Hacker News Reader

Comment by lolinder | Hacker News Reader

> trying to associate yourself to a certain intellectual class.

In general, it's filling the vacuum left by religion. One part of that is what you identified: people generally need something greater than themselves to identify with, and "intellectual" is a tempting option.

Another part of it is that people generally crave certainty and fear the unknown. Religion fills that need by providing crisp, clean answers that don't provide a lot of room for questions and "what if"s. In the absence of a traditional organized religion, people try to fill that void with what seems to be the new, popular replacement—science.

Unfortunately, science is by design all about uncertainty. As soon as it becomes a dogma it ceases to be science.

View on HN

> Another part of it is that people generally crave certainty and fear the unknown... Unfortunately, science is by design all about uncertainty.

It's not a surprise that people put "science" up on a pedestal when science education is too often about getting the correct answer to questions. Instead of asking questions and understanding the limitations of any approach to answering them. Restraint and humility aren't exciting, but they're so important.

Completely agree.

If anyone "believes", "trusts", "follows", etc. science, then they are doing science wrong.

The most fundamental element to science is skepticism. Following the essays of a scientist is no different than following the teachings of a priest.

See this comment, especially the last paragraph:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38859965

"Believing", "trusting", "following" science means using information from an entity that presumably follows the scientific method to ascertain their information, and is otherwise fallible and subject to change pending new data.

This is in contrast to "believing" information from an entity that did not procure information via the scientific method, and is usually infallible and not subject to change pending new data.

> The most fundamental element to science is skepticism.

We probably agree on the right way to apply “skepticism” re science.

But the self-described “skeptics” I know often ignore evidence. Which is one way the word (Words! They suck!) can be validly interpreted.

I would say the fundamental element of science is “the evidence based search to continually improve our current understanding”.

I particularly like how “understanding” inoculates against the more static, subjective, bias friendly, identity and ideologically based, implications of “belief”.

A reasonable amount of skepticism is fundamental to science. But skepticism can be taken too far. The goal should be to maximize the number of true beliefs that we hold. If I choose not to believe in the mass of the proton or the structure of DNA because of my skepticism, then I have a false belief. The best strategy for maximizing true belief is to accept most of the claims of science at face value, while acknowledging that they might change in the future and that we should update our beliefs when new evidence comes to light.

Yes and no. Obviously, blind and religious faith is not reasonable when we are talking about science. However, a lot of structures in science are are about making "belief" or "trust" a bit more objective than what you could do as an individual. (Peer) reviews, academic journals and conferences and even things like SciHub are, in the end, to a large degree about trust.

What's the alternative? Following every single argument every researcher makes back to the beginning and replicate their work before you base any further work or thought on what they did or said? That's not really feasible in most domains.

And, personally, I'd rather call the basis of science curiosity and not (just) skepticism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com