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

271–280 of 402 posts

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

#271

Post by mensetmanusman »

effie wrote: post #248
tathougies wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Determinism is an idea of physics based on unchanging God/reality, but science is more general. Science can work without determinism, there are probabilistic / statistical methods, or hypotheses of effective physical laws changing in time. In quantum experiments, things happen at whims of nature and some such experiments do not produce similar results when repeated, but look random.

‘Randomness’ with perfectly defined statistics and distributions is fascinating...

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

#272

Post by mensetmanusman »

justintrtle wrote: post #11
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 usually take statements similar to "in this house, we believe science is real" as conveying the message that the people believe in the scientific method, rational inquiry, evidence-based arguments, etc, rather than a set of specific scientific theories.

They are also usually the hardest to convince that coal plants release more radioactivity than nuclear plants.

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

#273

Post by mensetmanusman »

libraryatnight wrote: post #144
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 think people put signs up like that because there's a culture of anti-fact, anti-science, generally anti-thought growing and becoming more vocal and a sign or bumper sticker might make people feel like they're fighting back. I admire science, I'm aware that part of science is challenging itself and new understanding can unravel previous notion. I don't really know of any science enthusiasts that want to burn the re…

It’s really anti-authoritarianism.

When people have lost faith in every institution, it is hard to trust the govt. to work nicely with massive corporations to inject needles in their children, especially in an environment where half the kids aren’t living in iron lungs.

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

#275

Post by jnord »

jimbokun wrote: post #254
gus_massa wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Remarkable how often the answer to headlines ending in a question mark is "no". Counter examples seem exceedingly rare.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

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

#276

Post by hashmap »

yters wrote: post #157
hashmap wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing book burning, jailing, and being murdered to getting made fun of on internet dot com is just not compelling. The whole "but science is just as bad as religion" argument rings quite hollow.

"Scientific authority" is the source of the genocides of the 20th century, mass sterilization, what we now consider crackpot science, and many social ills. I would say it is actually worse than the religious authority of the past.

Saying "the Nazis had doctors, therefore the lawn signs today are actually worse than religious atrocities of the past" is an equally unconvincing argument.

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

#277

Post by 8bitsrule »

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…

Completely agreed. One analyzable example of this faith in 'the truths' of science can be found in the editing of Wikipedia. In my experience, there's low tolerance or regard for alternative hypotheses in its articles. That approach has long been highly costly for science.

Even Sagan, now and then, recognized the necessity for caution ... and he put it on videotape.

The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system. The history of our study of our solar system shows clear that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources. - Cosmos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MlN7iVIuhk#t=4m09s)

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

#278

Post by chiefalchemist »

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…

> "I believe this is a public perception problem."

I see it differently. The problem isn't the public. The public has actually done a commendable job sensing what's been going on. It's not fair - however unintentional - to tie the public to the problem. It's bad enough Science keep denouncing the public, when it's Science who has mucked up it's own reputation. The pubic is a mirror.

Science, much like journalism, has been drinking too much of its own Kool Aid. It has forgotten it can't just talk, but it needs to walk that talk, as well.

Science would also be wise to show some humility and admit when it's gotten something less than perfect. Yes, that is part of the process. Does Science understand that? Instead, it just sweeps those aside and keeps self-professing it's eternal greatness, and how we should bow our heads, etc.

Bill Nye? Neil deGrasse Tyson? These are the face of Science? Me thinks they got the wrong end. They are doing more harm than good.

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

#279

Post by cat199 »

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…

show me the science that says that religion is against science and intellect.

many of those responsible for science as a discipline throughout the centuries sought to know more of their creator rather than to debunk religion

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

#280

Post by XorNot »

umvi wrote: post #195
WalterBright wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of a planet is not science, it's just an arbitrary rule.

> it's just an arbitrary rule. Same with the definition of mental conditions. Yet people wield the DSM as science and use it to bludgeon people who are not politically in line with their worldview on mental health

What in the heck are you even referring to here? Seems like there's a lot of context missing from this comment.
Post reply on HN