Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by tzs 3157 days ago
> When is this going to stop? It feels like we're going backwards in terms of people understanding science.

Who is there that is telling the public what the science says and that the public can trust?

Government agencies and their scientists?

They often have a tendency to make recommendations based on weak science, and if they are regulating an industry with a lot of political influence they may even make recommendations that go against what the science says.

For an example take a look at dietary recommendations in the US. Almost everything that has gone into them has not held up. The public followed them, reduced fats, eggs, and protein, and loaded up on carbs...and became fat and diabetic.

How about non-government advocacy groups?

They botch it too. Continuing with the dietary recommendations example, the American Heart Association, for example, jumped on the unscientific "fat and cholesterol bad" bandwagon, and spent decades giving people harmful advice.

Industry scientists?

Their employers often get to decide what they publish, which means that although the industry scientists might not outright lie about results, they may remain silent about results that would go against their employer's interests.

Academic scientists?

This is probably your best bet. The problem here is that academic research is often not directly on point for the particular issue that regulators or legislators are addressing. Academic researchers are more likely to be doing the basic research that industry, government, and NGO researchers should be building upon.

2 comments

So, what is your process to disprove wrong assumptions that you or someone else has?
Why should people trust someone else instead of using their own brain to evaluate arguments?
It's impossible to become an expert in everything.
But it is possible to apply Occam's Razor to a scientific hypothesis. Is it too much to ask to require people to read? And draw their own conclusions?
It is, actually. It doesn't scale once you start talking about too many things at once. There's so much time one can spend reading. At some point, you just have to trust the experts (whoever you consider those to be) on many things.
Speak for yourself. I seem to have no problem verifying my beliefs.
Please explain exactly how your current device is displaying this page, and please no handwaving like "a key is pressed" or "a dns record is served", we need this down to the electron level.

That was overly sarcastic for hn, but the point was that there is not a single human alive who can explain everything they do. At some point you are going to hit an assumption that you have not personally verified

> At some point, you just have to trust the experts (whoever you consider those to be) on many things.

That's extremely dangerous IMO. If you have a populace that is not literate or engaged, you end up with a slave society. Just see the rise of the concept of a "thought leader" [1]. It's quite scary when you see the implications such a concept will have for society.

[1] https://newrepublic.com/article/143004/rise-thought-leader-h...

To repeat, it's not physically possible to judge every single thing. It doesn't matter if you're literate and engaged - there's just not enough time, even if you were to spend every hour you have on this. And most people have jobs etc.
It is possible, but I wouldn't put too much confidence in conclusions I've arrived at through application of the Razor on the field I know little about.

An interesting concept to that effect is that of "epistemic learned helplessness"

http://squid314.livejournal.com/350090.html

Basically, if you're not an expert in some field, then for any given argument, arguments of either side can be made to sound equally convincing to you, so - unless you have time to become an expert in every domain you encounter - your best bet is to accept the general scientific consensus on the topic.

(If anything, Occam's Razor is very useful to determine who is arguing for the generic scientific consensus, and who is arguing out of political reasons, or fear driven by ignorance.)

Because not everyone wants to be some super nerd who reads studies 24/7.