[ta8645]

No offense, but I think you're exactly wrong. People need to trust the science, so to speak, and leave the thinking to domain experts who can dictate the best course of action for everyone.

On their own, too many people are prone to following misinformation, and can't even be trusted to read both sides of any given argument critically. If the last few years hasn't taught us this lesson, what has it taught us?

[arp242]

Should we have trusted the experts on satanic ritual abuse in the 80s and 90s?

I have many gripes with this attitude; experts can be wrong and even entire fields can be wrong. The satanic ritual abuse is a particularly egregious example with many "experts" mouthing off complete nonsense, but also see e.g. the replication crisis.

And which expert do you believe? There are many expert. "You've got to ask the right expert" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lADB9Qu53CY

Remember all the "experts" that told us that asbestos and smoking was harmless? Or the "experts" that told us climate change wasn't real? Later turned out that this was just industry FUD/lies.

Experts view things from their expertise. That's great, but many scenarios extend beyond one expertise and involve trade-offs, and can't be viewed purely through one lens.

Now, I'm not so arrogant to think that "I know better than the experts"; in many cases I don't, but to always just "believe the experts" seems naïve.

[lynx23]

My favourite example to illustrate this is the story of Louis Braille. He invented Braille because the tactile reading system taught to blind pupils was horribly slow and inefficient. Once he invested his 6-dot reading system, he had to teach it to fellow blind people in secret, because the institution he worked for condemned what the blind have apparently come up with. Yes, because the "experts" on teaching blind people were not even willing to consider anything these people were coming up with, because, apparently, this is a danger to the institutions wanting to claim expertness.

These stories happen all over the place, and still repeat themselves when it comes to how disabled poeple are treated in institutions today.

Still, some conservatives are still willing to wink anything through a self-proclaimed expert utters to the masses.

[lynx23]

It has taught us that media distorts scientific information on demand. I am generally on your side, however, my lesson in the last years is that the communication channels can not be trusted, therefore I can no longer blindly trust what science supposedly tells me.

[bombolo]

Also scientists distort scientific information.

I was recently arguing with a vegan about how healthy it really is to be vegan, and I sent a german paper that tested 75 people and found a generic lack of iron absorption.

The other person said 75 is too small size, and sent me a literature review that claimed that iron absorption in vegans is fine. The only source for that claim in the literature review was the same paper I had originally sent.

So the authors of the literature review just quoted a paper, completely changed the original conclusions, and got it approved.

If we were serious about science, they should all face punishment for even attempting this. But they knew that at worst their paper would be rejected.

[lynx23]

It is similar to what happens with teachers where I come from. Once you managed to obtain the status of "teacher", it is virtually impossible to loose it again, no matter how bad your teaching is. Apparently, something similar is going on with scientists, and a few other professions. There is no mechanism in place to get rid of bad apples, because society thinks it would be unfair to remove someone from a job where they had to go thru considerable training to actually get it.

[trashtester]

Trust is earned, not given.

The word "Science" came from a type of knowledge/knowledge-seeking that has been very successful from the age of Newton to present day.

But Science's success has become it's curse. Lots of fields now call themselves "Sciences" even if they're not employing the kinds of standards and methodologies that lead to the early successes. People with ulterior motives (economic, ideological, political, social or religious) have for a long time claimed to represent Science.

Lately, "Science" has warped into "the Science", meaning a world view promoted by a set of authorities that can be highly partisan. In many cases, the kind of mechanisms that ensured (eventual) falsification of bad ideas have been abandoned. Instead, "the Science" now must now often comply with what is what we WANT to believe, rather than with evidence.

Understanding real Science is still as useful as ever. Not only does an actual scientific education give access to undertanding directly, it also helps us see through those who claim to represent "the Science", but who are not respecting the Scientific Method. People without a proper scientific education will, today, be helpless in distinguishing between real Science, cargo cult Science and outright fraud.

I would argue the same goes for IT security. At least a few decision makers in an organization needs to have a fairly good understanding of it if the organization of the topic to know how to deal with it, either internally or through service or software vendors.

[hoseja]

I am invoking Poe's Law on this one.