3 ms·

>Especially when they try to lean on their status as scientists in order to try and have their opinions be more influential. How do they do that?

by Braxton1980 1y ago

kelipso 1y ago
The “I am an expert, so listen to me drone about some political topic that’s vaguely related to my expertise” has been a thing for years now. And it’s usually some controversial thing that doesn’t have to do with science anyway. In general, it makes scientists look really naive and makes them lose credibility when they talk about actual science.
- wat10000 1y ago
  Do they have any real influence? I’m about a million times more concerned about politicians who act like they have worthwhile opinions about science.
- jonathanstrange 1y ago
  Jordan Peterson comes to my mind. Although I have no respect for his opinions at all, I still think that, in the end, scientists have their political views and should be allowed to talk about them. What they shouldn't be allowed is to insinuate that these views are anything other than their personal views. Hate speech and political extremism should also not be allowed because these damage the reputation of their university. Other than that, I don't think it's right to tell them not to use their status to influence politics and society towards what they perceive as making the world better. On the contrary, they might have some duty to do just that.
- DonHopkins 1y ago
  So it's "political" to disagree about Tylenol causing autism, or injecting disinfectant curing Covid?
  - kelipso 1y ago
    You are making a classic motte and bailey argument.
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      What makes something "political"?
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  If a person is an expert on a topic then it makes sense for them to have a higher probability of being correct. >And it’s usually some controversial thing that doesn’t have to do with science anyway. What evidence do you have that most scientists are giving opinions about things unrelated to their expertise and then stating you should trust them more due to their expertise or position?
  - kelipso 1y ago
    Yes, that’s the typical argument but the problem is that they veer way out of their lane. And their lane is in reality very narrow and academically focused. When these experts go into politics and activism, their biases show and consequently the credibility of them and their unfortunate colleagues who don’t go into politics get lowered. > What evidence do you have that most scientists are giving opinions about things unrelated to their expertise and then stating you should trust them more due to their expertise or position? I don’t live under a rock.
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      > When these experts go into politics and activism What if the issue is related to their expertise? Veering out of the lane implies they start offering their opinion about a topic that has nothing to do with their field after discussing one that does without making a clear disclaimer >credibility of them and their unfortunate colleague It's wrong to judge all due to the actions of some. This is a huge flaw of people in general but I wanted to mention it.
      - snickerbockers 1y ago
        >What if the issue is related to their expertise? NTA but I think one example which deserves far more scrutiny than it gets is all the public health experts[1] in the early months of COVID who were telling people to stay inside, don't gather in groups even if you're outside, don't go to church etc only to suddenly change their minds and say that gathering in large groups is actually very safe as soon as the protests surrounding the murder of george floyd happened. This is a topic they have expertise on (or at least they claim to) so it's certainly within their lane, but the abrupt change in policy was obviously motivated by their political leanings and it did *a lot* to hurt their personal credibility as well as perceptions of the pandemic in general. [1] IDK how many of them should actually be considered 'experts' as this is not a field I follow, but they were presented as such in the media and so that is how they are perceived.

>Especially when they try to lean on their status as scientists in order to try and have their opinions be more influential. How do they do that?

kelipso 1y ago

The “I am an expert, so listen to me drone about some political topic that’s vaguely related to my expertise” has been a thing for years now. And it’s usually some controversial thing that doesn’t have to do with science anyway. In general, it makes scientists look really naive and makes them lose credibility when they talk about actual science.

wat10000 1y ago
Do they have any real influence? I’m about a million times more concerned about politicians who act like they have worthwhile opinions about science.
jonathanstrange 1y ago
Jordan Peterson comes to my mind. Although I have no respect for his opinions at all, I still think that, in the end, scientists have their political views and should be allowed to talk about them. What they shouldn't be allowed is to insinuate that these views are anything other than their personal views. Hate speech and political extremism should also not be allowed because these damage the reputation of their university. Other than that, I don't think it's right to tell them not to use their status to influence politics and society towards what they perceive as making the world better. On the contrary, they might have some duty to do just that.
DonHopkins 1y ago
So it's "political" to disagree about Tylenol causing autism, or injecting disinfectant curing Covid?
- kelipso 1y ago
  You are making a classic motte and bailey argument.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    What makes something "political"?
Braxton1980 1y ago
If a person is an expert on a topic then it makes sense for them to have a higher probability of being correct. >And it’s usually some controversial thing that doesn’t have to do with science anyway. What evidence do you have that most scientists are giving opinions about things unrelated to their expertise and then stating you should trust them more due to their expertise or position?
- kelipso 1y ago
  Yes, that’s the typical argument but the problem is that they veer way out of their lane. And their lane is in reality very narrow and academically focused. When these experts go into politics and activism, their biases show and consequently the credibility of them and their unfortunate colleagues who don’t go into politics get lowered. > What evidence do you have that most scientists are giving opinions about things unrelated to their expertise and then stating you should trust them more due to their expertise or position? I don’t live under a rock.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    > When these experts go into politics and activism What if the issue is related to their expertise? Veering out of the lane implies they start offering their opinion about a topic that has nothing to do with their field after discussing one that does without making a clear disclaimer >credibility of them and their unfortunate colleague It's wrong to judge all due to the actions of some. This is a huge flaw of people in general but I wanted to mention it.
    - snickerbockers 1y ago
      >What if the issue is related to their expertise? NTA but I think one example which deserves far more scrutiny than it gets is all the public health experts[1] in the early months of COVID who were telling people to stay inside, don't gather in groups even if you're outside, don't go to church etc only to suddenly change their minds and say that gathering in large groups is actually very safe as soon as the protests surrounding the murder of george floyd happened. This is a topic they have expertise on (or at least they claim to) so it's certainly within their lane, but the abrupt change in policy was obviously motivated by their political leanings and it did *a lot* to hurt their personal credibility as well as perceptions of the pandemic in general. [1] IDK how many of them should actually be considered 'experts' as this is not a field I follow, but they were presented as such in the media and so that is how they are perceived.