> This is precisely what scientists should have been doing! I'm afraid having your work done for you by unqualified amateurs is a kind of punishment for skimping on it for too long.
How else do you think scientists reached consensus, exactly? Maybe the problem lies with the unqualified amateurs, who are, well unqualified to do that?
Scientific consensus is reached gradually over the course of decades, after a theory stood the test of many many challenges. No scientific theory is absolute and final and challenges are welcome, but they should be scientific, i.e. based on real data and statistically gounded analysis. Yes, it's hard to change consensus, not only in science but in any kind of community. This does not mean everybody in that community is corrupt. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If changing a consensus was easy, it would not be a real consensus.
>> a background of "Ultimate Fighting Championship color commentator, comedian, actor, and former television presenter"
>
>This is essentially a class-ist argument: Someone who tells dirty jokes on netflix couldn't possibly, by the essence of their being, decide for themselves which scientist to talk to.
No it's not. Getting all background knowledge and staying up to date with all pubblications in a given scientific field is very difficult and time-consuming. Expertise does exist, and takes year to build. Somebody who tells dirty jokes on netflix likely does not have the time or energy do to that. Maybe, but quite unlikely.
> To the extent that science is used as the underwriter of various political projects, I think people are perfectly fine losing faith in it.
What is the alternative? If no policy should be based on science, then what? Tea leaves? Crystal balls? Shamans? Prayers? Goat sacrifices?
> 5 decades of "belief" in science hasn't done much good.
You really need to elaborate here.
Please, please, please. Do not confuse science (the process of discovery) with scientific institutions (the groups of humans with all their defects).
> What is the alternative? If no policy should be based on science, then what? Tea leaves? Crystal balls? Shamans? Prayers? Goat sacrifices?
I'm afraid you're lacking imagination. Also, the irony of these being historical examples rather than made up seems to be lost on you. Humans are strange.
On a more serious note, if you were interested in what a modern society looks like that is no longer guided by science, you could study Russia. It seems a cynical blend of religion, nationalism, and imperialism is what it is. I'm not advocating for this, I'm describing what it looks like.
>> 5 decades of "belief" in science hasn't done much good.
> You really need to elaborate here.
I specifically prefaced it with "as underwriter of political projects". Over that time, the #1 influence on policy has been economics, and besides covid all of the most pressing issues today are economic: Stagnation, deindustrialization, inequaliy, and inflation. People are asking, if policy over that period was built on such solid scientific foundation, how come we've ended up here?
How else do you think scientists reached consensus, exactly? Maybe the problem lies with the unqualified amateurs, who are, well unqualified to do that?
Scientific consensus is reached gradually over the course of decades, after a theory stood the test of many many challenges. No scientific theory is absolute and final and challenges are welcome, but they should be scientific, i.e. based on real data and statistically gounded analysis. Yes, it's hard to change consensus, not only in science but in any kind of community. This does not mean everybody in that community is corrupt. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If changing a consensus was easy, it would not be a real consensus.
>> a background of "Ultimate Fighting Championship color commentator, comedian, actor, and former television presenter" > >This is essentially a class-ist argument: Someone who tells dirty jokes on netflix couldn't possibly, by the essence of their being, decide for themselves which scientist to talk to.
No it's not. Getting all background knowledge and staying up to date with all pubblications in a given scientific field is very difficult and time-consuming. Expertise does exist, and takes year to build. Somebody who tells dirty jokes on netflix likely does not have the time or energy do to that. Maybe, but quite unlikely.
> To the extent that science is used as the underwriter of various political projects, I think people are perfectly fine losing faith in it.
What is the alternative? If no policy should be based on science, then what? Tea leaves? Crystal balls? Shamans? Prayers? Goat sacrifices?
> 5 decades of "belief" in science hasn't done much good.
You really need to elaborate here.
Please, please, please. Do not confuse science (the process of discovery) with scientific institutions (the groups of humans with all their defects).