[Leo_Germond]

I believe we are slowly but surely getting out of this. Positivism as a strict adherence to the dogma of "the scientific fact" (with a conveniently moving definition, backed-up by Sagan quotes for TV viewers, or Popper for book readers) is as nefarious as any totalitarian idea.

Yes scientific papers are great, no I don't put too much weight on someone's take on hapiness, truth, or the fundamental nature of our universe just because they're wearing a lab coat, that would quite literally be thinking that the cowl makes the monk.

[adrianN]

>Yes scientific papers are great, no I don't put too much weight on someone's take on hapiness, truth, or the fundamental nature of our universe just because they're wearing a lab coat, that would quite literally be thinking that the cowl makes the monk

Sounds a bit like a straw man to me. "Scientific fact" by definition is subject to change. The "scientific facts" we have right now are the best explanation for reality that we have. Nobody who isn't a researcher in a particular field has the required context to judge whether some fringe theories have the potential to displace the current consensus, so it's prudent to just accept the consensus as a layperson.

[Dalewyn]

"Trust the science." is about as unscientific as someone could get; might as well be just another religion.

[adrianN]

Apparently acknowledging that one is unqualified to judge the veracity of almost all scientific claims is now unscientific. TIL.

[Dalewyn]

Blindly trusting someone because they're "experts" is no different from worship.

Healthy skepticism is the root of all things science, if you forfeit that for any reason you are anything but being scientific.

[amanaplanacanal]

I'm guessing that you don't spend your entire life personally checking that all Previous science was done properly. At some point you have to trust your fellow human beings.

[adamrezich]

not the guy you were replying to, but sure, but I don't recite ritualistic dogmatic incantations reaffirming my deference to renowned experts. surely it is possible to naturally, organically defer to experts on things while still perceiving the societal harm of institutionalizing ritualistic reaffirmations of deference?

[TomSwirly]

I'm sorry, but I just do NOT believe your implied claim, that you have personally verified all the scientific facts you believe in.

[Leo_Germond]

There is no consensus on truth, happiness, or the reality of the universe we live in though, so nothing to accept there "as a layperson".