> Why should anyone trust science?
When people talk about those who distrust science, they aren't referring to the carefully sceptical. They're talking about people who come to a conclusion and then reject any evidence against it.
> Why should anyone trust science?
When people talk about those who distrust science, they aren't referring to the carefully sceptical. They're talking about people who come to a conclusion and then reject any evidence against it.
Right. RFK supporters aren’t carefully weighing evidence to arrive at their conclusions, they are blindly following someone who is a mindless contrarian with a 30yr vendetta against vaccines. No amount or quality of peer review is going to change any of their minds.
> RFK supporters aren’t carefully weighing evidence to arrive at their conclusions, they are blindly following someone
I'd actually be curious what fraction of his supporters share his views on vaccines. It strikes me as more likely that they like one of his random, idiosyncratic views and are willing to excuse the anti-vaccine nonsense to get those policy outcomes.
That, but also people who take the blanket view that none of the work produced by the scientific establishment is trustworthy. An ironic stance considering that it's the inverse of the blind worship that they accuse others of.
>none of the work produced by the scientific establishment is trustworthy.
There's that word again. No works are trustworthy. You shouldn't trust, instead verify. Be skeptical. I'm more concerned with which of their works can be verified.
>An ironic stance considering that it's the inverse of the blind worship
I'm not sure there's any difference worth mentioning between blind worship and cuddly warm trusting that you want to do. One may seem a little less zealous, but it's the same pig just with extra lipstick.
Assuming the widespread presence of blatant fraud in the absence of evidence is (at least to my mind) the inverse of blind worship. There is no difference in validity between an unfounded assumption of misdeed or virtue.
By "trustworthy" I mean nothing more than the same presumption of innocence absent evidence to the contrary that you extend at the grocery store when you assume that the food you're purchasing isn't poisoned or rotten or etc. That doesn't mean the published results are reproducible, the measurements without (unintentional) error, or the conclusions logically sound. Merely that there isn't an active attempt being made to deceive or otherwise knowingly mislead the reader to the advantage of the author.
What I'm describing is an incredibly low bar with broad applicability that society generally requires in order to function.
> That, but also people who take the blanket view that none of the work produced by the scientific establishment is trustworthy.
That’s a red herring. No scientist actually says that. What we say is that on some subjects the evidence is overwhelming and to overcome the current understanding you need compelling evidence and theories, not screeches about bias and liberal elites.
No. We are not going to take seriously someone’s pet theory about a new perpetual motion machine, or cold fusion, or lack of global warming, or the ineffectiveness of vaccines, or anything that is contrary to massive amounts of accumulated evidence.
I think you misread my comment? I'm talking about the non-scientist naysayers.
I just think we do not disagree.