Interesting, thanks, I'm always looking for articles like this.
As a place to start, it seems helpful to distinguish between the scientific method, and our relationship with science. Or, more generally, our relationship with knowledge.
The scientific method is a conceptual tool for developing knowledge which has proven it's usefulness more times than can be counted. So there doesn't seem much room for skepticism here. The scientific method is a tool that works as intended.
Our relationship with knowledge and thus science seems a very different matter.
I'm on my way out the door at the moment and don't know your level of interest, so if it's ok, for now I'll just post a link to an article which expands on the above. Perhaps you might indicate whether this flavor of skepticism is something you wish to discuss.
Here's the quick summary:
"This article will argue that the “more is better” relationship with knowledge which is the foundation of science and our modern civilization is simplistic, outdated and increasingly dangerous."
Hi, Phil. Based on the article you shared, I think we're talking about different things -- you, about the explosion in aggregate knowledge; me, about an increase in individual knowledge that leads to a premature heuristic of skepticism instead of a premature heuristic of "I know the answer to that." But I could be misreading what you're saying.
Hi Bob, that sounds right. After reading your article again, I see your point. I'll do more reading to get a more complete picture of what your focus is.
Please correct me as needed, I'm new here. My understanding of your perspective _so far_ from your About page is...
YOUR PERSPECTIVE? The science community is correct in it's assumptions, but the public doesn't fully understand science because of ineffective communication by the science community. This lack of understanding leads to mistrust, which should be remedied by better communication from the science community.
Am I in the ball park of your perspective here? If yes....
Have you considered that, very generally speaking, growing public mistrust of science may have some validity? But perhaps the public is expressing some valid concerns in a manner that is also often inarticulate and ineffective?
Have you considered that maybe the science community is, like any other actor, not in a very good position to be fully objective about it's own assumptions and operations?
My perspective is not that the public doesn't fully understand science because of ineffective communication by the science community. It's rather that the public has an incomplete understanding of the state of science on any number of topics because of the *too effective* communication of some science -- a study, usually, overframed or otherwise misleading -- that tries to convince the public it has the answer on a question (e.g., what to eat to avoid dementia later in life). The point of my essay is that the public is growing increasing skeptical of this "too effective" communication, and that science doesn't have a lot of tools to counter that skepticism.
So I think I agree with you in some important respects.
Ok, I hear you now. Yes, we're both commenting on skepticism, but through different lenses.
So your concern is more with exaggerated claims, yes? Or maybe competing claims. One study says eat more X to avoid dementia, and then 4 months later another study says don't eat X. Is that what you're referencing?
There is perhaps some overlap between our concerns, in that if I come to not trust science advice on some health matter, maybe that generalizes to a wider distrust sometimes.
Interesting, thanks, I'm always looking for articles like this.
As a place to start, it seems helpful to distinguish between the scientific method, and our relationship with science. Or, more generally, our relationship with knowledge.
The scientific method is a conceptual tool for developing knowledge which has proven it's usefulness more times than can be counted. So there doesn't seem much room for skepticism here. The scientific method is a tool that works as intended.
Our relationship with knowledge and thus science seems a very different matter.
I'm on my way out the door at the moment and don't know your level of interest, so if it's ok, for now I'll just post a link to an article which expands on the above. Perhaps you might indicate whether this flavor of skepticism is something you wish to discuss.
Here's the quick summary:
"This article will argue that the “more is better” relationship with knowledge which is the foundation of science and our modern civilization is simplistic, outdated and increasingly dangerous."
And the link:
https://www.tannytalk.com/p/our-relationship-with-knowledge
Have a good one!
Hi, Phil. Based on the article you shared, I think we're talking about different things -- you, about the explosion in aggregate knowledge; me, about an increase in individual knowledge that leads to a premature heuristic of skepticism instead of a premature heuristic of "I know the answer to that." But I could be misreading what you're saying.
Hi Bob, that sounds right. After reading your article again, I see your point. I'll do more reading to get a more complete picture of what your focus is.
Please correct me as needed, I'm new here. My understanding of your perspective _so far_ from your About page is...
YOUR PERSPECTIVE? The science community is correct in it's assumptions, but the public doesn't fully understand science because of ineffective communication by the science community. This lack of understanding leads to mistrust, which should be remedied by better communication from the science community.
Am I in the ball park of your perspective here? If yes....
Have you considered that, very generally speaking, growing public mistrust of science may have some validity? But perhaps the public is expressing some valid concerns in a manner that is also often inarticulate and ineffective?
Have you considered that maybe the science community is, like any other actor, not in a very good position to be fully objective about it's own assumptions and operations?
My perspective is not that the public doesn't fully understand science because of ineffective communication by the science community. It's rather that the public has an incomplete understanding of the state of science on any number of topics because of the *too effective* communication of some science -- a study, usually, overframed or otherwise misleading -- that tries to convince the public it has the answer on a question (e.g., what to eat to avoid dementia later in life). The point of my essay is that the public is growing increasing skeptical of this "too effective" communication, and that science doesn't have a lot of tools to counter that skepticism.
So I think I agree with you in some important respects.
Ok, I hear you now. Yes, we're both commenting on skepticism, but through different lenses.
So your concern is more with exaggerated claims, yes? Or maybe competing claims. One study says eat more X to avoid dementia, and then 4 months later another study says don't eat X. Is that what you're referencing?
There is perhaps some overlap between our concerns, in that if I come to not trust science advice on some health matter, maybe that generalizes to a wider distrust sometimes.