4 ms·

>Of the people who distrust science, Why should anyone trust science? Skepticism should always be the default position. Putting it on a pedestal to be worshipp

>Of the people who distrust science, Why should anyone trust science? Skepticism should always be the default position. Putting it on a pedestal to be worshipped is what led us all into this mess. If science needs trust to work, then whatever it is doing is something I'd like to see fail.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Why should anyone trust science? When people talk about those who distrust science, they aren't referring to the carefully sceptical. They're talking about people who come to a conclusion and then reject any evidence against it.
- mikeyouse 1y ago
  Right. RFK supporters aren’t carefully weighing evidence to arrive at their conclusions, they are blindly following someone who is a mindless contrarian with a 30yr vendetta against vaccines. No amount or quality of peer review is going to change any of their minds.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > RFK supporters aren’t carefully weighing evidence to arrive at their conclusions, they are blindly following someone I'd actually be curious what fraction of his supporters share his views on vaccines. It strikes me as more likely that they like one of his random, idiosyncratic views and are willing to excuse the anti-vaccine nonsense to get those policy outcomes.
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  That, but also people who take the blanket view that none of the work produced by the scientific establishment is trustworthy. An ironic stance considering that it's the inverse of the blind worship that they accuse others of.
  - kergonath 1y ago
    > That, but also people who take the blanket view that none of the work produced by the scientific establishment is trustworthy. That’s a red herring. No scientist actually says that. What we say is that on some subjects the evidence is overwhelming and to overcome the current understanding you need compelling evidence and theories, not screeches about bias and liberal elites. No. We are not going to take seriously someone’s pet theory about a new perpetual motion machine, or cold fusion, or lack of global warming, or the ineffectiveness of vaccines, or anything that is contrary to massive amounts of accumulated evidence.
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      I think you misread my comment? I'm talking about the non-scientist naysayers.
      - kergonath 1y ago
        I just think we do not disagree.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    >none of the work produced by the scientific establishment is trustworthy. There's that word again. No works are trustworthy. You shouldn't trust, instead verify. Be skeptical. I'm more concerned with which of their works can be verified. >An ironic stance considering that it's the inverse of the blind worship I'm not sure there's any difference worth mentioning between blind worship and cuddly warm trusting that you want to do. One may seem a little less zealous, but it's the same pig just with extra lipstick.
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      Assuming the widespread presence of blatant fraud in the absence of evidence is (at least to my mind) the inverse of blind worship. There is no difference in validity between an unfounded assumption of misdeed or virtue. By "trustworthy" I mean nothing more than the same presumption of innocence absent evidence to the contrary that you extend at the grocery store when you assume that the food you're purchasing isn't poisoned or rotten or etc. That doesn't mean the published results are reproducible, the measurements without (unintentional) error, or the conclusions logically sound. Merely that there isn't an active attempt being made to deceive or otherwise knowingly mislead the reader to the advantage of the author. What I'm describing is an incredibly low bar with broad applicability that society generally requires in order to function.
kergonath 1y ago
> Why should anyone trust science? Skepticism should always be the default position. Skepticism is not anti-scientific. Hell, distrusting results and theories is not anti-scientific. Distrusting the scientific method is. There is a difference. > Putting it on a pedestal to be worshipped is what led us all into this mess. Scientists did not ask for this. Amongst all high profile politicians, those who whine about science becoming political are those who made it so, by taking contrarian positions to rile up their voter base. Most people who make this point are not being honest. If you are, you should make specific arguments rather than rehash propaganda.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
  >Skepticism is not anti-scientific. One might think that to be the case, but science is in a hurry to save our planet, and it has no patience for your skepticism. It may already be too late. >Distrusting the scientific method is. Maybe I don't trust it either. Maybe because I'm distrustful, the scientific method should prove, over and over again, that it's worth a damn. And maybe when it's finally proven that, maybe I go on distrusting it... and make it prove it some more. If one truly though the scientific method worthy of any respect, such a person might say "that's ok, because it will go on re-proving what has already been proven". But so little do I ever hear of that sentiment. Like in this very thread. >Scientists did not ask for this. Probably not. I'd be skeptical of the theory that they asked for it. But it doesn't seem altogether implausible that they might have enjoyed it once it happened even though they didn't ask. And liking it, they started behaving in ways that encouraged it just the same. And those scientists who enjoyed it the most elbowed their way to the front to egg it on even more. And so that's where we are now. I mean, I'm a little skeptical that it happened that way, and I'd welcome evidence that disproves it. >Most people who make this point are not being honest. It's really sort of hilarious how it's only my side that can ever be honest. Not the other guys'. And this is true no matter who "me" is. None of your opponents, for instance, can ever be genuine... they're always trying to cheat. And if your side tries to cheat, well, it's with the best of intentions because the stakes are so high. Not that you would cheat, only the other side ever does that. >f you are, you should make specific arguments rather than rehash propaganda. If we can't start here, then there can be no real conversation. Basically you're just asking me to surrender and admit that I'm the bad guy trying to cheat and swindle, everything I say is a lie, and you're the innocent victims. Haha.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Why should anyone trust science? When people talk about those who distrust science, they aren't referring to the carefully sceptical. They're talking about people who come to a conclusion and then reject any evidence against it.

