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

311–320 of 402 posts

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

#311

Post by jancsika »

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 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.

At least in the South, that sign would be in opposition to "teaching the controversy" of Creation vs. Evolution in high schools.

Would it be "reverent" to fight to keep non-scientific and indeed proven bad faith attempts at undermining science out of the science classroom?

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

#312

Post by Cogito »

yters wrote: post #206
roenxi wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Religion has proven capable of welding large communities together, and that sort of shared belief system wins wars. If you ignore the fact that the doctrine i…

Then there is the fact that science was created by religious societies, Christianity in particular. Many of the fundamental discoveries came about due to religious motivations and religious principles: the world is orderly and understandable because it was created by a transcendent mind. Take away religion and we would not have science.

This argument falls flat because it doesn't show a requirement that the first proceeds the second, and additionally it assumes that "the end justifies the means".

It may be true that our current scientific culture arose from religion, but it's easy to imagine it arising separately. There are even countless stories of times when scientific progress was hindered by religious thinking, situations where people tried to fit their ideas to some religious story and in doing so blocked their progress towards truth.

In addition to that, even if religion was a necessary prerequisite for modern science and we take that science is 'good', that does not mean religion is good. "The USA came about (in part) due to the use of slaves, take away slavery and we wouldn't have the USA" is not a good argument for slavery.

A side note, but the world is not really orderly, though maybe it is understandable. If anything, the world is filled with death, pain, and chaos; if any mind created it, it's a sadistic one.

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

#313

Post by dwaltrip »

tannerbrockwell wrote: post #297
asabjorn wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument that science is a social construct is easily disproven by the device you are typing this on, which is build upon science. However, the claim that some science is more believable than other science is obviously correct. Science is a network of knowledge [1] where central nodes can be assumed to be more likely an accurate representation of something predictive. The literature critical theory claim that it…

When you point to point to your computer, you are confusing a 'Technology' with Science. They are different. As for first principles, starting with Francis Bacon's Baconian method is the investigative method that would benefit here: [1] "Bacon suggests that you draw up a list of all things in which the phenomenon you are trying to explain occurs, as well as a list of things in which it does not occur. Then you rank y…

Technology and science are recursively interdependent. They are very much not simply "different" things.

Due to this layered interdependence, the computer is in fact a shining example of scientific achievement just as much as it is one of technological advancement.

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

#314

Post by rumcajz »

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 don't understand medicine much. I would prefer to believe my doctor. However, if my doctor suggests using homeopathics I will start questioning any other advice they might give me.

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

#315

Post by icelancer »

Barrin92 wrote: post #147
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…

>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…

> trust in scientific authority

The very nature of science means that there should be no such thing as "scientific authority."

(I say this as a person with published papers.)

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

#316

Post by icelancer »

dwaltrip wrote: post #313
tannerbrockwell wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you point to point to your computer, you are confusing a 'Technology' with Science. They are different. As for first principles, starting with Francis Bacon's Baconian method is the investigative method that would benefit here: [1] "Bacon suggests that you draw up a list of all things in which the phenomenon you are trying to explain occurs, as well as a list of things in which it does not occur. Then you rank y…

Technology and science are recursively interdependent. They are very much not simply "different" things. Due to this layered interdependence, the computer is in fact a shining example of scientific achievement just as much as it is one of technological advancement.

Science is a method. It is very different than Technology.

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

#317

Post by icelancer »

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.

> a dogmatic belief in the scientific method

This would be fine. But this is not what people mean when they say "science is real." They mean: "Believe what scientists say," and the definition of a scientist is... a person with a post-graduate degree that is popular on Facebook, probably, like Neil deGrasse Tyson.

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

#318

Post by icelancer »

opportune wrote: post #154
metalchianti wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Believing in science seems to imply "dogmatism for the 4 or 5 highly politicized scientific talking points in the mainstream narrative."

I don't see that as a bad thing. With religion, upwards of 90% of people don't really know shit about actual theology or anything of that nature (i.e. the reasoning behind beliefs). They just know some basic beliefs about their sect because their pastor told them so and their parents probably believing the same thing. Similarly, wre can't really expect everyone to know or care why evolution/heliocentrism is a settled…

> trust the scientific process

This would be fine (mostly). But this isn't what they mean. They believe scientists. Not the methods. This defeats the entire purpose of science.

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

#319

Post by icelancer »

Camillo wrote: post #222
alan-crowe wrote: post #141

The article is dated 18 March 2019, but it asks "So: what went wrong?" and then mentions neither p-hacking nor the replication crisis in psychology. Perhaps the author has a rebuttal to those who think that questionable research practices have brought about the fall of scientific authority, but he doesn't give it here. Some of the problems lie closer to home than the content of scientific journals. Henry Gee is a sen…

It is not acceptable to publish an article on the crisis of scientific authority in 2019 and not mention the replication crisis (which is not limited to psychology). Robert P. Crease is no Galileo, he's just a preacher for a different sort of religion. And Nature's reputation deserves to take a hit as long as it continues to keep its head in the sand like this.

Agreed. And not only is it not limited to psychology, but it spreads to areas of grave concern, like cancer research.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/plan-replicate-50-hi...

https://elifesciences.org/collections/9b1e83d1/reproducibili...

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

#320

Post by esyir »

XorNot wrote: post #280
umvi wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I suspect he's referring to Gender Dysphoria, which was previously known as Gender Identity Disorder. This, if I recall correctly, happened in the transition to DSM 5.0.
Post reply on HN