Hacker News Reader

Comment by joeyrideout | Hacker News Reader

Thank you for the succinct description of '“science fandom” rather than scientific thinking'. This perfectly expresses my trouble with most scientific discourse nowadays. Many people brandishing "science" as a tool to win arguments instead of thinking scientifically, and often can't explain the scientific method.

That, and the constant appeal to authority (fallacy) of "scientists say..." are my biggest pet peeves.

This problem isn't easily solved, unfortunately, because scientific thinking is difficult and not for everyone. If anything this amplifies the responsibilities placed on scientists to communicate their findings and caveats as clearly as possible to the public.

View on HN

>most scientific discourse nowadays

I don't think it's right to call what you're describing "scientific discourse," it's more like "popular discourse."

>scientific thinking is difficult and not for everyone

There's no difference between scientific thinking and careful thinking. In fact the main strength of science is that anyone can eventually reproduce the conclusions, it's just that some people would take longer than others. If it was a priesthood of oracles who could, alone, speak to nature then you couldn't reasonably expect the non-oracles to believe any of it.

>There's no difference between scientific thinking and careful thinking.

Not sure what your intent was, but I don't think the following statement is any less valid as a result

>scientific thinking is difficult and not for everyone >careful thinking is difficult and not for everyone

Anyone can think carefully, and everyone needs to think carefully sometimes.

>There's no difference between scientific thinking and careful thinking.

I don't think this can be right unless you have a very broad definition of "scientific". Lots of people think carefully about lots of things. Only a tiny minority of them are doing science.

I interpreted the statement as "the process of thoughtful reflection, learning, and decision is no different in the scientific domain as any other".

The problem is so few people do engage in critical thinking. I think that's a human universal though.

You are correct, there's certainly more to the scientific process than thinking. Theology isn't science, but not for lack of careful thinking. Mathematics isn't science either.

Science is about empirical investigation, by definition.

I think whatshisface's point was that scientists don't have unique access to some special mode of inquiry. It's expertise, not a priesthood.

Yes, you're right, popular discourse is better wording. Or perhaps I could put scare-quotes around "scientific" discourse.

I see scientific thinking as more in line with skepticism and general disagreeableness. (Is that really true? Where's the data? What was your methodology? How did you come to that conclusion?)

Nuclear technology fanboys are the worst in this regard. They seem to be forever trapped in some 1950’s futurism, not noticing that renewables have improved while their favorite technology has stagnated. Actual scientists improved batteries and photovoltaics by magnitudes, but these people are still litigating some argument from the 80s about risk assessment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com