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

81–90 of 402 posts

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

#81

Post by Maken »

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.

>Again, it wouldn't be acceptable with an adult; just apply the same standard.

And that's pretty much the key point. You cannot pretend children are adults.

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

#82

Post by Maken »

x220 wrote: post #35
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.

If you can hit your kid, why can't I also hit my dog?

I literally see nothing wrong with hitting a pet if it gets out of control.

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

#83

Post by callmekit »

superqwert wrote: post #74
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.

Which scientific method? Scientific methods differ a lot between the sciences - especially between the physical and special sciences, for example.

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

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

#84

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

> When did spanking your child amount to 'physical violence'?

It's always been physical violence, it just used to be universally accepted physical violence, just like beating (and raping) your wife was. Now it's become less accepted, just as the other two have.

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

#85

Post by matt4077 »

lkrubner wrote: post #2

About this: " Hanging in the Louvre Museum in Paris is an imposing painting, The Preaching of St Paul at Ephesus. In this 1649 work by Eustache Le Sueur, the fiery apostle lifts his right hand as if scolding the audience, while clutching a book of scripture in his left. Among the rapt or fearful listeners are people busily throwing books into a fire. " Okay, but in the USA, over the last 60 years we've seen an astoni…

It's not so much "authority" but "trust" that has gone down.

There used to be institutions that were regarded as the gold standard for truth: the FDA, top science journals, the CDC, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and so on.

These weren't necessarily regarded as infallible. But it was widely recognized that they undertook a best effort to get at the truth, and would tend to err on the side of caution.

That trust is falling apart. Many people, including in the HN community, cheer this decline. They see it, not entirely unreasonable, as the downfall of despised "elites" and opening the discourse to other voices, making it more democratic.

But while the tearing down of institutions is well ahead, there is little indication that the envisioned surge of bottom-up publishing is anywhere as successful: almost no structures have appeared, for example, that provide the nitty-gritty coverage of local politics.

Nor can I think of any actual corruption by these organisations exposed by amateur sleuths. Even Snowden relied on traditional media to get his message out. Just today, the Seattle Times (old media) revealed their investigation of the broken process of Boeing's certification of the 737 Max.

"Critical thinking" is what's usually recommended in these times of information overload and bad actors. But the term just seems to give license to everyone to make up their own facts as needed. The result is a discourse devoid of agreed-upon facts. If you cite inflation data in economic discussions, the most likely reply is a conspiracy theory about the data being corruptly influenced. "Think critically", they say, "who profits from , I bet they get a big fat payoff from for telling this lie".

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

#86

Post by ConceptJunkie »

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 would guarantee that someone who sees it necessary to state his or her attitude in this way about science has an attitude that is very colored by politics, and is likely not to know much about science in the first place.

The trend of virtue signaling through yard signs is the most ridiculous thing I've seen in an era where ridiculousness has become the norm.

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

#87

Post by ConceptJunkie »

m_fayer wrote: post #73
dymk wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Fundamentally, I see religion as an enterprise that defines the structure of existence (metaphysics), explains how humans in their "base state" are deficient within that structure, to their detriment and that of others, and finally establishes elaborate practices for addressing the deficiency. Perhaps you can find something analogous to this structure in psychology, but I just don't see it in the rest of the scientif…

Perhaps not, but I definitely see a lot of things analogous that in politics.

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

#88

Post by burfog »

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…

Have you ever seriously thought about why people might reject a climate change consensus? It's easy to dismiss people as being dumb or misled, but the forcefulness of this rejection suggests otherwise.

There have been a few incidents of fraud committed in support of that consensus, undermining credibility, but the biggest problem is that the consensus comes with a plan of action that is completely unacceptable to many people. If accepting the consensus would lead to that plan of action, then the consensus can not be accepted.

Climate change consensus wouldn't be worth rejecting if it didn't lead to a plan of action.

You might think this violates the purity of science or something (which was already violated by that fraud) but science is not the issue here. At this point, nobody is doing science. The issue is a struggle for/against imposing heavy-handed economic control that severely changes the world's balance of economic power. Most likely the enforcement would require war. The control itself can be objectionable, even without the issue of international competition, because many people insist on a high level of personal economic freedom.

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

#89

Post by ConceptJunkie »

metalchianti wrote: post #44
ummonk wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

This is exactly right. The average non-scientist proclaiming his support for science is exactly that.

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

#90

Post by superqwert »

callmekit wrote: post #83
superqwert wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which scientific method? Scientific methods differ a lot between the sciences - especially between the physical and special sciences, for example.

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

Have you actually read the article?

"Some philosophers and scientists have argued that there is no scientific method; they include physicist Lee Smolin and philosopher Paul Feyerabend (in his Against Method)"

And even the previous paragraphs are not complete either. It says there:

"Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable"

Which is not necessarily true - for example, many arguments against the theory of evolution question whether it is a falsifiable theory (which is not saying that it is not true, but if there is no way to falsify it, how can it be said it is a scientific theory?). Many fields within Biology also have no predictive, but only descriptive power.

Scientists who stick to a rigorous scientific method, such as seen in physics would have to reject most other branches of science. For a realist to accept scientific results in multiple fields, they have to use some philosophical reasons to accept the differing methods as valid ways of exploring reality.

Post reply on HN