Genuinely asking, how should I evaluate truth in a subject matter that I myself don't have a doctorate in if the standard of "what is general consensus among the people with doctorates in the subject" isn't reasonable?
Also, as to whether believing scientific general consensus should count as "faith" or not, I invite you to read Issac Asimov's short essay "The Relativity of Wrong".
Where is the evidence that a consensus is a good metric for the truth of a matter? Has there been any work done to establish such a correspondence?
Asimov seems to be arguing that there are degrees of wrongness, and one can become less wrong by a process of rational error elimination and criticism. How does the mere fact of a consensus have any bearing on this process?
Again, I pose the question, what is a reasonable alternative?
>Asimov seems to be arguing that there are degrees of wrongness, and one can become less wrong by a process of rational error elimination and criticism. How does the mere fact of a consensus have any bearing on this process?
The scientific process IS a process of rational error elimination and criticism. Scientific consensus is the result of the majority of experts in a field using the scientific process to agree on the "least wrong" information possible given the data available at that time. If you claim not to see the bearing on this process, you're being dishonestly obtuse.
> Where is the evidence that a consensus is a good metric for the truth of a matter? Has there been any work done to establish such a correspondence?
I think you have the causal chain backwards; the evidence of a good metric for the truth of a matter is what builds consensus. If the evidence is incompatible with consensus, and it holds up to scrutiny & reproduction, then the consensus changes to match. Either way, the end result is that consensus is an improving approximation to "the truth". If you have a better way of obtaining "the truth", I would be very glad to learn about it.
Again, this inverts the burden of proof. There is no obligation to provide any alternative, and no obligation to defer to a consensus in the absence of one.
>Scientific consensus is the result of the majority of experts in a field using the scientific process to agree on the "least wrong" information possible given the data available at that time. If you claim not to see the bearing on this process, you're being dishonestly obtuse.
I see no evidence that this narrative is generally true, and it is a very weak argument for taking consensus as a metric of truthfulness.
>If you have a better way of obtaining "the truth", I would be very glad to learn about it.
One does not require a better way of obtaining the truth in order to avoid committing oneself to accepting unjustified claims. Again, such a requirement inverts the burden of proof.
In order to act on a claim (inaction is also an action; "avoid committing oneself to accepting" is just ornate wording for choosing inaction) one must evaluate the "probability of truth" of said claim. To my knowledge, scientific consensus is the most reliable source to inform that evaluation. Since you fail to provide a more effective alternative, then it seems that scientific consensus is at least non-inferior to any other method either of us is currently aware of. Thus it is the rational choice on which to base action; basing them on a less reliable source gives a higher probability of being "wrong", and thus would be irrational.
> I see no evidence that this narrative is generally true.
Honest answer: Then I invite you to attend a consensus conference, or enough of them for the p-value on your evaluation of how they run to reach whatever level is acceptable to you. Tongue-in-cheek answer: You also have no evidence you aren't a simulated agent in an advanced species' super-computer (Descartes's "brain in a jar"). At some point, you have to choose some axioms and build your world-view from there.
There is no requirement to evaluate the truth value of an ill defined, nonsensical or self-contradictory claim. In fact, a claim of that nature may as well be regarded as being meaningless. On those grounds, it makes no sense even to speak of probability in regard to such a claim.
>Honest answer: Then I invite you to attend a consensus conference
A 'consensus conference' may do one of two things:
1) It may dedicate itself to the evaluation of rational argument and evidence, in which case it is the argument and evidence that matters, and the consensus is irrelevant.
2) Some other means may be used to arrive at consensus, in which case it may be irrational, or at the very best, unscientific.
Note that the position that OP advanced, and which you appear to be defending is that the bare fact of the existence of a consensus should be treated as primary evidence on its own. At best, a consensus is secondary evidence, a pointer to the real crux of discussion, and treating it as primary evidence is a category error which is only compounded by the air of authority implied by a consensus which adds psychological coercion into the mix.
Calling a claim "ill defined, nonsensical or self-contradictory" is already an evaluation of it's probable truth value.
