This makes me sad.
Stevedore Comedy: We're Not Subtle.
--Patrick
Most of the comments on the video were either exactly this or else "When can I move there?"This makes me sad.
Traditionally, Scientists and Engineers are less likely to be beholden to an ideology, they pursue science and engineering for science and engineering's sake."I leave science to the scientists and I believe them blindly because they're scientists" may sound nice, but it's still a pretty false argument to authority.
Your own James Madison said it well: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. " Apply this to just about any place where PEOPLE have something to gain from bias, and you get the current state of just about anything. Are the people on both sides biased? Why? What do each have to gain and why? Is there decent evidence on multiple sides of an issue, and if so, how can similar data be interpreted so widely differently? Who is being MOST shady?On the other hand, a whole world of people blindly accepting a fallacious argument like that, sheesh.
"I leave science to the scientists and I believe them blindly because they're scientists" may sound nice, but it's still a pretty false argument to authority.
Reminder: I'm Belgian.
Fair enough, I'm Canadian. I meant it more towards all in this thread, but I quoted you, so being indignant is fully justified.Reminder: I'm Belgian.
That might be true in many cases, but I'll put my own experience out there for Engineers: It's a combination of "born with it" and "I'm in it for the money." If money were no object, I think I'd try the High School Science teacher route. But there's NO WAY IN HELL I'd even consider doing that when I can work less hours, and make double/triple (or more) as an engineer.Traditionally, Scientists and Engineers are less likely to be beholden to an ideology, they pursue science and engineering for science and engineering's sake.
I would call you an archetypal Engineer just based on what I've seen of your posts here.I've been called a prototypical Engineer by a number of people in various circumstances based on how I comment on things, see the world, analyze things, etc.
Ya, "prototype" is the wrong word.I would call you an archetypal Engineer just based on what I've seen of your posts here.
And also the fact that you chose to use the word "prototype" instead of "stereotype."
In fact, sometimes it's tough to respond to your posts, because I have to devote more cycles than usual to tailoring it to you in order to minimize misunderstanding.
Oh for fucks sakes... a fallacious argument isn't false... stop using concepts you fail to grasp. On the same note, a perfectly valid argument doesn't mean shit if your premise if false.false argument to authority.
Sure sounds better then "i think over 90% of them are either lying or wrong about something that they've been studying for decades, and already has had noticeable effects on the world, and has been acknowledged by fucking Exxon"."I leave science to the scientists and I believe them blindly because they're scientists" may sound nice
Straw sure burns easy.
Stevedore Comedy: We're Not Subtle.
--Patrick
And, yet, for nearly 50 years the sugar industry successfully shifted the blame for heart disease from sugar to fat.Traditionally, Scientists and Engineers are less likely to be beholden to an ideology, they pursue science and engineering for science and engineering's sake.
Clarke’s third law, and all that.Scientism is a thing.
In a study funded by the sugar industry, reviewed by the sugar industry, and no doubt conducted under the watchful eye of the sugar industry.And, yet, for nearly 50 years the sugar industry successfully shifted the blame for heart disease from sugar to fat.
You don't seem to get it. That one study didn't just sit there, a lone falsehood. It influenced the mainstream medical opinion for decades. Snackwells cookies and the low fat craze of the 80s owes their existence to not only the original Harvard study that the sugar industry bought and paid for in the 1960s, but many other medical and scientific research that followed. That study influenced other studies. Doctors told their patients that they needed to cut out fat, and said nothing of sugar's relation to heart disease, for decades because of corporate manipulation.In a study funded by the sugar industry, reviewed by the sugar industry, and no doubt conducted under the watchful eye of the sugar industry.
No, I get it. In the 50’s, science was king, and marketing people took advantage of it, and later studies didn’t question 50’s studies too deeply because again, it was a time when scientists were held in high respect. And because this was found out, now we are suffering the “How do we know that ANY science is true?” backlash.You don't seem to get it.
Okay, you get it better than I would have expected from your other posts. It sucks that we have to ask that question, but I also think that scientists are doing a really shitty job of answering it, because a lot of them fall back to "You know it's true because we're scientists" and that's an non-answer.No, I get it. In the 50’s, science was king, and marketing people took advantage of it, and later studies didn’t question 50’s studies too deeply because again, it was a time when scientists were held in high respect. And because this was found out, now we are suffering the “How do we know that ANY science is true?” backlash.
