Increased skepticism of scientism, and evidence-based decision making instead.
Unfortunately, the scientific method has been replaced by trust of authorities, which are proving themselves untrustworthy. The implosion of fraudulent monetary systems will complete this cycle.
Evidence-based reality will resume its ascendency, when fraudulent money is no longer available to cover over bad decision-making.
Observe specifically what happens to municipalities that depend on government largesse, and have no productive agricultural or engineering capacity, and few in the community with internal moral imperative, and the will and capability to defend the innocent...
I am 100% s believer in science but the challenge is the signal to noise ratio - there's so much outputs that even niche experts struggle to follow their own field; for the population it's really hard to follow what is or isn't right. And often the advice/results are contradictory due to different focus. Nutrition research suggests to eat frequent small meals (is this still the right advice?), but also that fasting can be helpful. And if I stick to the small meals schedule my dentist will tell me that snacking is not good for the teeth as it keeps the mouth constantly acidic.
Similarly at policy level: there is much research, but often its application is very much dependent on the frame (eg city vs region vs national scale; strong-trust Nordic country context vs low-trust Balkans or US; etc).
In the end you need the policy decision to be well reasoned and evidence-based, but this is often difficult to manage and even more difficult to communicate (especially in a polarized society like the US where everyone is either friend or enemy in the political space).
I understand there's a replication crisis in many fields, and people need to be taught not to blindly trust any old graph that's shoved at them... but when it comes to pursuit of better understanding about these issues and others, what else is there that we can all agree upon besides science and evidence-based reasoning?
Yeah, most of us could probably stand to be more empathetic, but part of how we know this is because of evidence. Your statement is too simple.
I think the parent is pointing out the trend, as a worrying trend. Trust in science is definitely getting worse, primarily because the truth is becoming more and more inconvenient.
Can you elaborate on your reasoning? You are stating that everyone should suddenly start exercising caution w.r.t. scientific evidence, which is quite a broad over-arching, determination.
I think you misunderstood the parent, who seems to be pointing out a broader cultural trend towards skepticism of science as a trend to follow closely, not necessarily one to embrace or support.
There is no replication crisis. The correct approach is always to just see each study as one data point and in Popper's suggestion each time a study points in one direction this lends the relevant theory more weight. You might be able to repeat experiments but outside the hard sciences there simply is no one truth to rule them all, and even if you manage to replicate this is neither proof nor disproof that the theory/interpretation is fully right or that the results ate generalisable.
Unfortunately, the scientific method has been replaced by trust of authorities, which are proving themselves untrustworthy. The implosion of fraudulent monetary systems will complete this cycle.
Evidence-based reality will resume its ascendency, when fraudulent money is no longer available to cover over bad decision-making.
Observe specifically what happens to municipalities that depend on government largesse, and have no productive agricultural or engineering capacity, and few in the community with internal moral imperative, and the will and capability to defend the innocent...