The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by Frondo » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 3:50 PM UTC

cossray wrote: post #9

savingthrow wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2. a parent spanks their child because their child misbehaved, and the parent is then investigated by the authorities They should be investigated if their parenting is so poor that they resort to physical violence against the child. It's absurd to suggest that hitting children is acceptable - as absurd as saying a boss can slap an employee, or that a husband can slap his spouse. You can be an authoritative parent w…

I honestly don't get this. When did spanking your child amount to 'physical violence'? We became too liberal with even the basics.

Spanking a child is absolutely violence. It's just been a socially acceptable form of violence for millennia, just like some killing (either in wars or e.g. with a death penalty) has been socially acceptable for as long.

The question isn't, "is spanking violence?"

It's "are norms changing around whether spanking is socially acceptable?"

And now, for a lot of people, no, it isn't. Hitting a child to punish them is no longer "the basics" for a lot of people, even if it's how a lot of the older generation grew up and took for granted.

I have no kids, but most of my peers do now, and spanking is sooooo much off the table, it's on par with overt racism (saying the n-word, saying discrimination is okay, etc). Absolute social taboo, and absolutely no question that it's "physical violence".

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

#42

Post by dnautics » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 3:50 PM UTC

dymk wrote: post #26

war1025 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wouldn't be a step up over religion, that would just be religion.

Religion and science derive understanding about the world in fundamentaly different and incompatible ways. To call it religion is just incorrect.

As a scientist here's my take: 1) in the ultimate abstraction, science is a religion. It depends on the precept that the rules are more or less or measurably the same from today to yesterday to tomorrow. You can't bootstrap empiricism without begging the question, so, there is at least one item of faith at the core.

2) excepting this, science in the ideal is indeed a wholly different beast. So you could say it is this the weakest form of religion, or, at least, the religion with the fewest dependencies.

3) in practice, the edifice of science is quite full of people who are hypocritical and flagrantly breaking the rules which you expect would be necessary to maintain the high standard that marks the difference between religion and science. These violations are often swept under the rug quietly and even when they get really big the organization is incredibly good at closing its ranks. I'd say there are a lot of parallels between the science industrial complex and, highly organized religions (such as megachurches and hierarchical institutions like the Southern Baptist or Catholic Church) than most people who see science as a source of power ought to be comfortable with.

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

#43

Post by JamesBarney » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 3:50 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #27

war1025 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a huge difference between swatting someone to get their attention and hitting someone with enough force to cause injury.

If it's meant as a punishment it's not "to get their attention"; it's done to inflict pain. Again, it wouldn't be acceptable with an adult; just apply the same standard.

I don't think how to deal with an adult is a good guide for what's an acceptable way to deal with children. For instance if someone were to put their wife in timeout or take away her allowance that would make them an abusive a-hole, but these are perfectly acceptable punishments for a child. Likewise leaving one's wife is an acceptable option for an adult but not for a child.

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

#44

Post by metalchianti » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 3:51 PM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #21

justintrtle wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In my experience, the people who proclaim this are generally not talking about the scientific method, but about specific theories. Generally evolution and climate change (and the safety of vaccination is becoming an issue as well). It's amazing for example how many of these people will turn around and believe hormone-replacement therapy creates a level playing field in sports between trans-women and cis-women.

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

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

#45

Post by gus_massa » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 3:51 PM UTC

x220 wrote: post #30

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…

>The way in which public considers science today is much more analogous to the way the public considered religion during the time of Galileo. I wish. In the US a huge number of people (large enough to be dangerous) reject climate change consensus, think that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, are "skeptical" about vaccinating their children (I use quotes because skepticism implies reasonableness), think that t…

> or think that abstinence-only sex education is effective.

How did we prove that it doesn't work? I agree that it doesn't work, but I have a very hard time imagining how to make a study to prove it.

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

#46

Post by devoply » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 3:51 PM UTC

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #37

cameronh90 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 anything is detrimental. It takes wisdom to understand this. Many followers of science lack this. 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.

Except wisdom in large complex systems is impossible. Like for instance take any piece of technology you are going to introduce into the system. How can anyone be wise about how that technology will effect the system before hand? After the fact how can you get rid of the technology when millions or people depend on it for their existence?

The same is true of pure knowledge. You introduce a new paradigm. You don't know how it will effect all the other knowledge that depends on it. Once it's adopted careers of many scientists depend on it... it's only after those scientists die and a new paradigm is found that the next generation can build its career on that old knowledge dies.

None of this is due to wisdom. It's just the way the political economy works. Wisdom only applies to individual action about things that have a small enough scope to have some idea about their impact on decisions. For anything bigger than that, it's political... and I highly doubt the crowds have wisdom especially about untested things.

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

#47

Post by amibang » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 3:51 PM UTC

x220 wrote: post #30

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…

>The way in which public considers science today is much more analogous to the way the public considered religion during the time of Galileo. I wish. In the US a huge number of people (large enough to be dangerous) reject climate change consensus, think that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, are "skeptical" about vaccinating their children (I use quotes because skepticism implies reasonableness), think that t…

How is the common man supposed to know that there isn't anything strange in the vaccine? Governments have forcibly sterilised segments of their population before.

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

#48

Post by unknownkadath » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 3:52 PM UTC

AndrewDucker wrote: post #14

cossray wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't get this. When did spanking your child amount to 'physical violence'? We became too liberal with even the basics.

How is hitting a child not physical violence? What definition of violence are you using which doesn't include hitting children?

You don't get it. If we hit our children more, we can solve global warming. See?

Also, this is why you should be a patriot and subscribe to Science rather than Nature.

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

#49

Post by __MatrixMan__ » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 3:52 PM UTC

I agree with the author that the public perception of science today is in a sorry state, but I don't think that a heightened reverence for authority (of any sort) is the way out.

We design our scientific curriculum based on the philosophy of Popper, who was all about the scientific method. We teach that there are rules which lead to progress. There are counterpoints to Popper that don't appear in the modern curriculum.

There was Lakatos, who said that scientific "progress" was more about regime change, and Feyerabend who thought that science was a fundamentally anarchic activity.

If there were a little more Feyerabend in our curriculum, and a little less Popper, I think we'd be in a much better state. It's a scary step to take--to admit that all facts are alternative facts--but once you take it you find you're faced with the same old problem, just without the authority: which facts to use? Well, that depends on theories are available for the combination and utilization of these facts, and as it turns out, the theories that the "authorities" champion happen to still be the better ones.

But we don't teach people to evaluate competing theories, we teach them to settle down and apply the right theories, because we have the authority to do so. It is that very attachment to authority that is undermining our ability to educate people about science.

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

#50

Post by phd514 » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 3:52 PM UTC

dymk wrote: post #26

war1025 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wouldn't be a step up over religion, that would just be religion.

Religion and science derive understanding about the world in fundamentaly different and incompatible ways. To call it religion is just incorrect.

Thomas Kuhn would disagree.