mikeyouse 1y ago
Right. RFK supporters aren’t carefully weighing evidence to arrive at their conclusions, they are blindly following someone who is a mindless contrarian with a 30yr vendetta against vaccines. No amount or quality of peer review is going to change any of their minds.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > RFK supporters aren’t carefully weighing evidence to arrive at their conclusions, they are blindly following someone I'd actually be curious what fraction of his supporters share his views on vaccines. It strikes me as more likely that they like one of his random, idiosyncratic views and are willing to excuse the anti-vaccine nonsense to get those policy outcomes.
fc417fc802 1y ago
That, but also people who take the blanket view that none of the work produced by the scientific establishment is trustworthy. An ironic stance considering that it's the inverse of the blind worship that they accuse others of.
- kergonath 1y ago
  > That, but also people who take the blanket view that none of the work produced by the scientific establishment is trustworthy. That’s a red herring. No scientist actually says that. What we say is that on some subjects the evidence is overwhelming and to overcome the current understanding you need compelling evidence and theories, not screeches about bias and liberal elites. No. We are not going to take seriously someone’s pet theory about a new perpetual motion machine, or cold fusion, or lack of global warming, or the ineffectiveness of vaccines, or anything that is contrary to massive amounts of accumulated evidence.
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    I think you misread my comment? I'm talking about the non-scientist naysayers.
    - kergonath 1y ago
      I just think we do not disagree.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
  >none of the work produced by the scientific establishment is trustworthy. There's that word again. No works are trustworthy. You shouldn't trust, instead verify. Be skeptical. I'm more concerned with which of their works can be verified. >An ironic stance considering that it's the inverse of the blind worship I'm not sure there's any difference worth mentioning between blind worship and cuddly warm trusting that you want to do. One may seem a little less zealous, but it's the same pig just with extra lipstick.
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    Assuming the widespread presence of blatant fraud in the absence of evidence is (at least to my mind) the inverse of blind worship. There is no difference in validity between an unfounded assumption of misdeed or virtue. By "trustworthy" I mean nothing more than the same presumption of innocence absent evidence to the contrary that you extend at the grocery store when you assume that the food you're purchasing isn't poisoned or rotten or etc. That doesn't mean the published results are reproducible, the measurements without (unintentional) error, or the conclusions logically sound. Merely that there isn't an active attempt being made to deceive or otherwise knowingly mislead the reader to the advantage of the author. What I'm describing is an incredibly low bar with broad applicability that society generally requires in order to function.

kergonath 1y ago

> Why should anyone trust science? Skepticism should always be the default position. Skepticism is not anti-scientific. Hell, distrusting results and theories is not anti-scientific. Distrusting the scientific method is. There is a difference. > Putting it on a pedestal to be worshipped is what led us all into this mess. Scientists did not ask for this. Amongst all high profile politicians, those who whine about science becoming political are those who made it so, by taking contrarian positions to rile up their voter base. Most people who make this point are not being honest. If you are, you should make specific arguments rather than rehash propaganda.

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
>Skepticism is not anti-scientific. One might think that to be the case, but science is in a hurry to save our planet, and it has no patience for your skepticism. It may already be too late. >Distrusting the scientific method is. Maybe I don't trust it either. Maybe because I'm distrustful, the scientific method should prove, over and over again, that it's worth a damn. And maybe when it's finally proven that, maybe I go on distrusting it... and make it prove it some more. If one truly though the scientific method worthy of any respect, such a person might say "that's ok, because it will go on re-proving what has already been proven". But so little do I ever hear of that sentiment. Like in this very thread. >Scientists did not ask for this. Probably not. I'd be skeptical of the theory that they asked for it. But it doesn't seem altogether implausible that they might have enjoyed it once it happened even though they didn't ask. And liking it, they started behaving in ways that encouraged it just the same. And those scientists who enjoyed it the most elbowed their way to the front to egg it on even more. And so that's where we are now. I mean, I'm a little skeptical that it happened that way, and I'd welcome evidence that disproves it. >Most people who make this point are not being honest. It's really sort of hilarious how it's only my side that can ever be honest. Not the other guys'. And this is true no matter who "me" is. None of your opponents, for instance, can ever be genuine... they're always trying to cheat. And if your side tries to cheat, well, it's with the best of intentions because the stakes are so high. Not that you would cheat, only the other side ever does that. >f you are, you should make specific arguments rather than rehash propaganda. If we can't start here, then there can be no real conversation. Basically you're just asking me to surrender and admit that I'm the bad guy trying to cheat and swindle, everything I say is a lie, and you're the innocent victims. Haha.