> Note that the position that OP advanced, and which you appear to be defending is that the bare fact of the existence of a consensus should be treated as primary evidence on its own.
Actually, the person you responded to clearly stated: "how should I evaluate truth in a subject matter that I myself don't have a doctorate in". For someone well-versed in the area, or at least with enough free time to become sufficiently acquainted with it, going to directly to primary evidence is the optimal approach. However, in the situation described by OP, were they are limited in the amount of time and cognitive capacity they can invest, then basing decisions on such "Secondary evidence" as expert consensus is the rational approach.
A lot of people like to formulate this for themselves as being open and not accepting some kind of "dogma". Which sounds good, you stay open, what do you have to lose? (BTW, accepting the scientific consensus doesn't mean that you can't change your mind when new information comes in, but that's a tangent.)
But the thing is that when you have to make a decision then you have to accept some claims as being true (for at least the duration of making the decision). And that's when you have to ask yourself (as a layperson): who is more likely to be right? Which model is going to be more close to the reality? Science, the majority of scientists or some random dude? (Including maybe those few seemingly legit scientists who "speak up" in social media stating that all other scientists have gone completely wrong, including virologists and epidemiologists. But that one bloke is right.) And can that solo dude be right in theory? Yes, of course. Is he likely to be right? Well, looking back at the history of science it's rare, it doesn't last too long (until others realize and change their opinion) and it's getting more rare (as the scientific method evolves).
So yeah, no burden of proof on anyone, just a meaningful strategy for those outside of the field (any given field). Those doing research should always prove they are right. But, to get back to the original topic, that's not done in social media. That's done in scientific publications through peer reviewed papers. And, of course, the scientific consensus itself is supported by those so talking about shifting the burden of proof makes no sense at all. The proof is there for the consensus. That's the point.
Covid and Climate Change are interesting because certain conclusions related to them have a direct impact on you and I. The ruling class would certainly like you to believe one conclusion over all the others and that conclusion might even be 'correct' in terms of being beneficial to you or humans as a whole, but asking people to believe that conclusion because of some 'consensus' is fraught with both logical and mortal peril as history has shown us time and time again.
How do you make sense of all of this and wrangle objective truth from the chaos?
That's an epistomological question people have been asking since the dawn of mankind.
IS there even objective truth that our limited monkey/human mind can grasp?
I don't know the answer!...but I know censoring a multitude of opinions and claiming a monopoly on objective truth in an infinite world of chaos is not the way to do it.
You could argue that social media is an important outlet for new scientific ideas, results and discoveries but then you'd have to prove that not censoring there and letting the fakes run wild adds more value than the harm caused by the fakes. And the we know that the latter effect exists. I'd say that even if there is added value here (TBH, I don't see it at all), it's overwhelmed by the harm. Any scientifically valuable contribution that is only spread through the social media will be lost in the noise of nonsense.
Many major scientific breakthroughs were made outside of the 'institution of science' and peer reviewed papers.
Joseph Lister discovered antiseptic theory during routine medical practice and was mocked at first by other doctors who didn't want to switch instruments between surgurys.
Galileo was excommunicated for going against mainstream science.
But both of their ideas won out in the end.
If you need censorship and coercion of any sort to force your ideas on people, if to need to limit the avenues which ideas are shared .. you need better ideas.
> Joseph Lister discovered antiseptic theory during routine medical practice and was mocked at > first by other doctors who didn't want to switch instruments between surgurys.
Just to mention an earlier, related case: there was a Hungarian guy called Ignaz Semmelweis [1] who figured out the importance of antiseptics before Lister. He had very tragic fate. He published his results then he was mocked by fellow doctors, he basically went crazy for not being able to make a change (though he may have had a condition too), put into an insane asylum, where he died after a short time at the age of 47.
