Hacker News Reader

Comment by JuliusPullo | Hacker News Reader

But, isn't Science supposed to be doubted always? Science is not supposed to be a cult where the Scientists are the high priests that shall not be doubted. Science is a method to find (or at least get closer to) the truth, and for that we must always doubt what we have. That's how it's supposed to work. In the end only the truth can survive criticism and misguided reasoning. We must not only welcome, but encourage doubt, criticism, and disagreements. In fact, we should be very suspicious when all Scientist agree (you know, when the Science has been "settled"). As for motives and integrity, the word of a Scientist has become too much of a powerful political force these days. No wonder that among the serious and dedicated Scientists there are also a very vocal group of political activists with Science degrees. So, yes. As a person who loves his personal and indvidual freedom, I will reserve the right to doubt Science and Scientists all the time.

View on HN

There are healthy ways to engage with science, but magnifying disagreements ("No wonder that among the serious and dedicated Scientists..."), appealing to personal freedom ("...As a person who loves his personal and indvidual freedom..."), and the other ways you're describing are not the right way to engage.

The right way is to participate, "put up or shut up" as the saying goes. If all you want to do is shout from the sidelines with doubtful rhetoric, we don't need you.

I was thinking on how to respond to you, but realized you are not saying anything at all.

Calling skeptics as "denialists" is a rejection of scientific discourse. The skeptic could reasonably be defined as someone who doubts a proposition and gives reasons for doubting it: if truth is given as a condition of skepticism, it preempts the frame of discussion in which truths are settled, and makes discourse into a game of who can define the other out of existence more effectively.

That definition is incomplete without a provision for "... and will change their mind when presented with sufficient evidence for the proposition". That is, the skepticism has to go both ways. Merely being attached to doubting the proposition is exactly denialism and exactly not skepticism.

More or less by definition it's impossible for a denialist to tell that they're not being skeptical, because they can move the goalposts on "sufficient evidence" indefinitely. This is a deep epistemological conundrum with no easy answer. But as a rule of thumb, skeptics generally include the "both ways" aspects in their definition of skepticism, while denialists focus solely on justifying their doubt.

> In the end only the truth can survive criticism and misguided reasoning.

Nothing can survive lies and dishonest tactics. If someone tells you from birth that Group X is inherently pure evil and that anyone who denies or doubts this is either woefully naïve or in the pay of Group X, you have no chance to survive without becoming Anti-Group X, regardless of what the real evidence about Group X is: You'll reject all evidence, destroy all relationships which might lead you to that evidence, and count yourself lucky that no Group X members can get close enough to you to infect you with their lies and various forms of evil.

> In fact, we should be very suspicious when all Scientist agree (you know, when the Science has been "settled").

OK, all scientists agree that the Earth isn't a flat disk being carried on the back of a tortiose.

> As for motives and integrity, the word of a Scientist has become too much of a powerful political force these days.

Who? Science is a process, not a group, so who in specific has too much political force? Does everyone doing science have political force? Be precise in your language, please!

>> [the word] [of [a] Scientist] has become too much of a powerful political force these days

> Who? Science is a process, not a group, so who in specific has too much political force? Does everyone doing science have political force? Be precise in your language, please!

Science has become politicized, you can see it in most every HN thread on certain science-related topics (like this one, for example). Typically, the quality of disagreements are similar to what you might find on /r/politics, because both sides are not speaking scientifically, which is a requirement for actual scientific discussions (there is lot more complexity going on under the covers at the psychological level, but good luck having an abstract discussion on that during an object-level argument when the abstract phenomenon is the unrealized basis of the very argument).

The media throws around "scientific" memes, and calls them science, and actual scientists stand on the sidelines and say nothing.

Actual scientists who disagree even in part with these scientific memes are censored, or worse.

In turn this sows distrust in the public, which lessens the beneficial effects of beneficial scientific knowledge in society. The recommended response to this seems to be doubling down on propaganda/groupthink/mockery and scientific authoritarianism. To me, this seems suboptimal, but who am I to complain - I'm just going to mostly sit on the sidelines and watch the whole thing melt down into chaos (how far down the path we are is unknown, but we sure as hell have increasing chaos), and occasionally post a forum comment here and there. From my vantage point, this seems like one of those weird cultural trends that comes along every so often which cannot be stopped with reason, you just have to let human nature play itself out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com