Live data from Hacker News

How trust undermines science

worksinprogress.co

51–60 of 120 posts

Re: How trust undermines science

#51
Part of the problem is how people learn what science is. Science, despite the name, is really all about doubt. Unfortunately in school it’s taught as certainty.

In school you do “experiments” and if the answer doesn’t match what is in the book you are marked down. Often you have to memorize a bunch of assertions or even simply names, without any epistemic context.

Then in the real world you discover that scientists contradict each other or even themselves. They don’t say things straight out but are always hedging (“high probability”) or even admitting they don’t know!

Re: How trust undermines science

#52
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We should even respect flat earthers No those people need mental healthcare. They have a very debilitating dysfunction, an inability to see reality.

Quoted post unavailable.

> What percentage of people can prove from first principles that the earth is a sphere

There are photographs of Earth from space.

Re: How trust undermines science

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We should even respect flat earthers No those people need mental healthcare. They have a very debilitating dysfunction, an inability to see reality.

People believing in a flat earth has no impact on you and how you live your life. Focus not on what you think they need, but on your own needs.

I find it hard to believe most flat earthers are perfectly normal people living well balanced lives, when you believe that literally every government, institution, physicist, airplane pilot, airline, map maker, etc etc is all on some big great conspiracy that the globe is roughly spherical.

Re: How trust undermines science

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those people are obviously less smart and educated than any rational man who seriously pondered whether the Earth's flat and could be bothered to do a couple of simple experiments. But at the same time they're step ahead of majority of the population that just believed what they were told as kids and never, once in their life, expressed any doubt in it, or thought about how it was proven, or how they would be able to…

Strongly disagree. Rational people do not feel the need to prove every fact independently for themselves. Instead, they develop a rational system of qualified trust. You don't blindly trust expert consensus, but you do weigh likelihood based on the source. Flat Earthers would be better off if they simply accepted the consensus rather than being mislead into believing they're coming to their own conclusions based on e…

But most people aren't rational and don't prove any fact independently for themselves, or have the capability to do so. They believe in what they're told. They were told god and heaven are real so they believe it. Their scientific beliefs are similarly founded.

Re: How trust undermines science

#55
Group dynamics in humans lead them to think and act in a cohesive way. The cohesion of the group depends on trusting a set of beliefs.

Science is supposed to re-test assumptions and resist trust indefinitely. But questioning a group's assumptions is antithetical to group cohesion.

So we fudge the results. We say something is scientific fact if it's been replicated a bunch of times and has the same outcome. But we don't mention that the replication is subject to the group dynamics, ensuring it conforms to the group's assumptions.

Since human groups require trust, and all scientific results must be distrusted to function correctly, humans cannot practice science correctly. We need a new science that works with group dynamics, or we need something other than groups of humans to practice science.

Re: How trust undermines science

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting thought exercise to take some belief and ask yourself how you know, and asking until you get to some first principles or axioms or articles of faith. Part of that exercise could include coming up with plausible alternate explanations for what you perceive. Flat earth is just a ridiculous version of such a thought experiment. It's a good exercise to make sure your understanding of the world around…

Faith and trust are subtly different things, and trust is both a skill and talent. When a poker player makes bets, one of the things they do is ask how much they trust a reading of the situation, and often times that's the best they've got. A poker player also does not rely on axioms because almost all propositions they could come up with would have no answer. For most people, life is more like poker than math.

That's not really how high level poker is played -- it actually is all about the math. That's why top poker players are ALSO top players online where you can't see the other players.

Re: How trust undermines science

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strongly disagree. Rational people do not feel the need to prove every fact independently for themselves. Instead, they develop a rational system of qualified trust. You don't blindly trust expert consensus, but you do weigh likelihood based on the source. Flat Earthers would be better off if they simply accepted the consensus rather than being mislead into believing they're coming to their own conclusions based on e…

But most people aren't rational and don't prove any fact independently for themselves, or have the capability to do so. They believe in what they're told. They were told god and heaven are real so they believe it. Their scientific beliefs are similarly founded.

My point is that the solution is not to teach people to come to their own conclusions, but rather to determine how much trust is due to various sources of information.

Re: How trust undermines science

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Faith and trust are subtly different things, and trust is both a skill and talent. When a poker player makes bets, one of the things they do is ask how much they trust a reading of the situation, and often times that's the best they've got. A poker player also does not rely on axioms because almost all propositions they could come up with would have no answer. For most people, life is more like poker than math.

That's not really how high level poker is played -- it actually is all about the math. That's why top poker players are ALSO top players online where you can't see the other players.

No, it's not all about math, and there is a disparity between online play and real life tournament play.

If poker were all math then we'd see far more mastery by poker bots beyond just heads-up play. If the only thing you have in your pocket is math, then you are missing out on advantages.

In online poker players may purchase large databases of player histories. But constructing advantages from player history is ultimately a psychological theory notwithstanding whether math is employed. The reason is because mathematical axioms do not provide insight into how player history should translate into player futures.

Re: How trust undermines science

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People believing in a flat earth has no impact on you and how you live your life. Focus not on what you think they need, but on your own needs.

I find it hard to believe most flat earthers are perfectly normal people living well balanced lives, when you believe that literally every government, institution, physicist, airplane pilot, airline, map maker, etc etc is all on some big great conspiracy that the globe is roughly spherical.

It's free speech, end of story. You hypothesizing that they must not have a balanced life does not supersede their freedom of expression.

Re: How trust undermines science

#60
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We should even respect flat earthers No those people need mental healthcare. They have a very debilitating dysfunction, an inability to see reality.

>debilitating What about believing a bizarre idea is debilitating enough to require mental health intervention?

Holding a belief that cannot be reconciled with reality can be harmless if it can stay isolated, but in practice that doesn't always seem to be the case.

What ends up happening is that these things sooner or later lead to an internal conflict. To fix this, a healthy person realizes that their belief is silly, and over time adjusts to realign more with reality again. This doesn't have to be a conscious process, but it helps to be self aware and open-minded.

In a different group of people, what happens is that they double down. Their belief X conflicts with reality Y, so a new explanation Z is needed. Z also conflicts with reality, so the pile grows. What makes is worse is that the internet created spaces for these people to find each other and provide increasingly absurd extensions to their twisted view of the world.

Someone who starts out thinking the election was rigged may find themselves in a group that claims COVID was part of the election fraud plot, that it will go away when the new president is sworn in. Then it doesn't, so a new explanation is needed: The idea of microchipping/depopulation/etc. solidifies. Someone needs to be blamed and there happens to be a leftover grudge from the elections, and look at them promoting masks and the jab! It's obvious, they're not even hiding it anymore. And on and on it goes. Eventually we arrive at "there are no coincidences" and "symbolism will be their downfall", where Twitter timestamps are somehow proof of a hidden agenda, and words mean whatever the listener wants them to mean.

Post reply on HN