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

81–90 of 120 posts

Re: How trust undermines science

#81

Post by iszomer »

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.

It matches mine: A general chemistry lab where we were tasked to grow crystals and attempt to write formal reports of our scientific experiences. If experiences didn't match with current expected outcomes, we still recorded our observational data and tried hypothesizing on conditions of reason for divergent results.

Re: How trust undermines science

#82

Post by gumby »

neutronicus wrote: post #74
MathMonkeyMan wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It might behoove you to think of these as exercises in "measurement" rather than "experiment"

The point is that’s now how it is framed by the school. So people grow up thinking there’s an absolute, precise, and “correct” answer and anything else is “wrong”

Re: How trust undermines science

#83

Post by tpoacher »

azinman2 wrote: post #53
VoodooJuJu wrote: post #38

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.

I wish I could believe your assumption that there are no flat earther politicians, educators, physicists, pilots or mapmakers, but somehow that's being too hopeful.

Re: How trust undermines science

#84

Post by gumby »

SantalBlush wrote: post #71
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…

>Science, despite the name, is really all about doubt. This is a popular misconception on HN, and it's why so many here think they're being scientific by dismissing every journal article on the front page. Doubt plays a crucial role in science, but it's not what science is "really all about." You can doubt every single data point and sensory impression. There is no empirical way to "prove" a single thing if one is de…

Fair enough. Perhaps I should have said “uncertainty”, but I judged it scientific jargon with respect to the people I was talking about.

Re: How trust undermines science

#85

Post by tempestn »

DarylZero wrote: post #75
tempestn wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well people aren't doing that either. Expert opinion is a type of evidence. You still have to be investigating and questioning to apply reasoning to that evidence that can lead to a rational conclusion.

No disagreement there.

Re: How trust undermines science

#86

Post by mhh__ »

0x7E3 wrote: post #37
mhh__ wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These days all you need is someone with a phone and a stick in another country to perform Erastosthenes's experiment, right?

Doesn't Erastosthenes's experiment merely allow you to calculate the size of the earth if you already accept that it is spherical? As I understand the experiment it does not (nor was it meant to) prove that the earth is a sphere.

Can flat earth explain the phenomenon in a parsimonious way?

Re: How trust undermines science

#87

Post by nitwit005 »

hammock wrote: post #73
nitwit005 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the flat earthers, and the more conspiratorial portion of the climate deniers, is it's not clear even the people making the claims believe it. They don't seem to mind ideas that contradict theirs, so long as the central belief that there is some sort of vast conspiracy is upheld. You can't really engage with people who aren't all that interested in what's actually true.

Assuming your premise is true, is a strongly held belief a prerequisite to conduct a scientific inquiry? Or couldn't it just be any hypothesis, however crazy? It seems to me you are imposing a constraint that doesn't need to be there, and parent is arguing it doesn't deserve to be there, either.

The assertion I was responding to was not about the general possibility of using science to test these ideas.

Re: How trust undermines science

#88

Post by TameAntelope »

tpoacher wrote: post #80
TameAntelope wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is closer to the truth. I'm struggling to find it, but an article I read and found enlightening explained how there was seemingly a uniform struggle with education in every story the author was told by the people she talked to at a flat earther's convention. They all had some profoundly negative encounter with the education establishment, and usually as a result of a learning disability that they had. It…

In which case, all the better a reason to engage in good faith discussion, so as to identify those academic failings that create such movements and help address them decisively and appropriately

The root cause is mental illness, academic trauma is a symptom.

Re: How trust undermines science

#89

Post by kodah »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #78
kodah wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if your primary conclusion or concern is "human psychology is hard to study scientifically" (ie with exactness and ready replicability) then I'm going to be all "Well, duh!" The way that I read the "inexact sciences" critique is one that takes aim at the certainty of their rhetoric. An uncertain and "hard to study" science should use words that reflect that rather than an inappropriate level of determinism which se…

There are more ways to come up with firmer conclusions. They do exist. They just have something of a tendency to not fall under the love that so many seem to have of treating people like lab rats. Someone found that when men decide a female celebrity is hot, they google up nude photos. When women decide a male celebrity is hot, their first search is to determine "Is he currently married?" So when someone wants to dea…

Well stated, good to see you again!

Re: How trust undermines science

#90

Post by thfuran »

GolangProject wrote: post #40
dools wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There are clear cases where "true authorities", however defined, have been wrong about all kinds of subjects, so the fallacy still applies. If you can only justify a belief by appealing to the assumed superior knowledge of experts and specialists, you cannot justify that belief as strongly as someone who can argue from first principles or a clear chain of evidence. The appeal to authority is not necessarily fallaciou…

If you can only justify a belief by appealing to the assumed superior knowledge of experts and specialists because you lack such expertise yourself, you're probably going to be wrong a lot less often when you appeal to authority than when you decide to disagree with them simply because experts are fallible.
Post reply on HN