I'm a little uncomfortable with this.
Understandably.
@Luftmensch’s comment was more about nonscientists questioning (really, dismissing) the existing scientific literature based on personal experience / anecdotes.
Mostly this
I think @Luftmensch was addressing something of a Platonic ideal.
A tiny bit... but mostly I was addressing how the outcomes of science should be consumed by the public and politicians.
In general I don't see a huge amount of the public not believing specific research papers, which they don't read unless someone is shoving it in their face along with an "interpretation" of what it means, but rather questioning "scientific" advice drawn (one hopes) from the research but filtered through politicians, bureaucrats, and the media which is a rather different animal.
I respectfully disagree.
Climate change is a prime example. Yes politics and money are perverting the discussion. Yes media is throwing fuel on the fire. But if people actually accepted the science, politicians would have a difficult time convincing their constituents to vote for them. Media would have poor subscribership. All this sh!t and pollution in the information space would be laughed off and dismissed as junk.
Same for the antivax movement. Same for the anti-mask crowd. Flat earthers exist in remarkable numbers.
These people are out there. Each time these communities challenge the emergent science (based on their political/cultural/religious philosophies) we depart from an objective reality and waste time arguing about facts.
I have said it many times on KKF: i dont care one iota if you say:
- I accept climate change is real but I don't want to change the way society is organised - I dont want to do anything about it
- I accept masks offer varying degrees of protection but I find them uncomfortable and my comfort is more important than increasing the safety of those around me.
These are positions honest and don't attempt to hide their agenda behind some alternate version of an 'objective' reality.
Max Planck's quip that "Science advances one funeral at a time" is not without some validity.
Oh sure! It has validity. Our descriptions of the universe need to be verified. They need to be challenged.
If we move the discussion away from how the public should consume science and actually talk about science... I could still have a mini rant about statements like these.
[RANT]
I think statements like
"Science advances one funeral at a time" and "
question the science"
does have validity. But they are a
poor representation of how the majority of science is done. My concern and irritation is that they become a magnet and dog whistle for 'sceptics'.
Like I say, the reality of modern science is that we stand on the shoulders of giants. Science is by and large an incremental effort of pushing the boundaries. Building on other people's work. Almost every single discipline (as far as I am aware) include something like a literary review or background in their publication template. This is done not only to contextualise the research but also establish an accepted foundation from which the research can proceed (assumptions, existing models... etc). For every one paper that shatters the boundaries and causes a major rethink.... there will be many orders of magnitude more papers that accept the boundary as a given and push it forward just a little further.
The other subtle thing about science that the general public might not be aware about is how difficult it is becoming. It is increasingly the case that
groups and not
individuals are responsible for major leaps forward. The more you find out, the more you need to invest in finding out the next piece of the puzzle. We have entered an age where science is being conducted in the hive mind. There are a lot of big-wig academics in every niche field... but they are not household names. You have to be part of a niche to know who the giants are - and they are often the head of well resourced groups. I think examples of science titans that became household names, like Einstein or Darwin, will become fewer and farther between.
This is significant because groups of people can iron out individual biases and cross check each other's work before even publishing. Sure, 'groupthink' is a risk but that tends to get challenged in the process. When science spans institutions and even countries, the cost in infrastructure and human resourcing is so high that mistakes are not an option. Look at the LHC or LIGO... or James Webb. There isnt room for error. The assumptions, engineering and objectives of these experiments are damned thorough.
These projects all seek to acquire new information so that we can develop new and better models. Fill in gaps of our knowledge. Their primary objective is not funeral planning.... although the community will embrace and possibly even morn any deaths that occur on the way...
[/RANT]
and the only regret I have is I won’t be around in to find out what’s really out there. Some day we’ll find somewhere else to call home and how amazing that new reality will be!
