[arp242]

The tricky bit is there really are people who think that science is "just an opinion, man". See e.g. "teach the controversy" regarding evolution vs. creationism. There's certainly a place for "<X> don't believe in science" and "our laws should be based on science".

But the argument is so often misapplied that it's become meaningless.

I have argued against 5G deployment for example, not based on outlandish "zomg Bill Gates George Soros mindcontrol!!!11" or "brain tumours!!!11" nonsense, all of that is clearly nonsense. But the science is a lot less clear that there are zero effects than is sometimes made out to be, and there are also the ethical considerations of informed consent. I was, of course, immediately lobbed in with the crazies and called a science-denying conspiracy theorist, by someone with no expertise in the field who said I need to "listen to the science", in spite of my argument looking nothing like the anti-scientific nonsense from David Icke and the like.

Don't even get me started on COVID – any attempt to inject even the slightest sort of nuance was met with "you are literally murdering people with your unscientific nonsense!" and you were immediately lobbed in with COVID-denying anti-maskers or whatnot. At some point this stopped being a debate about trade-offs involving science and medicine on one hand and basic liberties and freedoms on the other and became some sort of moral crusade (and it seems it still is; there was a conference this month where masks at all times, full proof of vaccination, and a PCR test was still required, which seems a bit much for 2023).

A big issue is that any sort of nuance is often met with the most uncharitable interpretation because the genuinely crazy people have been getting so much attention.

[brightball]

The thing is, based on so many examples of people who cite “the science” that are clearly exaggerated or unsupported “just an opinion” isn’t too far off.

It shouldn’t be this way, but there’s a lot of undermining of trust in science because of this stuff.

Take evolution as an example. How many layers of scientific expertise have to be understood to really claim that you understand how evolution works? Archeology, biology, history, geology, genetics…potentially more?

At some point there’s a trust factor involved in accepting evolution.

Now apply that same realization with climate change.

The more complex, the more moving parts, the easier it is to find a part to be skeptical about and people will do exactly that. Especially if they are given reason to believe that the science is just there to support a political objective.

In the end, unless science can be easily replicated and demonstrated (gravity, boiling water, killing bacteria, generating power, flywheels, etc) it will boil down to trust for the vast majority of people.

[rayiner]

Your last point is critical. People at the end of the 20th century had come to “trust the science” because it conferred tangible power on those who wielded it. “Science” could send a man to the moon or a bounce a phone call off a satellite to the other side of the world. Your average person doesn’t have to understand the rocket equation, or trust NASA. They can watch a launch in Florida and see with their own eyes the awesome power of “science.”

Then, folks started invoking the authority of “science” in connection with disciplines that don’t confer tangible power. For example, if “education science” worked, we would know it. It would convey power the results of which people could see with their own eyes without needed to pore through studies, or putting any faith in “education experts.”

[Sakos]

I've come to the conclusion that science needs to be just another form of religion (without the theistic element). I don't have the time or the energy to go through the research to determine if climate change is real. I put my faith in the scientific process, which is probably the most successful thing we've ever come up with as a species. I'm not sure why I should believe some random dude, whoever he might be or what credentials he might have, on the radio/TV over the scientific community. Sure, they've gotten things wrong, but their success rate and their usefulness to our species is infinitely better than some politician being a climate change denialist just to appeal to voters. What process does he have and why should I trust it more than the scientific method?

[rnk]

I disagree with that attitude. I think most scientific information that comes to us through the media is reliable. If people stop trusting science (or they continue to stop trusting science), we are just left with superstition and religion. It was really hard for people to cope with the fact that during covid we started with the best explanations and then as we learned we improved on it and some ideas or expected safety practices changed. Good example is that many viruses spread through touch and covid spread through the air and that was a surprise.

People take that in and say I just don't trust anything. That is a problem with America because people stop believing in objective facts, saying that it goes against their beliefs. This is a major problem why America doesn't have enough engineers and scientists and mathematicians, because people haven't learned that your intuition can be wrong and you can overcome your strong expectation about something by studying something, debugging a program or whatever.

[jeegsy]

> I think most scientific information that comes to us through the media is reliable

Your general point is well taken but is severely and gravely undermined by the belief expressed in above.

[magarnicle]

Yes. Even if the original information is correct it tends to be quite distorted by the media (the headlines are almost always hyperbolic), let alone when it gets picked up by the public and repeated.

[rayiner]

It depends on how you define the “scientific community.” If your kid has a staph infection, there are people who make antibiotic creams that will make it disappear in days. They’re scientists. Their science gives them power you don’t have to “believe in,” because you can see the results.

Most people with a Ph.D. in a field with “science” in the name aren’t scientists. They work in fields that don’t have the same level of rigor as nuclear physics. (My degree is in aerospace engineering, and many real scientists would consider us bumpkins in how comparatively undisciplined our field is compared to their’s.) Those fields confer little to no power to produce tangible and undeniable results.

[musicale]

> Most people with a Ph.D. in a field with “science” in the name aren’t scientists

Computer Science. ;-)

Perhaps an appropriate assessment, given that CS seems to be half engineering/tinkering, half applied mathematics, and half nonsense.

[brutusborn]

Like how North Korea is a ‘democratic republic.’ If you have to put ‘science’ or ‘evidence based’ after your discipline, it’s probably not science (or science with lots of problems).

See: Social science Political science Evidence based naturopathy/chiro

[pmarreck]

You're right about this. And it makes discussion, much less "debate", so difficult. I'm pro-5G but willing to entertain the anti-5G evidence because what if there was some and it was true or at least unexplained?