I think your giving the article too much credit. If it were saying what you are saying that’d be fine. But it continually, throughout the article attempts to discredit science all together.
Look, science doesn’t make everything clear cut 100% if the time. Science is the act of making theories, and looking for evidence to dispute those theories. Sometimes, in some areas we have to be OK with not understanding things. That’s part of science, it’s not it’s limitation. By admitting ignorance in some areas, we open the doors to the pursuit of knowledge.
Here are some choice quotes...
“What we nonexperts choose to believe about such matters will depend much more on whom we trust and what we find to be helpful than on what can be known to be true”
How about instead we suspend our beliefs and wait for data, rather than trusting someone just because? It’s okay to say, we don’t know!
“But if all this activity is just self-correction in action, then why not call alchemy, astrology, phrenology, eugenics, and scientific socialism science as well”
Because none of those other fields embraced abandoning beliefs in the face of evidence and data. How one could even compare them with science clearly demonstrates an attempt to misconstrue facts.
> Look, science doesn’t make everything clear cut 100% if the time. Science is the act of making theories, and looking for evidence to dispute those theories. Sometimes, in some areas we have to be OK with not understanding things. That’s part of science, it’s not it’s limitation. By admitting ignorance in some areas, we open the doors to the pursuit of knowledge.
I think that's the key takeaway of the article, to be honest.
> How about instead we suspend our beliefs and what for data, rather than trusting someone just because? It’s okay to say, we don’t know!
This is what I think the author is saying, though. It's a political piece--we can't universally suspend our beliefs for the purpose of making policy. But we can try to evaluate what science is a closer approximation to "true" than others.
> Because none of those other fields embraced abandoning beliefs in the face of evidence and data. How one could even compare them with science clearly demonstrates and attempt to misconstrue facts.
You can say this with the benefit of hindsight. If you were, say, an American social scientist in the 1920s, you might be supporting eugenics, as it was quite common at the time. If you dogmatically defended eugenics as being "science," called people who questioned the value of it deniers, and equated it with truth... well, you would be wrong.
And if you can acknowledge that it happened in the 1920s (and numerous other times), then it can be happening today. It's about being open-minded to the possibility that science (and its process in practice) has varying levels of value, and being able to rationally assess that is important.
> You can say this with the benefit of hindsight. If you were, say, an American social scientist in the 1920s, you might be supporting eugenics, as it was quite common at the time. If you dogmatically defended eugenics as being "science," called people who questioned the value of it deniers, and equated it with truth... well, you would be wrong.
This is misleading because it assumes that scientific views on all "science" topics are held uniformly. Eugenicists (who were not social scientists), held views that genuine geneticists knew were spectacularly wrong. But eugenicists had public visibility and political power. I think this is the main problem with the article -- it assumes that NYTimes science reporting provides some genuine insight into how scientists think. The public view of science, and perhaps that of some people who study the scientific process, seems confusing and contradictory. The scientists doing the work, in general, embrace or refute the contradictions in with the goal of trying to improve scientific knowledge.
>> Look, science doesn’t make everything clear cut 100% if the time. Science is the act of making theories, and looking for evidence to dispute those theories. Sometimes, in some areas we have to be OK with not understanding things. That’s part of science, it’s not it’s limitation. By admitting ignorance in some areas, we open the doors to the pursuit of knowledge.
> I think that's the key takeaway of the article, to be honest.
If that's the key takeaway, why write an article about it? That's how science is supposed to function. It's not controversial.
>> How about instead we suspend our beliefs and wait for data, rather than trusting someone just because? It’s okay to say, we don’t know!
> This is what I think the author is saying, though. It's a political piece--we can't universally suspend our beliefs for the purpose of making policy. But we can try to evaluate what science is a closer approximation to "true" than others.
It would be REALLY helpful if more politicians suspended their beliefs for the purpose of making policy. And if there's an area where scientific consensus has been made, work your policies around that instead.
>> Because none of those other fields embraced abandoning beliefs in the face of evidence and data. How one could even compare them with science clearly demonstrates and attempt to misconstrue facts.
> You can say this with the benefit of hindsight. If you were, say, an American social scientist in the 1920s, you might be supporting eugenics, as it was quite common at the time. If you dogmatically defended eugenics as being "science," called people who questioned the value of it deniers, and equated it with truth... well, you would be wrong. And if you can acknowledge that it happened in the 1920s (and numerous other times), then it can be happening today. It's about being open-minded to the possibility that science (and its process in practice) has varying levels of value, and being able to rationally assess that is important.
Eugenics wasn't science... it was an attempt to use artificial selection as a way to mold human society. The artificial selection is the science part. It's use and justification for eugenics was just abhorrent. As for things like phrenology, etc, those were never accepted as science... just touted as so by the pseudo scientists.
The data send to be in on gravitational waves, relativity, and big whooping chunks of quantum mechanics, but I'm in no way qualified to interpret that data. I have to trust someone else's interpretation. Unfortunately, they are likely wrong about some of it.
Well just trusting someone is not scientific, and liable to get you in hot water. You can examine the data for yourself, or if it's an important enough topic find a tutor or teacher to help parse it.
For instance, climate change is an important topic to all of us. No one is required to believe it. If you want to act on it, make policy about it, or vote on it, I really do recommend you educate yourself instead of just trusting one side or the other.
No, thanks; I already have a PhD. I've got no time to tool up enough to follow raw climate change data.
Instead, I'll buy the general consensus of those who should be able to evaluate it, say the AAAS, along with a sniff test to try to weed out complete crazys. Not because I think general scientists are right (they are certainly wrong on at least some details even if they get the big picture right) and certainly not because I think there infallible, but because in the past I've seen their stuff work. Often.
That’s a valid approach for everyday life... I do the same as well for the most part. But I have looked at the raw science data for climate change and understood why it’s so pressing (I love coral reefs, and keep a reef tank, and they are having serious problems).
If you ever get into a position to make policy though, definitely read the data. It’ll light a fire under you like no other.
The data about desertification is even more damning and scary... Though it is not as clearly directly linked to climate change itself, it is definitely anthropic.
Look, science doesn’t make everything clear cut 100% if the time. Science is the act of making theories, and looking for evidence to dispute those theories. Sometimes, in some areas we have to be OK with not understanding things. That’s part of science, it’s not it’s limitation. By admitting ignorance in some areas, we open the doors to the pursuit of knowledge.
Here are some choice quotes...
“What we nonexperts choose to believe about such matters will depend much more on whom we trust and what we find to be helpful than on what can be known to be true”
How about instead we suspend our beliefs and wait for data, rather than trusting someone just because? It’s okay to say, we don’t know!
“But if all this activity is just self-correction in action, then why not call alchemy, astrology, phrenology, eugenics, and scientific socialism science as well”
Because none of those other fields embraced abandoning beliefs in the face of evidence and data. How one could even compare them with science clearly demonstrates an attempt to misconstrue facts.