• LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    13 hours ago

    But understanding how science works is key to having trust in it. If you lack that understanding you may just think it’s a bunch of stuck up eggheads who pick whatever truth is convenient to them.

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      But both sides sound as if they have done real science, so a basic understanding of how science is done won’t be enough to tell them apart. You can get anti-vaccine books written in an academic tone with citations. They go through the appearance of presenting evidence. The only difference between the two sides that is visible to an ordinary member of the public is that one side represents “the establishment” and the other side doesn’t.

      Even professional scientists have to have a lot of trust in the institutions of science - if I read a paper then unless there is something egregiously wrong, I rely on the journal and the scientific community to check that the authors did what they claimed to do and that they got the results they claim to have.

      • discostjohn@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I think you’re right, to some extent, but I think a slightly more than basic understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, and perhaps most importantly, statistics, helps you cut through a lot of the bullshit extremely easily

    • Venator@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      12 hours ago

      It really depends how science is taught: whether they’re tought to memorise a bunch of facts and formulas, or actually use reasoning…