[incomingpain]

>Which has created a scenario where people think science contains truths as opposed to approximations and best guesses.

Religion vs science. In religion, they KNOW what is true. In science, nobody really knows anything ever. Covid is spread via miasma, think about it lol.

Science doesn't allow authority and we should always be questioning assumptions. One day we might disprove einstein's gravity, perhaps CERN finds the graviton and it moves faster than the speed of light. You have to be open to questioning previously held beliefs.

>It's kinda sad because it bleeds into everything now - it's no longer acceptable for someone to be like "well let's think about it together.. " and have any discourse.

You have a proper scientific mindset. What you don't see is that much of today isn't about science. It's about religion.

Take this flagged article from today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31192378

It's a legit scientific journal and it's legit doctors. They are likely wrong; I really hope they are wrong. Good science though doesn't attack the authors but rather looks into claims and assertions. What if they are right? Shouldn't we perhaps address it?

Whereas from a religion point of view. These people are heretics. They must be burned!

This new religion that formed is what is twisting science. Science deniers! Wait isn't denying this study denying science? Isnt science about being open about possible issues?

Is it not the best option to deal with science deniers is to talk to them about it?

[AftHurrahWinch]

> It's kinda sad because it bleeds into everything now - it's no longer acceptable for someone to be like "well let's think about it together.. " and have any discourse.

> Is it not the best option to deal with science deniers is to talk to them about it?

It'd be the "best option" if not for the asymmetry of effort. It's trivial to make things up. It takes more effort to find and understand sources. It's slower still to do original research.

You may claim that 'it's worth it' to invest the 5x or 10x the effort to debunk a falsehood than it took to make the falsehood, but whether it's worth it or not "A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots." (Mark Twain)

[incomingpain]

>It'd be the "best option" if not for the asymmetry of effort. It's trivial to make things up. It takes more effort to find and understand sources. It's slower still to do original research.

You made the assertion that the flagged scientific article 'just made things up' that's quite the claim.

This isn't an anonymous claim on twitter. The appropriate effort relative to the source is all that is needed. In the case of anonymous twitter claims, then anyone can easily dismiss or argue with them to their hearts are content. The problem is that we have a religion who wishes to dismiss the heretics.

>You may claim that 'it's worth it' to invest the 5x or 10x the effort to debunk a falsehood than it took to make the falsehood, but whether it's worth it or not "A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots." (Mark Twain)

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02152-y

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2021/09/right-now-clash-scie...

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/how-talk-science-denier

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/dec-18-holiday-science-book-...

Let's hypothetically say this flagged article is in fact true. Everyone who got vaxxed has weakened their immune system. Personally probably a good thing, autoimmune etc, but what a disaster for public health. Not only that we're dismissing their claims based on... faith?

[AftHurrahWinch]

> You made the assertion that the flagged scientific article 'just made things up' that's quite the claim.

No, I didn't.

I made a general claim about why people don't rigorously debunk things they read on the Internet - they're busy - which is simpler, and I think more likely to be accurate than your general claim that people are enrapt in religious fervor for scientism.