Live data from Hacker News

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

nature.com

91–100 of 402 posts

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

#91
post #26
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.

> Religion and science derive understanding about the world in fundamentaly different and incompatible ways.

They are not incompatible, as the pope John Paul II states: Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.

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

#92

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…

When you're debating with someone about how the Higgs Field does or doesn't imply the existence of fundamental particles, or how neutrinos do or don't move faster than light, then yes, appeal to scientific authority is "troubling" as you mention.

But when we are talking about vaccines, flat earthers, etc, then how can you possibly justify that it's bad for

>people are castigated for not believing in scientific "truths".

?

Perhaps flat earthers is a silly but harmless phenomenon, but there is real pain and suffering from other kinds of science denial such as the antivaxxers.

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

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Have you actually read the article? "Some philosophers and scientists have argued that there is no scientific method; they include physicist Lee Smolin and philosopher Paul Feyerabend (in his Against Method)" And even the previous paragraphs are not complete either. It says there: "Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable" Which is not necessari…

> Which is not necessarily true - for example, many arguments against the theory of evolution question whether it is a falsifiable theory

The “theory of evolution” is a large composite explanatory story wrapped around a large number of testable (mostly thoroughly tested) hypotheses. It's falsifiable by falsifying any of the components, though the replacement is liable to look remarkably similar but for who the falsified piece is addressed, and still likely to be called the “theory of evolution” even though the content is different.

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

#94
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As a scientist here's my take: 1) in the ultimate abstraction, science is a religion. It depends on the precept that the rules are more or less or measurably the same from today to yesterday to tomorrow. You can't bootstrap empiricism without begging the question, so, there is at least one item of faith at the core. 2) excepting this, science in the ideal is indeed a wholly different beast. So you could say it is thi…

Yup, academia is outrageously political.

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

#95
Adding to the comments of science politicisation, I also believe that the "popularisation" of science has taken a significant blow to its public perception.

Take all "I f-g love science"-like websites that portray research as people spending public money on if chocolate makes you better at sex.

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

#96
post #9

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.

I think it stems from the fact that fewer and fewer people are having children at all, and this opinion often comes from people who don't have children, don't understand children, or who have children who walk all over them.

Children are not rational creatures, or at least not always, once you get to a certain age. There are only so many ways to deal with them, and in my opinion, as the father of 4 adult children, spanking or similar correction may be called for in a situation where the child has put himself or someone else into danger.

Because there's one thing people who aren't around children don't understand and that's how many times the average child escapes serious injury or even death. I've seen many situations where no one is being negligent, but which serious, even fatal injuries could easily have happened. You might have the most "enlightened" attitude towards discipline in the world, but that can all change when your child rushes out into traffic or does something else equally dangerous.

Of course, in response to the inescapable dangers of life, we are more and more seeing parents who simply don't allow their kids to be exposed to any source of potential danger, and they grow up to be completely helpless and start voting socialist.

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

#97
post #27
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If we could treat children the way we treat adults, they wouldn't be children, they'd be adults.

This is the kind of willful obtuseness the poster upthread is talking about.

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

#98
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think how to deal with an adult is a good guide for what's an acceptable way to deal with children. For instance if someone were to put their wife in timeout or take away her allowance that would make them an abusive a-hole, but these are perfectly acceptable punishments for a child. Likewise leaving one's wife is an acceptable option for an adult but not for a child.

I would put my child in time-out if he left his wife.

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

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. What other areas of inquiry would that be?

Interpersonal relationships?

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

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you actually read the article? "Some philosophers and scientists have argued that there is no scientific method; they include physicist Lee Smolin and philosopher Paul Feyerabend (in his Against Method)" And even the previous paragraphs are not complete either. It says there: "Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable" Which is not necessari…

> Which is not necessarily true - for example, many arguments against the theory of evolution question whether it is a falsifiable theory The “theory of evolution” is a large composite explanatory story wrapped around a large number of testable (mostly thoroughly tested) hypotheses. It's falsifiable by falsifying any of the components, though the replacement is liable to look remarkably similar but for who the falsif…

Of course, any number of subsets of the theory being disproved could falsify the super-set theory. But if there are two super-set theories, and you cannot falsify one over the other, then those collections are not falsifiable.

Some philosophers argue that all the subsets of evolution - genetics, mutations, natural selection could still support permanence of species with local changes. Until you can create an entirely new species in a laboratory without direct gene editing, there cannot be positive proof for evolution - but till that is done, there is no negative test that would disprove that evolution is the consequence of all its component hypotheses.

Personally, I don't see any reason to doubt evolution, considering it is neat and beautiful. But at the same time, I can see that it hasn't been built via the same scientific method seen in physics.

Post reply on HN