This also goes up there with the "in this house we believe SCIENCE IS REAL" signs.
We're currently living through the replication crisis and are awash in fraudulent academic journals. I don't think people who say this stuff would actually engage with you in a conversation about proper p-values for given sample sizes. So it's really just shorthand for trying to associate yourself to a certain intellectual class.
In general, it's filling the vacuum left by religion. One part of that is what you identified: people generally need something greater than themselves to identify with, and "intellectual" is a tempting option.
Another part of it is that people generally crave certainty and fear the unknown. Religion fills that need by providing crisp, clean answers that don't provide a lot of room for questions and "what if"s. In the absence of a traditional organized religion, people try to fill that void with what seems to be the new, popular replacement—science.
Unfortunately, science is by design all about uncertainty. As soon as it becomes a dogma it ceases to be science.
It's not a surprise that people put "science" up on a pedestal when science education is too often about getting the correct answer to questions. Instead of asking questions and understanding the limitations of any approach to answering them. Restraint and humility aren't exciting, but they're so important.
If anyone "believes", "trusts", "follows", etc. science, then they are doing science wrong.
The most fundamental element to science is skepticism. Following the essays of a scientist is no different than following the teachings of a priest.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38859965
"Believing", "trusting", "following" science means using information from an entity that presumably follows the scientific method to ascertain their information, and is otherwise fallible and subject to change pending new data.
This is in contrast to "believing" information from an entity that did not procure information via the scientific method, and is usually infallible and not subject to change pending new data.
We probably agree on the right way to apply “skepticism” re science.
But the self-described “skeptics” I know often ignore evidence. Which is one way the word (Words! They suck!) can be validly interpreted.
I would say the fundamental element of science is “the evidence based search to continually improve our current understanding”.
I particularly like how “understanding” inoculates against the more static, subjective, bias friendly, identity and ideologically based, implications of “belief”.
What's the alternative? Following every single argument every researcher makes back to the beginning and replicate their work before you base any further work or thought on what they did or said? That's not really feasible in most domains.
And, personally, I'd rather call the basis of science curiosity and not (just) skepticism.
It strikes me as a response to a trend callousness and deliberate ignorance.
Signs like these take a strawman version of "the other side" and define the residents of the home in opposition to that strawman. It's evidence that the person who put it up views themselves as part of the culture war, not evidence that they strive to be kind to and understanding of people who are different than them.
I This House We Believe That
Simplistic Platitudes
Trite Tautologies
And Semantically Overloaded Aphorisms
Are Poor Substitudes
For Respectful And Rational Discussions
About Complex Ideas
I wonder if whoever coined the phrase knew it was a joke deprecating whoever buys it. Like those movies where the point is "those monsters are horrible, aren't they? yeah, you are doing basically the same right now."
'Science' isn't something to believe in, it's a testable thing instead. That's kinda the core idea.
You don't have to believe in science, if anything science says that you should be skeptical until you do the experiments yourself.
I disagree in that, I don't think this is a divisive topic. I have not heard of a valid critique for school start times should be later aside from schools being a daycare supplement for working parents. But that's not science, its politics/economics. "The science" is, in my experience, very clear that young people should be allowed to wake-up later in the day to better conform with their natural sleep cycles.
For a personal perspective, when I was in high school, if I had needed to take the bus, I would have had to get on it before 6 AM, since I was at the beginning of the route (first or second stop, IIRC). Luckily, some family friends had a daughter who was an upperclassman at the same school, and she drove me. I would guess there are few parents well-served by their teenagers getting up at five in the morning.
Do you really think all the states and people that decided these things in the past were all stupid, or not following "the science" back then, or just picked start times at random? Do you really think you know better than all those states and people? Did the science change since then? Did the reasons to start school early/late change since then? Maybe they did. But if they did, you could maybe elaborate on that rather than just saying "the science is so clear" and dictating the way things should be.
let's look back at the 1800s when school became commonplace. at that time science decided what was the best time to get up and milk the cows. and how to make the most of the available daylight. work and school had to fit into that schedule. so in a way science was used to decide school times indirectly. what is important is to consider that school has not changed since then.
however in the meantime new research suggests that we should rethink schools, and so here we are questioning whether current school starting times are still adequate. this is not saying that in the past people were stupid or picked the times at random, only that the factors that led to those choices have changed.
Yes. Why do you believe otherwise?
> or just picked start times at random
No, they chose based on when they needed daycare to start, because the workday was starting. Or, because the children needed to be available to work the fields during certain hours. Things have changed.
> Do you really think you know better than all those states and people
Yes.
> Did the science change since then
Yes.
> you could maybe elaborate on that rather than just saying "the science is so clear"
Does every discussion need to re-articulate the accumulated evidence? Can't there be some assumption of informed debate?
https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/features/schools-start-too-early.h...
I don't really disagree with your point, but... Have you looked at the overall quality of the decisions those people made?
They were not stupid, but the overall amount of real information they dealt with was ridiculously low. And the overall amount of fake information they dealt with was ridiculous high. The odds of any random choice they made being a good one aren't very high.
> your viewpoint really feels like, to phrase it as a software engineering analogy, a new developer that comes into a 20 year old project, looks at what currently exists, calls it all trash, says the people that came before you were dumb and didn't know what they were doing, and you just start rewriting all the code.
