
How non-scientists think about science and science-denial - vixen99
https://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/2017/06/28/how-non-scientists-think-about-science-and-science-denial/
======
haberman
Scientific theories and predictions should be presented to the public with a
confidence attached. When people group gravity, evolution, dark energy, global
warming, economics, psychological theories, etc. under a single banner of
"science", it obscures the fact that some of these things can be modeled with
far greater certainty than others.

~~~
Frogolocalypse
> Scientific theories and predictions should be presented to the public with a
> confidence attached.

Theoretically, that's what peer-review is all about. Is your theory published
in Nature? High confidence. Is your theory a FoxNews piece on a 'recent
study'? Low confidence.

~~~
laingc
Having any kind of confidence in the peer review system is, in my opinion,
horribly misplaced.

Particularly with regard to Nature, the following website might interest you:
[http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-journal/nature-
retrac...](http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-journal/nature-retractions/)

~~~
Frogolocalypse
It's all relative I guess.

------
Frogolocalypse
Why all of this 'all or nothing' attitude to everything? Dare I suggest that
this comes from an almost uniquely American attitude to winning things? There
is good science, and bad science. Scientific study is produced by people, with
all of their faults, and it is a refinement and rethink over time that turns
"established fact!" into nuanced understanding.

If this isn't recognized, it is used by some to say "that fact turned out to
be wrong! Therefore that science is wrong!". It isn't like that. Science comes
from a question, or many questions. Scientists (i.e. people) use observation
to turn those questions into what they think are answers. It is this process
that is science, not the facts that they produce. If all you do is focus on
facts, you can't critically analyze why something shouldn't be correct, and
further science by thinking about how you can explain why this isn't the case.
So you end up with arguments about facts instead of arguments about why
observations and perceptions are different, which is what science is supposed
to be about.

My 2.2c.

~~~
paulddraper
Exactly.

Vaccines: good science

Cold fusion: bad science

PTSD: good science

Aryan Race: bad science

All or nothing is indeed the wrong way to look at it.

