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

91–100 of 120 posts

Re: How trust undermines science

#91

Post by PeterWhittaker »

thethirdone wrote: post #42
PeterWhittaker wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fairly trivial: https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/teachersguide/MeasECAct...

Unfortunately, atmospheric effects make it hard to completely remove doubt. This is definitely evidence that round earth is true, but not conclusive. It also requires you being able to derive those equations which is more than many people would be comfortable with. Especially if you think that "they" are lying to you, this could be a repeatable but cherry-picked piece of evidence that has a requires a more complicate…

The point is that there are many relatively straightforward ways to calculate curvature, from the sunrise/sunset technique to Erastothenes to watching sailing ships dip below the horizon and many more.

The math may be beyond some people but the effects at play cannot be explained by a flat Earth.

Part of the overall thread was along the lines of we should respect flat earthers, they improve rigour. It seems to me that the only sensible responses to that are the counter illustrations of just easily disproved a notion it is.

Far more effort goes into supporting this ridiculousness than did into establishing rough shape and size.

Re: How trust undermines science

#92

Post by dragonsky »

DarylZero wrote: post #54
tempestn wrote: post #39

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.

I think your point is supported by the number of times you hear people talking about having "faith" in science. This idea that science requires faith is something that confuses and annoys me.

The whole point of science is that it (in general) does not require faith as it provides evidence. There are some aspects of science where the presentation of hypothesis verges on faith, many aspects of cosmology where falsifiable experiment are not possible, but that is a very small part of science.

Re: How trust undermines science

#93

Post by jmeister »

aaron695 wrote: post #36

We've just had a far reaching tsunami from the Hunga Tonga eruption and no one will explain why. That is a trust issue. Do they know how volcanos work or not? Can they get that knowledge to the public or not? The mathematics is high school level in many cases to disprove possible causes of the tsunami. The reality is people do know how volcanoes work but the field is so full of charlatans that info can't get out. Thi…

This is interesting. Why is “Volcano Studies” full of charlatans? Is it politicized from implications for climate change?

Re: How trust undermines science

#94

Post by js8 »

Trust is a shortcut. You could verify everything diligently, but it takes time, so you rely on others, hence trust.

Scientists' job is to verify as much as possible (not to take the shortcut). Laymen can take the shortcut and trust the scientists.

If a layman wants not to trust the scientists, which is OK, then they should understand that trust is a BIG timesaver, and they have to put lot of effort into educating themselves about WHY scientists say what they say.

Too often, we see laymen questioning the scientific conclusions without putting up the work needed to educate themselves (at the very least, understanding the theories they disagree with). This has worse outcomes than lack of due diligence among scientists.

(And that's why argument from authority is a fallacy among scientists, but is not wrong to apply among general public, where it is a useful heuristic based on trust.)

Re: How trust undermines science

#95

Post by GolangProject »

thfuran wrote: post #90
GolangProject wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That may well be true, depending on the quality of experts and specialists in your society (and assuming they aren't generally serving vested interests that could skew their views), but, epistemologically, you can't prove it without further appeals to authority. So it's experts all the way down!

Re: How trust undermines science

#96

Post by watwut »

jimsimmons wrote: post #2

We should respect people questioning science as long as they are doing it in good faith and are showing willingness to learn. We should even respect flat earthers and climate change deniers. They improve rigour and identify blindspots.

> We should even respect flat earthers and climate change deniers. They improve rigour and identify blindspots.

They don't. They add lies and manipulations into the mix. They force everyone to either step up their popular convincing political game or just drop out of discussion .

These people don't improve rigor, they kill it.

Re: How trust undermines science

#97

Post by headsoup »

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…

That is the default position in science. An encouragement to never be absolutely certain, because you never know what may turn out to be 'wrong.' Doubt is the wrong word, but 'question everything' is I think a perfect statement for science.

Re: How trust undermines science

#98

Post by t0bia_s »

gumby wrote: post #82
neutronicus wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”

Agree. Saying "I dont know" at school is persecuted. And here we are. Everybody have opinions on everything and it is hard to hear "I don't know." in public space.

Imagine that politicans would say that they don't know anything.

A lot of people think that they know everything, but only few really know something.

Re: How trust undermines science

#99

Post by LaundroMat »

Unrelated, but I saw this same article pass by twice here.

The first time the headline was: "How trust undermines science" and I didn't care for it.

The second time, the headline was "Trust undermines science" and thát made me want to read the article.

There is such a thing as a mental clickbait filter.

Re: How trust undermines science

#100

Post by lonecom »

js8 wrote: post #94

Trust is a shortcut. You could verify everything diligently, but it takes time, so you rely on others, hence trust. Scientists' job is to verify as much as possible (not to take the shortcut). Laymen can take the shortcut and trust the scientists. If a layman wants not to trust the scientists, which is OK, then they should understand that trust is a BIG timesaver, and they have to put lot of effort into educating the…

> they should understand that trust is a BIG timesaver

As well as a BIG risk!

Post reply on HN