Re:Why “Trusting the Science” Is Complicated
by cogman10 on Wednesday October 13, 2021 @01:47PM
(#28855185)
This is all well said, but I'd put a caveat here, science, by it's empirical nature, is fuzzy.
What that means is that for nearly any generally accepted position, you can find studies that invalidate that position.
This all comes into the need for looking into meta analysis over single studies.
The perfect example of this is climate change. There are, literally, thousands of studies supporting the notion that human made climate change is real. However, there are 100s of studies that call it into question.
That is where you can get 2 individuals saying "I'm following the science" that talk past each other because each is clinging onto the set of studies that confirm their beliefs.
Skepticism is fine, however, if you aren't challenging your own position you aren't being a skeptic, you are simply using it as a cover for what you want to believe. The example here is flat earthers that would all describe themselves as "skeptics".
What that means is that for nearly any generally accepted position, you can find studies that invalidate that position.
This all comes into the need for looking into meta analysis over single studies.
The perfect example of this is climate change. There are, literally, thousands of studies supporting the notion that human made climate change is real. However, there are 100s of studies that call it into question.
That is where you can get 2 individuals saying "I'm following the science" that talk past each other because each is clinging onto the set of studies that confirm their beliefs.
Skepticism is fine, however, if you aren't challenging your own position you aren't being a skeptic, you are simply using it as a cover for what you want to believe. The example here is flat earthers that would all describe themselves as "skeptics".