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

How trust undermines science

worksinprogress.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 120 posts

Re: How trust undermines science

#61

Post by krapp »

daenz wrote: post #59
azinman2 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

azinman2's belief that flat earthers' lives are unbalanced is also freedom of speech, and flat earthers' beliefs do not supersede the freedom of expression of their critics, either. End of story.

Re: How trust undermines science

#62

Post by karaterobot »

One of the things she talks about is the problem of scientists trusting other scientists. I wonder whether trust is the right way to put it, or if a lot of the time it's that they're afraid to speak out against colleagues for fear of reprisal. So many of these domains are small enough that everybody knows everybody else, and bad blood can poison people's careers.

Re: How trust undermines science

#63

Post by version_five »

dools wrote: post #24
NikolaeVarius wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually love flat earthers BECAUSE it forces me to actually think about how "I Know" the world is round. I bet a majority of people who are anti-flat earthers could not actually "prove" the earth is round without immediately appealing to authority. I've talked to flat earthers, (both probably real and some probably trolling), and it can be a fun intellectual exercise to debate.

You are allowed to appeal to authority. The "Argument from Authority" fallacy only applies when you appeal to a false authority, such as listening to your yoga instructor's opinions on vaccination. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I don't think you or the replies to your comment are addressing the parent point. It's not a game where something is "allowed" or not. They are saying that they suspect most people would not be able to themselves demonstrate that the earth is round, and that their argumentation would end up relying on faith. Whether such reliance is "allowed" is irrelevant

(This made me think of a kind of inverse example that came up recently: I had made a point in an online discussion and offered an argument for it in my comment. Someone replied and said they looked up what I was talking about and didn't see anything about what I'd mentioned, and so didn't accept it. The disagreement was not about the merits of the argument, but that they couldn't find that argument anywhere, and so apparently instead of considering it, they just rejected it as invalid. I've seen more variations of that recently, the whole "citation needed" thing, where people think that an "authority" is automatically necessary vs just thinking about what they were told and deciding if it does or doesn't make sense)

Re: How trust undermines science

#64

Post by daenz »

krapp wrote: post #61
daenz wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

azinman2's belief that flat earthers' lives are unbalanced is also freedom of speech, and flat earthers' beliefs do not supersede the freedom of expression of their critics, either. End of story.

No post body was provided.

Re: How trust undermines science

#65

Post by buttercraft »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #20
version_five wrote: post #10

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…

I actually love flat earthers BECAUSE it forces me to actually think about how "I Know" the world is round. I bet a majority of people who are anti-flat earthers could not actually "prove" the earth is round without immediately appealing to authority. I've talked to flat earthers, (both probably real and some probably trolling), and it can be a fun intellectual exercise to debate.

I get what you're saying, but do you really need to "prove" it in this case?

I mean, assume that the Earth is flat, and then think through the consequences. It requires a long-running, global conspiracy at all levels of society. And all to hide the fact from... whom?

Edit to clarify: even if you can't "prove" it directly, you can probably show that it would have effects you do not observe.

Re: How trust undermines science

#66

Post by daenz »

MildlySerious wrote: post #60
daenz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

No post body was provided.

Re: How trust undermines science

#67

Post by SturgeonsLaw »

guerrilla wrote: post #28
tarboreus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying you should only respect literate people. I say all people are fundamentally worthy of respect.

Why? Why shouldn't respect be earned?

In my opinion respect should be granted by default, and rescinded if the person has earned that

Re: How trust undermines science

#69

Post by krapp »

gumby wrote: post #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 c…

>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.

I don't know what school you went to, but this doesn't match my experience.

Re: How trust undermines science

#70

Post by MathMonkeyMan »

krapp wrote: post #69
gumby wrote: post #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 c…

>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. I don't know what school you went to, but this doesn't match my experience.

There's the desire to teach the scientific method, and also the desire to convey the established literature in preparation for the (standardized) exams.

So, you design "labs" where the students "experiment."

This is my experience at a high school in Florida.

Post reply on HN