It's better than the real answer, which is "See? The data speak for themselves!" except that of course in order to make any sense of those data, you have to have the extra years of study required to draw your own conclusions from the data...which would make you a scientist. So really "because we're scientists" is often the condensed version of "We would explain it to you but because you don't have our years of study you wouldn't understand it anyway and if I tried to explain it you would just glaze over and tune out so you should probably just take our word for it."scientists are doing a really shitty job of answering it, because a lot of them fall back to "You know it's true because we're scientists" and that's an non-answer.
You've completely left out peer review, among many other vital steps in the scientific method. And not just peer review to deal with lying, but just peer review to deal with error. Which is why I hate "because we're scientists". It leaves out so much that you just assume, and it goes along with the lack of self-examination that led to turning a blind eye to the link between sugar and heart disease for so long. It's not just that scientists were paid off and lied, errors like that creep into science even with the best of intentions, and a lack of critical re-examination leads to huge problems. If A -> B -> C -> D (oversimplying the actual web of conflusions) that's fine, but people forget to recheck D if A is disproven somewhere down the line, because they may not even realize that A led to D, if it's actuallly N we're talking about and A only indrectly influenced D3, H17, and L4.It's better than the real answer, which is "See? The data speak for themselves!" except that of course in order to make any sense of those data, you have to have the extra years of study required to draw your own conclusions from the data...which would make you a scientist. So really "because we're scientists" is often the condensed version of "We would explain it to you but because you don't have our years of study you wouldn't understand it anyway and if I tried to explain it you would just glaze over and tune out so you should probably just take our word for it."
To be fair, this part of the process would be a lot easier if all these studies didn't get locked up behind paywalls or other exclusionary situations. There are plenty of studies that even an armchair scientist such as myself could easily find discrepancies or make new connections (or even just educate myself on the subjects!), but with the need for membership in certain groups and payment of an access fee before you even get to look 'em over, the "review" process ends up being done by too few people, and only on an as-needed basis due to the expense of time and money.You've completely left out peer review, among many other vital steps in the scientific method. And not just peer review to deal with lying, but just peer review to deal with error.
Scientism is a thing.
It's only a strawman is no one was making those arguments at all... and you can't honestly claim that, can you.Straw sure burns easy.
I didn't say any of that. I said Scientism is a thing. As in, yes, there ARE people who "believe" in science and scientists the same way people believed in God and priests 1000 years ago. Seems to me the people behind that video kinda come off that way. "Scientists know. You should be fucking thankful, you fucking idiot. Stop disagreeing or you'll go to science hell!"I had to calm down for a minute there before answering... i know you';re smarter then this Gas.
Yes it is, and people can always be wrong, but using that to dismiss things you don't agree with IS YOU DOING THE SAME THING as the people "using" scientism (which apparently includes Exxon under Tillerson).
You might as well say "scientist X made a mistake about Y, TVs must be magic!"
Had he made an actual good argument it would have been something, but he was using a fallacy wrong...
None of the scientists I know would ever fall back on such a position.Okay, you get it better than I would have expected from your other posts. It sucks that we have to ask that question, but I also think that scientists are doing a really shitty job of answering it, because a lot of them fall back to "You know it's true because we're scientists" and that's an non-answer.
I'll echo this; I know actual scientists in research and they are down to explain their research at the drop of a hat.None of the scientists I know would ever fall back on such a position.
Translation: I can't get these guys to shut up about their damn research.I'll echo this; I know actual scientists in research and they are down to explain their research at the drop of a hat.
Well, that's the primary position for a minority, so no fallback needed.None of the scientists I know would ever fall back on such a position.
About their own research, when it's a personal conversation, sure. When they're talking about the research of others, that they none-the-less believe, or when they're making statements to the press, or making political arguments.... Well, I don't know what they as individuals would do, but I know what the trend is in the world as a whole. The sad state of the world is that people fall back to saying "I'm right and that's that" far more often than we should, myself included. Scientists are not immune to this.I'll echo this; I know actual scientists in research and they are down to explain their research at the drop of a hat.