> I’m always amazed at how many people insist the world is round, but can’t explain how we know that.
I've played a few times this game with people on a topic that generates strong feelings (climate change) enough to keep play for awhile, and I have yet to find someone going further than "scientists say". Each person wasn't able to cite a single name of a scientist or paper.
In general there is a lot of assumed "knowledge" about everything everywhere and it's better not asking questions because it can make people really angry.
Unlike philosophy or religion, science does not rest on the laurels of one accomplished prophet. The idea that something is only true if it comes out of the words of a famous scientist is antithetical to science. Compare the temperature of the inside of your car to the outside on a hot sunny day if you want an example of the greenhouse effect.
scientific conclusions rest on specific arguments in specific papers by specific people, including specific evidence. the people don't have to be famous or prophets; they just have to provide evidence
but it is the antithesis of science to repeat that 'scientists say' something without knowing which scientists say them and why. it's just as easily used to support false statements as true ones; for example, climate change deniers often say that scientists say we are in more danger of global cooling, or that scientists say that volcanic emissions of carbon dioxide vastly exceed anthropogenic emissions
> but it is the antithesis of science to repeat that 'scientists say' something without knowing which scientists say them and why
There are a few issues mixed up in this.
First, we all hold core beliefs about the world that we can’t justify from first hand experience. Many of those beliefs boil down to “scientists say”, but they’ve been in the public consciousness for long enough that the beliefs no longer evoke deference to scientific figures, e.g. very few people believe the earth is flat, but would not be able to tell you why, or who was involved in proving this.
While climate change deniers may pull the “scientists say” card, and while I think it’s worth being extra wary of claims that falsely invoke science, I think that this kind of science denialism is orthogonal to the ongoing practice/reality of “trusting science”, which is something that most people must do for practical reasons.
Put another way, most of us have to “trust the science”, mostly blindly, and there’s very little we can do about that. Helping people discern who they should trust seems like the most important area of focus.
> Many of those beliefs boil down to “scientists say”
The beliefs don't "boil down" at all: they form an interconnected web of theory and explanations that support and reinforce each other. You're acting like anything that one hasn't independently verified is something one is taking on faith, but that's not true. These aren't independent propositions that can be falsified on their own without dragging down an entire body of scientific understanding -- including things you have verified yourself.
I think my use of "boil down" didn't come across as intended. My point was that many/most people do not have the ability to independently verify the claims of experts in various scientific fields, nor do they care to. They instead trust the institutions that have been built throughout history and entrusted with the task of getting things right. Their beliefs really are roughly "this is what scientists say so I believe it". I'm not saying they don't have a good reason to believe it, just that this is the reality of the dynamic.
I think this is important because it underscores the criticality of institutions, and the importance of maintaining the health of the ones we have.
> You're acting like anything that one hasn't independently verified is something one is taking on faith
To be clear, this is definitely not what I'm saying.
i don't think it's orthogonal at all; i think this kind of science denialism is the inevitable result of the ongoing practice of "trusting science" instead of actually doing science, which is how you can discern who you should trust
I'd say their reaction depends mostly on how you approach them and the discussion. People generally have more pressing issues in their life and prefer delegating them to recognised authorities.
It's indeed the opposite of science, but the average person doesn't have the time, patience or energy to be doing science. Thus the need to put the trust on people that do because they're often right. If anything, when you see them appealing to the wrong or vague authority, you could provide better options or become one yourself.
there's a world of difference between 'the crc handbook says pentamethonium frangonide has a specific heat of 2951 kilojoules per mole per kelvin, but its molar mass is only 502 grams per mole, so that would give a surprisingly high specific heat of 5.9 kilojoules per gram per kelvin, so i'd better check the nist webbook and google scholar, but probably this grammatical-error-filled paper i found in google scholar from three researchers i've never heard of published in a journal i've never heard of isn't a very reliable source and they were probably just copying the crc handbook' and 'scientists say there's a missing link'
being able to, in principle, rederive things from scratch gives you a lot of information about who to trust
A difference in degree maybe, but not in kind. Trust is a central part of science, without it no advance would be possible.
> being able to, in principle, rederive things from scratch
Basically no scientist nowadays has any hope of being able to rederive everything from scratch. Not even in mathematics, where experiments are cheap, can you avoid relying on theorems from outside of your area of expertise.
I find it unsurprising that many people have no direct awareness of the underlying science behind basic things. That lack of awareness is not an indictment of the science or even the unaware person. Most of us know almost nothing about the world around us relatively speaking. We behave as if we know, but for the most part we’re just repeating/perpetuating beliefs embedded by the current iteration of culture. Direct knowledge is increasingly rare.
Yes I completely agree with you. I just don't think that knowing scientists names is a good proxy for having direct knowledge, as the post I originally replied to seemed to imply.
i think it is. in any area that i know well, i can name some important ideas, who came up with them, what their arguments were, who was opposed, what arguments they presented against those positions, and so on
if you can't name any papers or authors you probably can't explain any of the arguments in the papers either, and if you happen to have chosen the correct authorities to put your trust in, that's most likely purely a question of luck, not epistemic virtue
I've played a few times this game with people on a topic that generates strong feelings (climate change) enough to keep play for awhile, and I have yet to find someone going further than "scientists say". Each person wasn't able to cite a single name of a scientist or paper.
In general there is a lot of assumed "knowledge" about everything everywhere and it's better not asking questions because it can make people really angry.