MoiMagnus t1_j40n3z0 wrote
Reply to comment by cesiumatom in Philosophy has never been the detached pursuit of truth. It’s always been deeply invested in its own cultural perspective. by IAI_Admin
Yes, the scientific method often get "initialised" by non-scientific means. What I see in my domains is often issues about "aesthetics", like searching for a theory that is pleasing to the mind.
However, while it is widely accepted that while those biais are useful for innovation and finding research directions, as long as you don't manage to distance yourself from those biais you should not expect other scientists to believe you.
The high standard of "objectivity" is a standard about creating a scientific consensus. If a scientist believe that something is right while another believe that something is wrong, and all they have are subjective experiences, then you're in a deadlock and none of them will change their mind.
Additionally, given the very wild and numerous beliefs that many individuals (even scientists) have, you can't afford the time to have unfructuous debates with all of them.
That's why the scientific community agreed that it was a better use of everyone time to dismiss ideas that are only backed by subjective experiences from the scientific consensus, but that doesn't mean it is banning individual research groups from following them (they're called "conjectures"). It's just that only recognising them when they reach a point where objective data is obtained.
And I have plenty of examples on my community of researchers that have some bug conjectures that are "crazy", and those conjectures are dismissed by the community if you're talking about "scientific consensus", but still accepted if you're seeing them as a "research project that might or might not eventually give some major results".
It's just that from the outside, peoples only see the "scientific consensus". And obviously the scientific consensus will dismiss wild claims because that's not where wild claims belongs: they belong in "conjectures" and "research projects".
cesiumatom t1_j40sa3x wrote
I agree with all your points. The line between passion and insanity is thin, particularly in the scientific domains as people do tend to dedicate their lives to proving or disproving a set of details that could potentially change the whole direction of the field, at least in their minds.
That being said, I often see plenty of dismissive narratives spun by scientists about research worthy fields, and funding rarely goes where it is needed, if what is needed is well-being without commercial interest. You can see the results of lockdown on physical and mental health as an example.
Though scientific evidence for the efficacy of lockdowns in preventing the spread of infectious disease is poor, it was implemented by scientist consensus because Amazon and the like needed to scale their businesses, and cash was on the table. Did it help to prevent infection? No. Did it decrease the spread? No. Did it reinforce the introduction of variants? Probably, based on recent research.
All I'm saying is that in the name of being scientific, disasters have occurred time and time again, all signed off on by leading scientists in their fields pursuing the scientific method, while turning a blind eye towards the biases that may have introduced caution as opposed to panic and prevented them from making things worse. It might be worthwhile to actively seek out alternative points of view rather than to put blind faith in a single method that has no ethical framework, does its best not to consider ethics at all, and tries its hardest to avoid ethical "obstacles" in the name of progress.
MoiMagnus t1_j412pmv wrote
I'm sadly not working in the medical domain, so I don't know anything past my 5min internet search (which yield results such as https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/library/pedia/effectiveness-of-lockdowns) it seems that the core issue was not one of diagnosis (they were right in determining that a severe reduction of contacts between humans would reduce the spread) but one of failure in policy-making (medical experts failed to consider that voluntary confinement would be enough to reduce the spread, and that government mandates would not significantly improve the situation while having some severe drawbacks on non-medical subjects). Which, all being said, is not surprising: most medical experts don't have ALSO an expertise in policy-making, and like most peoples, scientists tend to overestimate their skill in domain they're not expert in.
Though, even if they were experts in both, I'm even cautious about calling "following the experts" as being "following the scientific consensus", as one of the prerequisite for the scientific consensus to work as intended is time, which is lacking in urgent situations like a worldwide pandemic.
[And I won't comment on the effects of funding methods in science, as while I understand that the peoples spending money want to ensure that the money they invest is going to bring them even more money, it has many perverted effects on scientists' ethics.]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments