Agreed. We had a doctor who refused to believe that my partner’s symptoms were relieved by a specific procedure - because there were no reports of other people’s symptoms being relieved by this procedure. But by this logic, no such report could ever get recorded!
It is critical that subjective, experiential data is cross referenced with objective data in order to control for errors in both. Both kinds of data are fallible for different reasons.
In my opinion, the erosion of subjectivity from science is probably a driver of the loss of objectivity in politics.
Well, ISTM that science has had a pretty good run in politics, especially relative to the rest of history - but now, particularly in the US, science based governance is well and truly out the door.
Why is this? In my opinion it’s because science has rejected people’s subjective experience for too long, to the point where science has become just “someone else’s opinion”. I can think of three examples From the past decade, off the top of my head.
Gluten make you feel yukky? Nonsense, said Science, only people with celiac disease can be gluten intolerant... oh wait, there are other types of gluten intolerance? Who knew?
Qualms about GM? Nonsense, said Science, what we’re doing is perfectly safe... oh wait, GM crops can unexpectedly spread into non GM paddocks, ruining a bunch of farmers? Who knew?
Prefer organic food? Nonsense says Science, pesticides are safe and harmless... oh wait, all the bees are dying from Neonicotinoids? Who knew?
It’s not that there is anything wrong with the scientific method, but scientists who run around and demean people’s subjective view of the world - right or wrong - have IMO really contributed to the current crisis of faith in science. People’s subjective opinion and experience must necessarily be taken into account, since that’s part of their lived experience and what we are here to explain. You don’t have to believe everything people tell you, but you do have to listen and be tolerant.
It’s like a special application of Goodhart’s law, “if we haven’t already seen it, it doesn’t exist”. As a huge fan of the scientific method, this attitude makes me very sad.
I think the main reason is that science has simply become too hard to be explained in laymans terms in a way that you can still connect all the dots. Even plenty of scientists are now so narrow in their knowledge that within the same domain they won't be able to keep up with their peers if it isn't their exact specialization.
It's logical: in the renaissance a single individual could still hold 'all of science' in their heads, by the early 1900's that had split up into a whole bunch of domains each of which a single individual could still comprehend in their entirety. By the mid 1970s I don't think any single scientist still had complete command of their domain and that has only gotten worse.
It was bound to happen sooner or later, and this is not a sad thing per se, more of a measure of how far we have come and how quickly we've done that. The scientific method is the most amazing invention we've done, it succeeded where everything else has failed at explaining how the world and in fact much of the universe works.
It is critical that subjective, experiential data is cross referenced with objective data in order to control for errors in both. Both kinds of data are fallible for different reasons.
In my opinion, the erosion of subjectivity from science is probably a driver of the loss of objectivity in politics.