Hacker News Reader

Comment by cmsonger | Hacker News Reader

> Blind trust in science is no different from worshipping a religion or cult.

Let me translate this: "Blind trust in the best recommended knowledge science has at the current moment in time is no different from worshipping a religion or cult."

No. This is wrong.

Science's recommendation at any given time is based on assembly and analysis of evidence. It evolves over time in the presence of additional evidence.

Religion or cults do not.

OTOH, paying attention to what the "my uncle got COVID, spent a week in only pink lighting, and subsequently recovered!" most recent FB post in your feed is wrong. The internet mob is not following the scientific method. They are posting anecdotes. Those anecdotes are filtered by the mediums for ability to create attention in others; and then those are presented.

I am reminded of the somewhat grim "Facebook COVID researcher" joke: https://i.redd.it/ovumfo3f48ca1.jpg

View on HN

I think in a benevolent reading, you have to read it as: "Scientific facade hides many charlatans."

Engineering and applied science are entire universes removed from the ideal of science that gets painted here in defense of them.

Yes, scientists who pursue science in the way highlighted exist (and they are often not well paid for it) and it is a very respectable and admirable pursuit.

But there is a way larger mass of people and companies who strike a balance between profit and being scientifically backed enough, with incentives to tilt the balance into the direction of profit.

> Science's recommendation at any given time is based on assembly and analysis of evidence. It evolves over time in the presence of additional evidence.

I think you’re confusing science with “The Science”.

The 6 foot rule and mask mandates weren’t science, they were “The Science”.

People aren’t Luddites or anti-science, but they do often know when people (bureaucrats, politicians) are full of shit.

The whole point of science is that you’re supposed to question things intelligently, which inherently means you’re allowed to question things. Censoring “disinformation” in the name of science is how you get Galileo and the rest to roll over in their graves, and it didn’t even work. 30% of America is still unvaccinated, and a huge portion of them were probably radicalized by people being censored for spreading disinformation, because deliberately making yourself out to be Big Brother doesn’t convince anyone that you’re right (even though they mostly were).

That being said, you should look at things intelligently, but you can’t force people to do that, or you get situations where you can’t question that the Sun revolves around the Earth because that’s not seen as intelligent. The “mRNA vaccines will kill you” crowd are idiots, but censoring them only makes their point seem stronger and goes against the principles of scientific inquiry. Proving them wrong, which is easy, is better

No, that's not the whole point of science though. That's where science starts, and where most "disinformation" ends. The next point of science is to evaluate each claim on its own merits, but most people prefer not to do that, because it takes effort. Blindly believing the claims that are most convenient to you is also a good way to get Galileo and the rest to roll over in their graves.

I initially phrased it badly, and modified it to better explain my point. Forcing everyone to accept the current viewpoint of most scientists, especially in a rapidly evolving field such as studies on a virus discovered less than 5 years ago, is stupid, but you also shouldn’t blindly believe nonsense and most Covid disinformation is. You need actual evidence, and luckily platforms like The Lancet make it relatively easy to find studies (although they should be more open tbh)

The Lancet is the most ironic example you could've named, given the enormity of the error they made in February 2020 publishing the Daszak letter. This act was the single biggest instigator of the exact issue you're talking about: "Forcing everyone to accept the current viewpoint of most scientists, especially in a rapidly evolving field such as studies on a virus discovered less than 5 years ago".

Luckily, nobody is forced to blindly believe in anything. However, there is a huge mass of people, who would benefit from blindly believing in scientific consensus, because they know too little about how to question things properly. Their methods are often very-very bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com