I felt I needed to reply to this post because, although some very interesting points are made regarding the nature and shortcomings of scientific knowledge, the text sums up to a rather negatively distorted vision of science while overlooking a major concept in the discussion: scientific literacy.
I may agree with your statements about scientists being fallible and research protocols having design flaws, but anyone who truly understands the scientific method and who is seriously committed to it knows that science does not deal with facts but with models and their ability to describe observational data, and that any model's strength and credibility is contingent upon a thorough replication of its predictions by independent parties and in compatible (with the model's applicability) but different sets of conditions. It usually takes a long time and a series of advances and setbacks for a model to gain a more or less consensual status among the scientific community. Even then, any model must be understood to possess a very well defined applicability domain (which may be broader or narrower), and it usually keeps being challenged at its fringe in order to either extend its domain and predictive power or to find some broader, more fundamental and more powerful framework which might succeed where its predecessor has failed. This happens continuously in a never ending process of hypothesizing, predicting, comparing to data and reinforcing (never proving) or falsifying (as you very well put) it. As you have stated yourself, the scientific method has been proving itself for hundreds of years to be the key methodology for humanity to understand the world and how to take advantage of it. This is not a random thing, but an intrinsic merit of the method itself.
Now, when it comes to the general public's perception of the scientific method and its results, many people don't have the necessary literacy for their careful interpretation, and some might even not care at all. Scientific journalism is also at fault for often oversimplifying and distorting the underlying research work and results, providing the wrong message to its public and further distancing the public from the rigorous boundaries of scientific inquiry. The science effectively gets lost in translation and what people usually end up with are highly unscientific soundbites which they read over some paper or listen to in the news, and which almost invariably misrepresent the scientific content which they pretend to convey.
I believe that all the parts have some responsibility in this. The general public should, first of all, strive for a reasonable understanding of the scientific method and of core concepts which allow them to interpret basic results in a rational and critical way. This might be especially important in disciplines which may have a more profound impact on people's lives, like health related sciences. The scientific community should strive for making scientific knowledge progressively more accessible to the public in a way which most people may understand the key points without gross oversimplification. Governments should maintain high standards regarding science education and should pay attention to conflicts of interest regarding research funding, punishing blatant fraud which might be hazardous to the public. After all, I don't think that anyone can rationally say that science is superfluous or unimportant or useless; it has been completely reshaping our world and our societies for centuries now, and most of the time in a very positive way. No one can deny the incredible successes of medicine, for example, even if there are bad or corrupt scientists working in it.
My point is that, overall, no single bit of information should ever dictate your opinion. However, I believe that, through scientific literacy, science should definitely have a major role in informing your opinions. I thought the post missed a bit on this, keeping an overly negative tone, so I decided share my thoughts on this. I'll be happy to further elaborate on any point which I might have left unclear.
A final word to the original poster: the topic of your post is a very interesting one and leads to a very healthy and important discussion. Congrats!
I adhere to scientific principles more than you think. The only reason I wrote this article is because people rely way too much on things that are beyond their control. Let's get real now. You are asked to put your blind faith on many aspects that you have no idea what is going on. Whether we talk about food or weather there are massive vested interests at play. These are the main issues, not evolution or some abstract theories that do not impact people's lives directly.
The fact that most people do not understand what is going on , should indeed make them wary — not blind followers to the scientific method. You described above the IDEAL way things are done. Go through a few papers and you see that most experiments are not even replicable, scientists don't even bother doing them for the "same of science and knowledge" but prefer to do their own thing, publish under their own name. These things demonstrate ego in some aspects and of course when larger interests are in play, financial incentives.
I will quote Richard Feynman here, living without knowing. This is what the main message of the post was. I did point out that science is the best tool we have. What I criticized is the sociology of science as it unfolds in various institutions and how that affects epistemology.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I guess I could summarize my point as this: what allows you to have a valid critical mindset towards science is the very understanding of how science works, both at its core and in its sociology, as you've put it. Both blind faith in it and blind disregard of it are equally radical and unreasonable. The key to navigating scientific knowledge in a way which benefits both the individual and the societies lies in a truly informed criticism of its best and worse practices.
When I wrote about the several responsible parts, I guess I was slightly touching the sociological aspect of science. With respect to that, the best way people have to defend themselves from fraud and bad science or bad scientific journalism is through a solid scientific literacy, not through a rigid denial of all science. People might intelligently rely on what they find to be sound science, and criticize what they consider to be flawed science, but for that they need to know and understand the process.
And I never thought you did not adhere to scientific principles, quite the contrary. A moderate skeptical attitude is paramount in any serious scientific endeavor.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"put your blind faith on many aspects that you have no idea what is going on."
That's because much of science is too complicated for all laypeople. If you can understand it, the source materials and methods are always public and available, and explainatory courses are held at universities across the world.
I don't even know how you can be blind and scientific.
There's risks in that, absolutely! But if you're a layperson, you should defer to an authority. That's not -ism in any way.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
nop. that's blind belief
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit