Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 402 posts

Re: The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

#21

Post by ummonk »

justintrtle wrote: post #11
charliesharding wrote: post #5

The way in which public considers science today is much more analogous to the way the public considered religion during the time of Galileo. Think of the way people are castigated for not believing in scientific "truths". I see signs in peoples yard saying that "in this house, we believe science is real". As someone who has studied biochemistry for years, this kind of reverence for science is truly troubling. The one…

I usually take statements similar to "in this house, we believe science is real" as conveying the message that the people believe in the scientific method, rational inquiry, evidence-based arguments, etc, rather than a set of specific scientific theories.

In my experience, the people who proclaim this are generally not talking about the scientific method, but about specific theories. Generally evolution and climate change (and the safety of vaccination is becoming an issue as well). It's amazing for example how many of these people will turn around and believe hormone-replacement therapy creates a level playing field in sports between trans-women and cis-women.

Re: The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

#22

Post by phd514 »

The opening paragraphs of this article are just another example of what appears to be an ongoing attempt to manufacture conflict between "religion" and "science". The books that were burned at Ephesus were explicitly identified in Acts 19:19 as sorcery books, not "books of nature". Stuff like this gets published in Nature and people wonder why "science" is losing its credibility?

Re: The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

#23

Post by war1025 »

cameronh90 wrote: post #16
charliesharding wrote: post #5

The way in which public considers science today is much more analogous to the way the public considered religion during the time of Galileo. Think of the way people are castigated for not believing in scientific "truths". I see signs in peoples yard saying that "in this house, we believe science is real". As someone who has studied biochemistry for years, this kind of reverence for science is truly troubling. The one…

People may confuse believing in the scientific method for believing in the current scientific consensus, which as you point out is fluid. However, for the average person, a dogmatic belief in the scientific method would be a huge step up over religion.

That wouldn't be a step up over religion, that would just be religion.

Re: The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

#24

Post by thetrumanshow »

savingthrow wrote: post #4
lkrubner wrote: post #2

About this: " Hanging in the Louvre Museum in Paris is an imposing painting, The Preaching of St Paul at Ephesus. In this 1649 work by Eustache Le Sueur, the fiery apostle lifts his right hand as if scolding the audience, while clutching a book of scripture in his left. Among the rapt or fearful listeners are people busily throwing books into a fire. " Okay, but in the USA, over the last 60 years we've seen an astoni…

> 2. a parent spanks their child because their child misbehaved, and the parent is then investigated by the authorities They should be investigated if their parenting is so poor that they resort to physical violence against the child. It's absurd to suggest that hitting children is acceptable - as absurd as saying a boss can slap an employee, or that a husband can slap his spouse. You can be an authoritative parent w…

If you lead a child by the arm against their will, is this tantamount to physical violence or no?

If we're busy redefining what is the acceptable behavior in parenting, we better discuss this all the way to the limits.

Re: The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

#25

Post by weberc2 »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #14
cossray wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't get this. When did spanking your child amount to 'physical violence'? We became too liberal with even the basics.

How is hitting a child not physical violence? What definition of violence are you using which doesn't include hitting children?

A definition of violence that doesn't distinguish between a completely non-injurious form of discipline and an abusive, injurious form is not very useful and its proponents are willfully obtuse.

Re: The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

#26

Post by dymk »

war1025 wrote: post #23
cameronh90 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People may confuse believing in the scientific method for believing in the current scientific consensus, which as you point out is fluid. However, for the average person, a dogmatic belief in the scientific method would be a huge step up over religion.

That wouldn't be a step up over religion, that would just be religion.

Religion and science derive understanding about the world in fundamentaly different and incompatible ways. To call it religion is just incorrect.

Re: The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

#27

Post by lmm »

war1025 wrote: post #19
AndrewDucker wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is hitting a child not physical violence? What definition of violence are you using which doesn't include hitting children?

There is a huge difference between swatting someone to get their attention and hitting someone with enough force to cause injury.

If it's meant as a punishment it's not "to get their attention"; it's done to inflict pain. Again, it wouldn't be acceptable with an adult; just apply the same standard.

Re: The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

#28

Post by unknownkadath »

zazen wrote: post #13
unknownkadath wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that the problem here is that people aren't doing what they're told by authorities? Because I can confidently say that this is not an accurate reading of the fine article. Or, you know, reality.

I think it's valuable to ask some questions about the costs and unforseen second-order effects of throwing out all our traditional ideas of respect and status. It's pretty reductive to characterise this as saying people should "do what they're told". I can confidently say that's not an accurate reading of GP's comment.

You can call it a fourth-order bundle of holomorphic consequences if you like. The difference is fine enough to slice a silk scarf in two.

Re: The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

#29

Post by sremani »

war1025 wrote: post #23
cameronh90 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People may confuse believing in the scientific method for believing in the current scientific consensus, which as you point out is fluid. However, for the average person, a dogmatic belief in the scientific method would be a huge step up over religion.

That wouldn't be a step up over religion, that would just be religion.

There is a word for it, "Scientism"

Re: The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

#30

Post by x220 »

charliesharding wrote: post #5

The way in which public considers science today is much more analogous to the way the public considered religion during the time of Galileo. Think of the way people are castigated for not believing in scientific "truths". I see signs in peoples yard saying that "in this house, we believe science is real". As someone who has studied biochemistry for years, this kind of reverence for science is truly troubling. The one…

>The way in which public considers science today is much more analogous to the way the public considered religion during the time of Galileo.

I wish. In the US a huge number of people (large enough to be dangerous) reject climate change consensus, think that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, are "skeptical" about vaccinating their children (I use quotes because skepticism implies reasonableness), think that the earth is 6000 years old, or think that abstinence-only sex education is effective. Blind adherence to current scientific consensus (whatever that may be) would be better than the hot mess is going on in the US right now. Not enough people in the US actually believe in scientific consensus in general for this to be a significant problem yet.

Post reply on HN