The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by jvreagan » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

x220 wrote: post #30

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 t…

> In the US a huge number of people (large enough to be dangerous) reject climate change consensus

You just proved the parent's point...

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

#32

Post by x220 » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

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.

You seem to think that "religion" means "blind adherence to something", which is really, really narrow. Is COBOL a religion?

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

#33

Post by JamesBarney » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 3:43 PM UTC

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…

I don't think a belief in religious authority is necessary for a belief in scientific authority. The scientific community is especially atheist. And I don't think a belief in religious authority is especially likely to cause one to believe in scientific authority.

A lot of times one can actually undermine the other because they have two conflicting views of the world.

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

#34

Post by Nasrudith » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 3:45 PM UTC

Really science shouldn't operate on authority in the first place ideally - it should speak for itself. In practice however there are limits to both time and ability to understand. It should be listened to for being more right as opposed to position.

The most disturbing part isn't not trusting scientist but not trusting evidence, even that gathered by themselves.

It is one thing to say believe light has infinite speed but after playing around with a laser and a receiver noticing the reflection time varies. It is another to insist it has it even after doing research and experimentation.

I suspect Sophism is the main culprit really - arguing based on feelings as opposed to facts. Now feelings have their place but their role is to guide goals. Not wanting to take another part time job on top of a full time one for more money is fair. Denying that taking an extra job would boost total income is delusionals (the sustainability of doing so is another topic).

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

#35

Post by x220 » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 3:46 PM UTC

cossray wrote: post #9

savingthrow wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

If you can hit your kid, why can't I also hit my dog?

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

#36

Post by war1025 » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 3:46 PM UTC

x220 wrote: post #32

war1025 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You seem to think that "religion" means "blind adherence to something ", which is really, really narrow. Is COBOL a religion?

"dogmatic belief in the scientific method" is as much a religion as anything else. Particularly when you are talking about it as a precept for the general public.

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

#37

Post by Erlich_Bachman » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 3:47 PM UTC

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.

A dogmatic belief in anything is detrimental. It takes wisdom to understand this. Many followers of science lack this. Scientific method is a great tool - for the type of questions that it is designed to deal with - and a disaster waiting to happen if used for other areas of inquiry.

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

#38

Post by Emma_Goldman » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 3:47 PM UTC

There are two dangers. One is the rejection of the power of science and the understanding it gives us of various kinds of natural phenomena. The other the over-extension of science into areas outside of its domain, the belief that science itself can single-handedly guide politics, history, and the self.

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

#39

Post by x220 » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 3:48 PM UTC

jvreagan wrote: post #31

x220 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 t…

> In the US a huge number of people (large enough to be dangerous) reject climate change consensus You just proved the parent's point...

How so?

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

#40

Post by war1025 » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 3:50 PM UTC

dymk wrote: post #26

war1025 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Science is just systematic problem solving. It is a very unremarkable thing. When people build it up to something more than that, then it takes on aspects of religion.

A scientist doing science isn't religion. A non-scientist believing everything someone says "because science" is.