Comment on Big Science

HawlSera@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• King3d@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I completely agree. A lot of the time “I believe in science” is usually used in reference to comparing it to feelings or faith, and in those cases it makes sense to say you trust science over someone’s gut feeling or their “own research”. If you are someone who just blindly goes around proclaiming “I believe in science” then you need to go back to school and take a critical thinking course.

  source

  • HawlSera@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I’ve had people tell me things were impossible because they “Aren’t in our list of known unknowns” or they violate some principle for vague reasons they don’t understand… then a month later an article shows up saying “We proved that thing Sera said was totally possible”

    Scientism is such cringe

    source
  • InternetPerson@lemmings.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Critical thinking courses would indeed be very great to have.

    Mere factual knowledge transfer is not effective in forming mature and responsible minds if critical thinking is not a focus of education as well.

    source

    • Adalast@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I have been wishing that Formal Logic was a K-12 class like English.

      source
  • HawlSera@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Sadly I find people who most proudly preach the wonders of Critical Thinking, are the ones least capable of it.

    source
• Cryophilia@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Depends on your audience.

  If your audience is stupid, tell them to stfu and listen to the science. They’re too dumb to think about why they believe anything, they just need to be told what to believe. So as a bulwark against religious superstition, you tell them to stfu and listen to science.

  If your audience is intelligent, then there’s no risk of them being suckered in by religious superstition, then you can have a discussion about the merits and processes of current scientific methods and theories, differing viewpoints, and degrees of confidence in the scientific community.

  This applies to a lot of topics.

  Talking to a stupid independent voter? “Vote for Biden or Trump will destroy democracy.” Talking to a smart independent voter? “Biden is definitely wrong on several issues, we should try to push him in a better direction.”

  Talking to a stupid computer user? “Don’t try to change any of these files.” Talking to a smart computer user? “Here’s what happens when you change these files.”

  To a stupid person, about the economy: “listen to the data!”

  To a smart person, about the economy: “The metrics which the CPI uses are flawed.”

  Etc etc. There’s always a complex, nuanced, correct answer, and a simple, straightforward, wrong answer. Because reality is complicated. So for stupid people you give them a simple, straightforward, mostly true answer to combat the simple, straightforward false one vying for their pair of brain cells.

  source

  • HawlSera@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    True, but I feel like this should be saved for the dumbest of the dumb. Too much cringe has been created by things like Rational Wiki inadvertently getting otherwise intelligent people to believe that doing science is just the ability to shout the name of a fallacy you feel your opponent has committed, whilst oversimplifying anything you don’t understand until it sounds stupid… Ya know like Evangelical Fundementalists do to defend their biblical literalism?

    It has culminated into a behavior I like to call the Fallacy Fallacy

    It leads to shit like this

    Normal Person: The doctor says I have cancer, but it’s still treatable, so I should take this medicine, it’s expensive, but it’ll be worth it. Scientism Worshipper: I dunno, you think you have cancer because the doctor told you? Sounds like an appeal to authority. Normal Person: Look, my aunt ignored her diagnosis and she was terminal within weeks and dead within days after that. I’m not taking any chance Scientism Worshipper: Hrmm… So the only thing that has you trusting this doctor is anecdotal evidence? Normal Person: You’re right! These meds are too expensive anyway -Weeks Later- Scientism Later: Well my friend is dead Third Party: Because you killed him, he died because he didn’t take his medicine… Scientism Worshipper: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION YOU BIBLE-THUMPER! GO BACK TO WORSHIPPING YOUR SKY-DADDY SHEEPLE!

    That’s a Strawman in and of itself, but you get my point

    Now it may sound like “Well, I guess we shouldn’t question the science then.”

    No, always question the science, that’s how you do science. The problem comes when you think you’ve mastered the science so well (despite evidence to the contrary) that you refuse to let what you know to be questioned.

    source

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Are these people really “otherwise intelligent” though?

      source

      • HawlSera@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Given that a lot of them are in my writing group, I’m going to say yes.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • InternetPerson@lemmings.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    What is “dumb”? What is “intelligence”?

    I think, as long as people have normally functioning brains, it is possible for them to understand. And I think nurturing critical thinking is an important aspect of how to approach this.

    You can absolutely present a complicated topic to someone who isn’t educated in that field, or even has low education at all, if you are being humble about how you explain it and try to meet them at eye-level.

    You don’t need to give definitive answers, you may give recommendations, but you can always explain a bit and note that there is also a lot more to it than what you explained and that one must take care before making some further conclusions.
    Interested people in your audience then have some first basis and grasp of a topic and can take it up on themselves to dive deeper; for example, by asking questions or finding further sources (you might refer them to these).

    source

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      You can absolutely present a complicated topic to someone who isn’t educated in that field, or even has low education at all, if you are being humble about how you explain it and try to meet them at eye-level.

      I vehemently disagree. Some people (maybe most people) are too stupid to understand nuance. They need to be told what to think.

      Perhaps this is just a failing of our educational system and not a fact of human psychology, but it’s still the condition of the world today.

      source
• phoenixz@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Though the first is abused to death, yes, I vehemently disagree with the second. I do believe in science. Just because here and there there are cheaters doesn’t mean that science is valid. Cheaters eventually get caught and science continues. Because of science you have that phone in your hand on which you write your post and read my comment, because of science you are alive. Science is trying to find out what is and why.

  I believe in science and there is nothing scary about that.

  source

  • HawlSera@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I think you missed the point, I believe in the Scientific Method as one of the best ways to measure that which is objectively true. It can make no statements on the subjective however, nor the metaphysical.

    However the problem is, too many people act as though we’ve reached the limits of what is possible to know with the sciences and treat it to be “Science’s Infalliable Word”, when the very nature of Science means we’ll gladly throw out anything we already “know” to be true if we find conflicting evidence, and the world has been better off for it.

    Heck the definition of “Dead” has changed several times because we keep learning that it’s more like a spectrum than an on and off switch, which has so many implications that it makes my head hurt.

    source

    • phoenixz@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I know that scientific knowledge gets updated all the time and with that, things sometimes change. That is fine, but at the same time you use what we have up to that point. If today scientific knowledge tells us that eating worms is healthy, we will do that more. If tomorrow it turns out that, oops, it’s healthy on the left but unhealthy on the right, well stop eating them.

      Either way, we go with what science has discovered so far. That is my point. Too many people these days don’t understand how these discoveries are made and as such push against it.

      This is how you get anti vaxxers who are hell bent on destroying humanity while thinking they are saving it. This is how you get flat-earthers.

      Screw that, people need to learn in school how science works, how we get where we are with our knowledge, where that knowledge comes from. They need to learn the scientific method.

      Then of course there are places like Texas where they keep shoving bibles in the schools to ensure kids stay dumb, gotta get them to vote against their own needs somehow…

      source