[ameetgaitonde]

There are three things that bother me:

1. Using "true story," then telling a very general story without any citation. That he did it twice was worrying.

2. People like the writer who treat our current understanding of science as if it were a religious text that is complete. Science is an ongoing process of discovery and experimentation to try to further our understanding of the world. The fact that it's wrong is kinda the point, because it motivates us to challenge the assumptions underlying our theories.

3. The story about his mother losing her job is likely true, but the way he tells is seems like it purposely omits relevant information.

For example, he says his mother lost her job as a "social worker," but according to this wedding announcement (https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/06/style/alexandra-roosevelt...), she was the Director of Social Services at Hillcrest Convalescent Hospital in Long Beach, CA.

I also checked the Federal Register for that date, and it seems that the change also included an exception to the bachelors degree requirement, provided the individual had two years experience. His claim in the article that his mother had 20 years of experience should have been sufficient.

http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/fedreg/fr054/fr054021/fr054021... Page 135

"In § 483.15(g), we are requiring that social services be provided by a qualified individual defined as an individual with a bachelors degree in social work or two years experience in a health care setting working directly with patients or clients, or similar professional qualifications."

[sgt101]

For 1 and 3 I think that the question is do these examples (assuming that they are real and true) support the argument made, and can we , do we, agree that it is plausible and reasonable to assume that these are real and true. If you doubt the notion that a social worker could be dismissed by this kind of data driven change of policy then I would concede that damages the argument. This is not a physics observation though (kinda the point here!) if you say that there is one example where a social worker wasn't dismissed in this way then I do not agree that is sufficient to derail the argument. On the other hand if you show me one example of a situation where an atom decays differently and produces behaviour not accounted for by the standard model I will happily declare that the standard model is bust.

For 2; this is not about the contingent knowledge that science produces, it's about the applicability of the process that produces that knowledge so effectively in some domains. There are domains where it is not appropriate or useful to think exclusively and uncritically in a scientific way, medicine and economics being just two examples of domains in which uncritical application of the scientific method and mindset have done significant harm to a significant number of people.

[admax88q]

> if you say that there is one example where a social worker wasn't dismissed in this way then I do not agree that is sufficient to derail the argument.

Isn't that kind of ridiculous? If you say "Thing A happens! Here's an example of when thing A happened," but it turns out that your example did not actually happen, well it sure seems like your argument is likely not true, or that thing A happens with such low frequency that I don't need to worry about it.

The argument is not how you phrased it "here's one time this thing didn't happen," it's the fact that the example you provided did not happen. You have every incentive to find real examples to support your case.

[pjc50]

This is kind of an inappropriately intensely personal level of scrutiny to apply to a newspaper opinion piece, isn't it?

[gameswithgo]

its an article about science so we are gonna do science