3 ms·

Exactly. I believe in some science. The hard part is knowing which science is reputable, which is just a hidden agenda masquerading as science, and which is jus

by blowski 12y ago

Exactly. I believe in some science. The hard part is knowing which science is reputable, which is just a hidden agenda masquerading as science, and which is just pure ignorance. I have no formal science training, just read a few books. I keep up to date(ish) with the science sections in reputable magazines and newspapers (Guardian, Economist, etc). And I read web forums like Hacker News and Reddit. But short of reading everything and developing formal training in everything, how do I decide what's reputable? Whom do I trust? Someone with loads of internet points? Someone who has a well designed personal website? Someone with loads of shelf-space in my local bookshop? So, for example, with vaccines. I believe in vaccines, I have had my son vaccinated and would recommend to anybody else to do the same. But it's really based on blind faith because I would have no idea where to start if I want to establish the truth myself. I trust my local doctor, and he said we should get vaccines, but that's all I have to go on.

calinet6 12y ago
This is a very astute comment, with a recognition not many people have. The trust chain is extremely important here, and yes, it's breaking down. That's the reason for people uncertain about vaccines: they're attempting to find something to trust in a truly complex ecosystem of information that's more available and more difficult to parse than ever. We're teetering on the balance of the above perspective, trusting without information or understanding—and the opposite, just on the other side of the truth, distrusting without information or understanding. Is either truly more or less valid from an individual viewpoint? And is it any wonder we're in this situation? What is the institution that would uphold this trust? Do we need a new one, and what would it be?
- blowski 12y ago
  Part of the problem is that we all live in echo chambers that tell us what we want to hear. If I believe that grass is blue, then I live in a neighbourhood of people that believe grass is blue, and all my friends are thus people who believe grass is blue. I watch news that says grass is blue. My Facebook and Twitter feeds frequently show updates that prove grass is blue, and rarely show anything to the contrary other than to scorn it. All these reasonable people that I love and trust all agree that grass is blue. I'm a reasonable person. So if I meet someone who says grass is not blue, my immediate assumption is that they're a wacko, unreasonable, not to be trusted. It kind of makes total sense. If you don't do this, you start questioning everything, and it's really stressful. You start to become 'that guy', nobody wants to spend time with you because you're so disagreeable, and you prevaricate on every decision. So you simplify the world by limiting your inputs to those that agree with you. For example, "Should I get my child vaccinated? I've read 3 books for, 3 against, asked doctors and health advisors I found on Google, and talked about it on multiple forums. Opinion seems divided. " vs "I know I should get my child vaccinated, because everyone on Hacker News says so." At some point, the answer is to have trusted in-person relationships. As I said, I believe in vaccinations because I know our doctor quite well. I know he's not a quack, and he says vaccinations are a good thing, and so I believe him. Similarly, if I want to get some good beef, I go to our local butcher who knows my name. I trust him not to sell me horsemeat, in a way that I don't trust a big supermarket chain. There's no way for me to guarantee that either the doctor or the butcher are right, but it feels a more certain way than trusting /r/cleverusername on Reddit. How do you sort the wheat from the chaff in a society of billions? I often recollect Aristotle's comment that "it is difficult - perhaps impossible – for a city that is too populous to be well managed". At some point, large societies seem to eat themselves, and the result is a lack of trust in everything around you.
snowwrestler 12y ago
If you finished high school, you have actually had quite a bit of formal science training--years of it. But it was probably not very good, and did not leave you feeling that you have the mental tools to evaluate science on your own. I think that a decline in primary and secondary education systems are causing us all sorts of social problems--in science, but also in government, art, law, etc.
- blowski 12y ago
  I went to a pretty good school in the 90s, but didn't go to university. I would say that they left me with the mental tools to realise that I couldn't evaluate science on my own. If I hadn't received any education, I might be more confident in believing any old rubbish. Instead, I hear the words of my science teachers talking about testable hypotheses. I believe that education has improved. My parents both quit school before the age of 16. My Mum was taught mostly how to sew, cook and use a typewriter. My Dad did well enough in science, but my grandparents couldn't afford for him to go to college after 16. When I hear the 'education has got worse' argument, I believe that the average pleb today doesn't receive as good an education as a rich joe 50 years ago, but overall the system is much better.

by blowski 12y ago

calinet6 12y ago

This is a very astute comment, with a recognition not many people have. The trust chain is extremely important here, and yes, it's breaking down. That's the reason for people uncertain about vaccines: they're attempting to find something to trust in a truly complex ecosystem of information that's more available and more difficult to parse than ever. We're teetering on the balance of the above perspective, trusting without information or understanding—and the opposite, just on the other side of the truth, distrusting without information or understanding. Is either truly more or less valid from an individual viewpoint? And is it any wonder we're in this situation? What is the institution that would uphold this trust? Do we need a new one, and what would it be?

blowski 12y ago
Part of the problem is that we all live in echo chambers that tell us what we want to hear. If I believe that grass is blue, then I live in a neighbourhood of people that believe grass is blue, and all my friends are thus people who believe grass is blue. I watch news that says grass is blue. My Facebook and Twitter feeds frequently show updates that prove grass is blue, and rarely show anything to the contrary other than to scorn it. All these reasonable people that I love and trust all agree that grass is blue. I'm a reasonable person. So if I meet someone who says grass is not blue, my immediate assumption is that they're a wacko, unreasonable, not to be trusted. It kind of makes total sense. If you don't do this, you start questioning everything, and it's really stressful. You start to become 'that guy', nobody wants to spend time with you because you're so disagreeable, and you prevaricate on every decision. So you simplify the world by limiting your inputs to those that agree with you. For example, "Should I get my child vaccinated? I've read 3 books for, 3 against, asked doctors and health advisors I found on Google, and talked about it on multiple forums. Opinion seems divided. " vs "I know I should get my child vaccinated, because everyone on Hacker News says so." At some point, the answer is to have trusted in-person relationships. As I said, I believe in vaccinations because I know our doctor quite well. I know he's not a quack, and he says vaccinations are a good thing, and so I believe him. Similarly, if I want to get some good beef, I go to our local butcher who knows my name. I trust him not to sell me horsemeat, in a way that I don't trust a big supermarket chain. There's no way for me to guarantee that either the doctor or the butcher are right, but it feels a more certain way than trusting /r/cleverusername on Reddit. How do you sort the wheat from the chaff in a society of billions? I often recollect Aristotle's comment that "it is difficult - perhaps impossible – for a city that is too populous to be well managed". At some point, large societies seem to eat themselves, and the result is a lack of trust in everything around you.

snowwrestler 12y ago

If you finished high school, you have actually had quite a bit of formal science training--years of it. But it was probably not very good, and did not leave you feeling that you have the mental tools to evaluate science on your own. I think that a decline in primary and secondary education systems are causing us all sorts of social problems--in science, but also in government, art, law, etc.

blowski 12y ago
I went to a pretty good school in the 90s, but didn't go to university. I would say that they left me with the mental tools to realise that I couldn't evaluate science on my own. If I hadn't received any education, I might be more confident in believing any old rubbish. Instead, I hear the words of my science teachers talking about testable hypotheses. I believe that education has improved. My parents both quit school before the age of 16. My Mum was taught mostly how to sew, cook and use a typewriter. My Dad did well enough in science, but my grandparents couldn't afford for him to go to college after 16. When I hear the 'education has got worse' argument, I believe that the average pleb today doesn't receive as good an education as a rich joe 50 years ago, but overall the system is much better.