Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It will be hard for the lay people trying to be informed to trust 'the science' while think tanks continually abuse science and statistics.



I'm not saying people should blindly trust "the science". I'm just saying the far bigger danger these days is people who blindly distrust science, and think that people like Alex Jones are somehow keeping it real and funneling the truth to them because it makes them feel like an insider in this huge world that they don't understand.

I don't think people should blindly trust much of anything or anyone. But I also think the attitude of "don't trust anything that comes from mainstream media, don't trust expertise, don't trust science" is a hell of a lot more destructive than "trust mainstream news organizations somewhat but not blindly, trust expertise but not blindly, trust science but not blindly, always consider the source, and try to be cognizant of your own and other people's biases".

Also, if someone is so intellectually challenged that they can only take binary, black and white positions on things like trusting mainstream media, trusting expertise, and trusting science, well, we'd all be a lot better off if they just erred on the side of less random bullshit and actually did blindly trust all of those institutions. Because otherwise they're just blindly trusting other people who've rejected all human knowledge and are just driven by emotions and imagined narratives. Blindly trusting the big evil establishment will result in them buying into some misinformation, sure, but they're not going to turn into anti-vaxxers or fascists or flat earthers or religious fundamentalists at least.


exactly. Science shares a fair bit of the blame too. Not enough peer review and verification of results. Corporations can pay scientists for whatever results they want to put out in a press release and there is no shortage of journals that will publish total garbage if you're willing to pay them enough. The lack of integrity and oversight in the scientific community makes it very hard for people to tell what they can safely consider authoritative.


> Not enough peer review and verification of results. Corporations can pay scientists for whatever results they want to put out in a press release and there is no shortage of journals that will publish total garbage if you're willing to pay them enough.

There's a term for this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_by_press_conference


Science is science as long as it is used and examined by scientific minds.

Scientific results and studies are indistinguishable from propoganda when used to sway/lead/inform the public. I'm not saying science is propoganda, I'm saying it becomes indistinguishable for those who aren't participating in performing the research or understanding the research methodologies.


It's also been used to deliberately mislead and misinform the public. The tobacco industry had no problems finding scientists willing to mislead the public about the impacts of their products on consumers heath.




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: