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

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

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 402 posts

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

#161

Post by gus_massa »

balabaster wrote: post #124
charliesharding wrote: post #5

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…

I believe this is a public perception problem. The reason that a troubling number of people no longer believe in science isn't that scientific method is flawed or that people don't believe in scientific method. The bigger concern is the way that scientific studies are mounted, paid for by interested parties that have conflicts of interest to produce results favourable to a desired outcome and then they're presented a…

A very big problem is that press coverage exaggerate the importance of clickbait articles. Two non political / economical cases:

* Is 'Oumuamua an alien spacehip / solar sail?

* Does the Tabby's star have a alien megastructure / partial Dyson sphere?

You can't blame to Monsanto for them.

The article appears, get a huge press coverage, the authors get interviewed, and somewhere the fact that it's only an improbable weird hypothesis is lost.

A few month later the new evidence refute the paper, and people get the idea that scientific discovers are not reliable.

(And there are batteries breakthrough that increase your battery capacity a 80% before disappearing, nutrition recommendation that get reversed after a few years, ... but these are more motivated for money.)

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

#162

Post by [deleted] »

charliesharding wrote: post #5

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…

[deleted]

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

#163

Post by Barrin92 »

yters wrote: post #155
Barrin92 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>in this house, we believe science is real Or maybe those people, even if they don't have much of a grasp on the scientific method, see the material progress and results of scientific work and conclude that they're going to place trust in scientific authority? This is an entirely false equivalence. One can trust scientists even without understanding science, on the fact alone that research produces results that every…

Isn't trusting authority contrary to trusting science? The point of science is that we can verify truths for ourselves without relying on authority. Hence, if any authority, 'scientific' or otherwise, asserts their authority instead of providing individually verifiable evidence of its claims, then we can say they are being unscientific, regardless of title.

I don't think that's the point of science at all to be honest. The point of scientific endeavour is to discover facts about the world. That's a really hard job, and the majority of people are not scientists, and even a trained scientist cannot verify the overwhelming majority of existing science by themselves, which means that science, like any other sufficiently large human collaboration, requires institutions, trust and authority.

The difference between scientific and religious institutions is not that the former functions without authority or trust, it's that the success of the former is measured against observable and replicable results and material progress and not based on infallible spiritual promise.

So if someone understands nothing about science at all, and worships it like a religion, at least they had the good sense of picking a religion that puts food on their table, makes their planes stay in the sky and makes them healthy again when they fall sick.

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

#164

Post by balabaster »

joe_the_user wrote: post #150
balabaster wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is a public perception problem. The reason that a troubling number of people no longer believe in science isn't that scientific method is flawed or that people don't believe in scientific method. The bigger concern is the way that scientific studies are mounted, paid for by interested parties that have conflicts of interest to produce results favourable to a desired outcome and then they're presented a…

I would say that an even larger problem exists. Among the public, science has always had some portion of people who understood it's processes as those of a secular priesthood and those who understood it's processes as discovering the truth through skepticism and experimentation. Even among this working scientists, this division has existed (and given a society that never discarded religion, anti-science along with an…

It's like hearing that science says that fat is bad... and then eggs are bad for you... and alcohol is bad... and then another study says that a glass of wine a day is good for your heart... and salt is bad... then sugar is bad... then carbohydrates are bad... and now fat is good as long as you don't overdo carbohydrates... and eggs have good cholesterol and are really good for you... and salt is necessary to balance hydration... and sugar isn't bad as long as it's balanced with fibre.

When the studies say so many different things, all contradictory and all purporting to be good and then bad and then good again, people give up trying to understand.

Why should I believe that anything I eat today is bad when tomorrow you're just going to tell me that it's good for me again?

People are tired of listening to science that appears to ebb and flow like the tides.

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

#166

Post by tathougies »

cameronh90 wrote: post #16
charliesharding wrote: post #5

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…

People may confuse believing in the scientific method for believing in the current scientific consensus, which as you point out is fluid. However, for the average person, a dogmatic belief in the scientific method would be a huge step up over religion.

> However, for the average person, a dogmatic belief in the scientific method would be a huge step up over religion.

But the scientific method is based on the idea of an unchanging God / reality. Without that fundamental belief, theres no point in determining how physics behaves in an experiment, because if everything happens at the whims of anthropomorphic gods, then there is no reason to expect the same experiment will produce similar results.

Thus, I don't really see the huge step up, especially given the inhumanity science has sometimes promulgated, and for which it frankly gets a free pass.

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

#167

Post by balabaster »

gus_massa wrote: post #161
balabaster wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is a public perception problem. The reason that a troubling number of people no longer believe in science isn't that scientific method is flawed or that people don't believe in scientific method. The bigger concern is the way that scientific studies are mounted, paid for by interested parties that have conflicts of interest to produce results favourable to a desired outcome and then they're presented a…

A very big problem is that press coverage exaggerate the importance of clickbait articles. Two non political / economical cases: * Is 'Oumuamua an alien spacehip / solar sail? * Does the Tabby's star have a alien megastructure / partial Dyson sphere? You can't blame to Monsanto for them. The article appears, get a huge press coverage, the authors get interviewed, and somewhere the fact that it's only an improbable we…

Sorry, I wasn't trying to make that a political statement about Monsanto. They're just an easy name to pluck out of the air because they have a few known controversial studies to make a point. It wasn't supposed to suggest that Monsanto was evil or that the science wasn't legit. All I'm saying is that if ACME Co. funds a study that suggests ACME Co. are good, then the test results look pretty sketchy.

> A few month later the new evidence refute the paper, and people get the idea that scientific discovers are not reliable.

And do this a few dozen times and people stop listening to science because they know a couple of months from now, this study is going to be refuted.

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

#168

Post by MockObject »

yters wrote: post #155
Barrin92 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>in this house, we believe science is real Or maybe those people, even if they don't have much of a grasp on the scientific method, see the material progress and results of scientific work and conclude that they're going to place trust in scientific authority? This is an entirely false equivalence. One can trust scientists even without understanding science, on the fact alone that research produces results that every…

Isn't trusting authority contrary to trusting science? The point of science is that we can verify truths for ourselves without relying on authority. Hence, if any authority, 'scientific' or otherwise, asserts their authority instead of providing individually verifiable evidence of its claims, then we can say they are being unscientific, regardless of title.

> Hence, if any authority, 'scientific' or otherwise, asserts their authority instead of providing individually verifiable evidence of its claims, then we can say they are being unscientific, regardless of title.

Indeed, the motto of the Royal Society is "Take nobody's word for it".

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

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

#169

Post by benj111 »

pfortuny wrote: post #125
stdbrouw wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Raising your children, talking to strangers, charity, you name it.

Do you mean you shouldn't raise your kids based on science? You shouldn't experiment to see what works with your child, or you just shouldn't do experiments on your child?

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

#170

Post by cobbzilla »

justtopost wrote: post #149
igor47 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a fan of NVC(non-violent communication) and that framework could be summarized by the sentence, "when you do X,I feel Y". You basically become an instrument that reports on your internal state, plus you're also supposed to avoid assuming anything about the other person's internal state. This is a lot more like science then the usual default of blaming and assumptions and implicit expectations that most people con…

I find that type of communication childing and dehumanizing. To each their own.

Kinda ironic that your comment is a good example of this style, in describing your feelings using an “I” statement without attacking the speaker.
Post reply on HN