Do you think society has peaked and our understanding of civics hasn't evolved? That nothing can ever be better? To continue your analogy, your (unstated) viewpoint is like the stodgy programmer stubbornly sticking to PHP "because it works" and refusing to accept that webtech has evolved and there are better tools. Or a more contemporary way, an old C programmer stubbornly refusing to learn Rust because "C just works". Does it make sense to put Rust into the project? Possibly not, there are many excellent reasons not to. But its a discussion worth having.
> Do you really think all the states and people that decided these things in the past were all stupid, or not following "the science" back then, or just picked start times at random?
If I were to hazard a guess, I imagine most school systems are still bound by the legacy of farmwork and the start/end times are holdovers from that. I doubt the timing has significantly changed since schooling became a primary factor of our lives. But that's just a guess. I would certainly hope that the people who start a new school district are taking into account many factors before dictating a start time.
> Do you really think you know better than all those states and people?
I do not feel the need to be beholden to history for history's sake. My own post acknowledged (one) challenge with changing the start time. But...
> Did the science change since then? Did the reasons to start school early/late change since then?
This is exactly what I and others have posited, yes.
> Maybe they did. But if they did, you could maybe elaborate on that rather than just saying "the science is so clear" and dictating the way things should be.
Others in this thread have posted extensive good research on this very subject for your consumption. I myself have posted a reference to a book I found useful and entertaining. Not every single comment needs to be a doctoral thesis containing every possible scrap of information or interpretation on a subject. This, and other subjects of the like, are artifacts _with context_. Within context of this post, it is in direct response to an article that explains the reason with even more links and a friendly bulleted list.
A mildly provocative analogy is demanding a link to every peer-reviewed journal when discussing climate change. I don't feel the need to point out every scrap of research to state a claim that "Climate change is real". I will merely state, especially in a comment to an article discussing legacy policy around climate change, that climate change is real.
That already crosses into politics. Science can answer if-then statements. Once you start using the word "should", you are talking about morality, preference, and tradeoffs.
In that case, I will also cross over into politics by expressing the opinion that answers to if-then statements should, when they are available, be taken into account in political decision-making.
It can, given sufficient inputs in terms of desired outcomes.
Of course, desired outcomes are where subjectivity enters into things. :)
I dislike it when it is used to describe something that is not science.
> I don't have kids, and don't really care when schools start
As a taxpayer, your money is being wasted trying to teach sleepy teenagers who are not the right physical state for learning. Given that these are future coworkers and the people that will be funding the government when you are retired, it might be wise to suggest maybe spend monty teaching teens when they are awake and physically ready to learn?
This is a nitpick at best. From outside a given field, one generally has no option but to pick one or some sources as authoritative and refer to them (or to declare no source is authoritative).
In other words, if I say “the science says XYZ” this is shorthand for “my preferred authoritative sources of information on the relevant field assert XYZ”
Can this be incorrect? Yes. Is this often used as a bludgeon? Yes, and reasonably so: without piercing the research veil, what discussion could exist besides disagreeing on a sources’ authority?
If I say “the science says kids shouldn’t wake before 8 am”, and you respond with some neuroscience argument that childrens brain can adapt to waking up before 8 am, you are essentially making an off topic argument: I am referencing an authoritative position, not arguing why that position is correct. In that sense, yes, I am applying a bludgeon; and I right well should, because I can’t have a meaningful engagement with your scientific position anyways.
I see your sentiment often and even though I agree that usage of “the science says” is a poor description of how science works, nonetheless language is an evolving construct and “the science says ___” is a mainstream construct in English language dialogue at this point
There’s nothing wrong with appealing to authority. Often times it’s the best we can do. Sometimes authority is not sufficiently convincing and in such situations it’s fine to point out that whatever “the science” refers to needs more evidence supporting their claims
There’s something to be said by beginning a conversation with a shared understanding of what is considered a reasonable ground truth.
Good science happens when the best scientist is wrong.
Am Acad. of Sleep Medicine Consensus guidelines with 26+ references: https://jcsm.aasm.org/doi/10.5664/jcsm.6558
It presumes that this single thing is the one we should all build our lives around and there are no other priorities to balance.
All of us in our lives "ignore the science" in some form or other.
The AAP is comprised of pediatricians, e.g. medical professionals, so people who have spent at least 100x to 1000x more time thinking about these issues than your average American or HN poster. This includes research and clinical studies, and meta-analysis.
So for all intents and purposes, their recommendations might as well be science.
> I don't have kids, and don't really care when schools start, so this is less a comment about that as it is about how annoying
Then you should probably just not comment in the future, especially if you're not a pediatrician AND you don't have any skin in the game. Otherwise, it sounds like Joe Rogan chiming in about vaccines.
I'm starting to dislike the phrase "the science", since I usually hear it used as a conversational bludgeon. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommended 8:30 AM as a minimum start time, that's not the same as "the science" definitely saying one thing or another. I don't have kids, and don't really care when schools start, so this is less a comment about that as it is about how annoying "the science" is as a phrase, how it's not a good description of how science works, and how it's usually misapplied to end conversations in favor of your prior opinion.