According to your model, scientists who believe in God are anti-science. That's almost weirder than declaring that 15% of people not believing in anthropogenic global warming is some sort of crisis. It's a theory that seems to fit the data (with caveats), not an Axiom of Science. It's actually bizarre that 85% of people trust Science so much that they would believe in something that they have never seen any direct evidence of. That's a result of marketing. The public don't believe in global warming because it's "correct"; they have no idea if it's correct, and they often believe in things that are wrong that people in white coats on television tell them.