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is better” relationship with knowledge which is the foundation of science and our modern civilization is simplistic, outdated and increasingly dangerous."
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?
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!
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?