Science - Who to Trust

Gdizzle

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
569
Reaction score
0
Points
16
https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/3...ing-machines-book-kara-swisher-decode-podcast

A recent interview with the former president at MIT has perfectly articulated my primary issue with recent scientific discourse, especially relating to climate change. In the past 5 years people have become increasingly skeptical of everything they read and hear. It all comes down to which voice do you trust.

“We have to insist on an understanding that there are people who understand areas better than we do" It is obvious to most that scientists who study climate have the greatest understanding. Of course it is reasonable to question political influence, but it is also lazy to just throw rocks at anyone and anyone who makes a claim, because at the end of the day you need to find trust.

Hockfield said that even though politics and science are often intertwined, with government funding driving progress in research, the scientific community must “insist on an apolitical realm.” And that means accepting that some people are experts in their fields and we should trust their opinions more than others’.

Personally, I believe in scientific consensus. Others would rather believe the outlier. I believe that many competing "right" claims exist, but some are more right than others, and society has an obligation to make bets on the best chance for our future.

The problem is that with the rise of social media, blogs, podcasts, influencers, etc. everyone is getting a bigger and bigger voice, and mistakenly given bigger and bigger trust. Often, this leads people to "trust" (or "believe") only those opinions which re-enforce what they already want to believe. They think the person they trust has the secret answer, with secret research that the <insert scare tactic> does not want you to know about. Some people on this board like to remain the permanent skeptic, finding a sense of superiority in questioning popularly held beliefs. I would encourage all to overcome the urge to find comfort in reinforcing voices. Set aside ego, search for truth.

None of us are experts in everything. We can all read research papers, review native data, listen to lectures, but at the end of the day we need to insist that others know more than us. And that's okay, and in fact a relief. It's okay to trust science.
 

Gophers_4life

Active member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
6,215
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Religious style thinking dominates the weak minded.

They believe whatever they want to believe, and anyone opposed is a liar who uses fake information.
 

LesBolstad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
5,066
Reaction score
894
Points
113
Religious style thinking dominates the weak minded.

They believe whatever they want to believe, and anyone opposed is a liar who uses fake information.
Ahhh, the old religious folks are idiots argument. Always a goody!
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
12,394
Reaction score
1,734
Points
113
I don't have any issues with the piece and I generally agree with the consensus of the scientific community. I actually am pretty close to a "greeney" in terms of my stance on global warming. I think it's partly man-made and I think it's impact is going to be disastrous. Now, I don't believe that 99% of the things put forward are remotely possible and would even have much of an impact. I was a Democrat most of my life and the entire "conservatives aren't the party science" argument may have made more sense about 10 years ago. It certainly doesn't now - - for every global warming denier, there are matching "men are having babies" folks. I don't even want to get into their definition of fetus.

But even if you disagree with that argument, one thing is absolutely true, even if Republicans hate science, Democrats really hate math.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
17,391
Reaction score
1,585
Points
113
I don't have any issues with the piece and I generally agree with the consensus of the scientific community. I actually am pretty close to a "greeney" in terms of my stance on global warming. I think it's partly man-made and I think it's impact is going to be disastrous. Now, I don't believe that 99% of the things put forward are remotely possible and would even have much of an impact. I was a Democrat most of my life and the entire "conservatives aren't the party science" argument may have made more sense about 10 years ago. It certainly doesn't now - - for every global warming denier, there are matching "men are having babies" folks. I don't even want to get into their definition of fetus.

But even if you disagree with that argument, one thing is absolutely true, even if Republicans hate science, Democrats really hate math.
Bob, can you please elaborate on what I bolded, there? thanks.
 
Top Bottom