[tensor]

I'd say the public needs to develop some rational impulse, it already has plenty of skepitism to the point where people no longer trust science the methodology. Instead, they genuinely believe there is some alternative to finding the truth, and now simply believe the same old superstitions and bunk that people have prior to the scientific revolution.

Speaking of Orwell, I don't think science comes into it. Rather, when people stop believing in democracy, things will degenerate into authoritarianism. It's generally pretty hard to use science the methodology to implement an authoritarian government as the scientific method by definition will follow the evidence, not the will of a dictator.

However, something that looks like science but isn't could be used, especially if the public doesn't understand science and thus can't spot things that claim to be science but don't actually follow the scientific method.

[Der_Einzige]

Critical thinking = the ability to be skeptical, literally it is the ability to criticize.

Great critical thinkers become lawyers, post modernist intellectuals, and other parts of the "talking" class of intellectuals. Unfortunately, it's far easier to talk shit than it is to build things. We've massively over-valued critical thinking over constructive thinking.

Most people want to dunk on science. Few people want to submit their own papers to conferences. Many people act like submitting papers is impossible for non-Ph.D's. We have a lack of constructive oriented thinking.

[ricksunny]

>Many people act like submitting papers is impossible for non-Ph.D's.

I agree. But academia reinforces this perception. I feel like PhD's only give serious consideration to the utterances of other PhD's. The rest of the public consists of the unwashed masses, and at best gets the smiling-nod treatment from teh PhD.

PS I (a non-PhD) managed to publish a paper during the pandemic (doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.909945 ). One of the biggest barriers was the item you mentioned quoted above, and the bogeyman of "epistemic trespass" in general, as operating in my own psychology. I've since become noisy in advocating for the #DeSci movement.

[mistermann]

> I'd say the public needs to develop some rational impulse, it already has plenty of skepitism to the point where people no longer trust science the methodology.

Methodologies are inanimate - I may trust that a methodology is fine, but once Humans become involved I do not trust.

> Instead, they genuinely believe there is some alternative to finding the truth

There are several alternate means, the field of philosophy (that birthed science) has been working on such problems for ages, and has all sorts of utility, just sitting there waiting to be used by Humanity.

> and now simply believe the same old superstitions and bunk that people have prior to the scientific revolution.

Not possible for you to know, unless there are indeed forms of supernatural (beyond current scientific knowledge) forms of perception.

> Rather, when people stop believing in democracy, things will degenerate into authoritarianism.

Once again, not possible for you to know.

> It's generally pretty hard to use science the methodology to implement an authoritarian government

COVID demonstrated that to be incorrect.

> as the scientific method by definition will follow the evidence, not the will of a dictator.

Incorrect. Something defined to be true necessarily being true only works in metaphysics, such as linguistics.

And again, the scientific method is inanimate.

> However, something that looks like science but isn't could be used, especially if the public doesn't understand science and thus can't spot things that claim to be science but don't actually follow the scientific method.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how comprehensively and accurately do you believe you understand science?