He gets little credit outside of Hungary (where I'm from) because he didn't figure out the exact biological causes for the infections (he didn't connect these to bacteria) so some science historians think he was just right by accident. But that's not true. He used observations and statistics to identify that the cause of the relatively common death due to childbed fever of women after giving birth was infection by the doctors who also did autopsy. He had a wrong theory about how "cadaverous matter" would cause illness through decomposition which would make both dead bodies and doctors hand smell. And he found that chlorinated lime solution would remove the smell and thus he though the "cadaverous material" so he started using it to wash his hands and convinced colleagues in the hospital to do the same which resulted in a rapid and sharp improvements in the death statistics. (So again, while his theory was wrong, his method and results were right.)
But as I said above, science has built in these experiences and this knowledge, so science to day is built on much better foundations and better methods than in Semmelweis' or Lister's time. And it's not that just we know more because we accepted their discoveries. We know how to do science better, how to be right more often and wrong less frequently. And again: what's your alternative suggestion? Where's your proof that discussing all these "alternate opinions", which completely ignore the scientific method, on social media gives any better results (and, indeed not worse results)?
The "you need better ideas" assumption is not only unfounded it's also naive and wrong. We have experiments to show that people believe stupid things even if/when they do have access to the scientific truth. Because the former can be formulated in more attractive, easier to digest ways than the reality. (After all, they don't have to match reality so they are way more malleable.) Unfortunately it's not about having access to better information or "better" ideas. You can't have better ideas than what matches the reality (or, in other words, your best current knowledge) but considerable fraction people get attracted to ideas based on not how "good" (meaningful, accurate) they are.
> Galileo was excommunicated for going against mainstream science.
Again, you already said that and I responded to that, which you 100% ignored, but I forgot to mention that: a) Gallileo wasn't excommunicated, he was forced to retract his theories by the catholic church, not fellow scientists. b) he was actually wrong. He thought the Sun was the center of the universe, which is clearly wrong. (But of course, less wrong and way more useful than the previous ideas. But that's the point: science evolves by getting things less wrong over time.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis#Breakdown_and...
Like there's a bunch of older gentlemen with beards and pipes and philosophy phds sitting around a room discussing the cultural merits of the song wet ass pussy.
My best guess at how the censorship process works is there's a bunch of really low paid people that censor things based on a narrative page provided to them.
> review were they carefully weigh the pros and cons of all the data of every side of a debate?
You're right, of course, they don't. OTOH, as I said earlier, there is very little scientific value (if any) in posting on social media, so this kind of censorship cannot hinder scientific advance/getting to know the reality better.
Also, they actually only seem to block pretty blatant cases (like if someone says that there is no pandemic or vaccines don't work) and most of the content is pretty primitive and low value anyway. I see a lot of this shit, either because the censorship is not too strict or because they put a lot less effort into the non-English corners of their networks. Actually, most things that FB marks with a warning that you should only trust official sources are scientifically correct posts (e.g. from research labs or experts posting valid research papers). And the stupidity, the "alternate view" seems to go undetected. I've reported quite a few blatantly stupid posts out of curiosity and none of them were taken down. Not even the "5G activates the vaccines" types.
> My best guess at how the censorship process works is there's a bunch of really low
> paid people that censor things based on a narrative page provided to them.
This seems pretty likely. That must be one of the reasons they don't act on most actual misinformation. Though they should be able to use technology, because a lot of the misinformation I see is either some post (or video) being shared a large number of times (they could give those special attention) or reposting of the same content (could be a video, but mostly copy&pasted text). Of course, there are stupid comments too, but those would be very hard to censor efficiently (without actually harming the discourse - even if not the scientific discourse).
There are also well known profiles that are dedicated to spreading misinformation that don't get censored at all. Again, here in Hungary there is a(n ex-)pharmacist who has been cranking out nonsense since the very beginning. He very likely is building his profile for the general elections next year (he did participate 4 and 8 years ago). But he might be simply just an idiot. He would be very easy to take down, given he's relatively high profile (as a denier by all means), FB could afford to have one of their more expensive collegaues to spend a few days on him. But they don't care. Actually, they are even motivated to keep him on the site because he generates a lot of interactions... So to me it seems that if anything, then we need more censorship, not less. (But it doesn't have to mean banning the discussion, even if they would just cut the obvious and blatant misinformation, that would help a lot.)