Given the track record of institutional science and the ever-growing list of regulatory failures, moral failures and outright abuses pushed in the guise of scientific expertise, why do so many people seem to think that simply doubling down and bullying the general population into compliance with expert consensus will ever work? What if
institutional science in the US has a legitimacy crisis because it has failed to police its own corruption and failed to address its own limitations and vulnerabilities? What if everyday people can see this more clearly than those striving on the margins of these institutions?<p>Personally, as a scientist, I am comforted that there are enough others out there who doubt the entire notion of a scientific establishment that the population should "trust" to make decisions without oversight. Our numbers are growing, and I know many people who fight every day to ensure we will never be ruled by unquestionable expert consensus. Anyone who has been inside these institutions knows exactly how petty and arbitrary the hierarchical structures can be. I'd rather be ruled over by elite families than squabbling, territorial, overconfident scientists who can be bought off for nothing and blackmailed easily.<p>I think the constant stream of these articles just illustrates the massive social blind spot that comes from training STEM professionals solely for careers rather than for citizenship, communication and community membership. STEM training itself has sadly become a hierarchical, cult-like, anti-intellectual system that deprives students of critical thinking skills.
I've seen the term 'evidence-based policy' pop up all over the place. I take issue with people who use this phrase because most of the time their definition of evidence is not very well developed, and when the evidence is something they don't like they start to stretch their definition of evidence so they can dismiss implementing a certain policy. If evidence is only restricted to, and dictated by, academic papers, you leave room for companies and news media to start selectively reporting and funding studies they want to see or want people to see. And where are the scientific papers dedicated to studying this problem? No one is going to fund them. Now you have an entire society believing that corporate influence is not real because there is seemingly no evidence for it.<p>If you only make decisions based on science you can pretend problems aren't real without a scientist's approval, and you can pretend solutions to those problems are bad if there is even a tiny bit of counter-evidence that supports your viewpoint.
> An engaged and well-informed public has always been the foundation of our democracy<p>Is there even a shred of scientific evidence to support this hypothesis? I see it in print so often that it appears to be a axiom that is considered so correct as to be unquestionable.
There's science and then there's the theatre of science and the fans of the theatre of science will attempt to browbeat you into ignoring the science because they are concerned with the continued operation of the theatre.<p>So, for instance, when the CDC recommended no mask usage and all the conformist fans of the theatre of science started pulling their shit, the ones who follow the science ignored them.<p>Government scientific institutions have reputations that are shot through with these "for the greater good" lies. Science is important, but no one is going to listen to the Scientific Theatre any more.
Honest question, why is democracy always the "flag" people wrap themselves in when defending these kinds of positions?<p>I get that democracy is somewhat better than feudalism, but at the end of the day I don't really care if the king is standing on my neck, or if its a mob of unruly peasants. Tyranny is tyranny, and democracy has demonstrated a great affinity for it when it suits the mob. Democracy seems to be the best of the bad options available, but without the strong protections afforded by an deep seated respect for individual liberty and freedom, there isn't much difference in end result.<p>If anything modern academia's treatment of "Science!" is a nice little peak under the covers of what happens when you let the mob make the rules - Thought becomes regimented to the point of absurdity and you either get on board, or get (thrown) over board.
First thing that came to my mind was..<p>"Guys, guys, Galileo wasn't actually cancelled. He just found out that free speech has consequences." @KonstantinKisin<p>Good luck!
Science is important. Science is great. I love science. Let's just be extremely careful when trying to apply the latest scientific achievements in our day to day lives.<p>Phlogiston theory of 17th century was wrong.<p>Race theory of 18th century was wrong.<p>Semmelweis was laughed at in 19th century.<p>And lobotomies were perfectly scientific for treating depressed patients for most of 20th century.<p>I doubt 21st century's science is any special here...
That’s why I started a content project earlier this year but my admittedly very small evidence is not in the line of this article: my readers just want easy & simple bullet point to grasp “facts”, instead of first-hand expertise, references or debates. Science is a process, though, not black or white definitive assertions.
A lot of what is said in this article only really makes sense if you define science to be "what is said or done by someone called a scientist."
It's a pity they didn't use the word "truth". that's what's at stake here: not just the lack of science but the total abolishing of truth, no matter how trivial.
Mods have deleted this question with no reasoning- Why is the "science" solution to lockdown? This is a prioritization of a minority population at the expense of an overwhelming majority.<p>Logic would say to prioritize (pick your numbers, I don't care) the 99.5% over the 0.5%.<p>My hypothesis is that since it's a healthcare issue, the leaders are less math/statistics inclined and more focused on biology.
Maybe the reason we are in this mess is because we relied too much on science, and too little on actual humanities (rhetoric, logic, and so on)? I hear about hermeneutics more and more in my circle: how to communicate trumps what is communicated.<p>I can see why Fauci and many top scientists fail to convince people like Trump and his supporters: he knows, but can't communicate what he knows so that information is conveyed, and not simply stated.
Translation. "Is year of elections and we should say something about science".<p>To enjoy the article at this fullest, play this in the background with an orchestra of tiny violins<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMbvcp480Y4" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMbvcp480Y4</a><p>My pleasure