I was thinking about epidemiology as I was reading this post. It assumes (epidemiology, not the post) certain things about the immune system. If the understanding of those things changes substantially, the epidemiological design of "experiments" and its analyses would have to be rejected. But policy and legislation* are being made today using the very iffy methods of epidemiology. Let that sink in.
That is the cost of bad science: corrupt governance that nullifies moral behavior and kills people after ransacking all wealth and health.
Also, anyone who likes the way things are now needs to make sure that no error in science is ever corrected, or else his lattice of corruption would be rip apart.
And with that I reach the uplifting conclusion that the future is bright: things cannot get worse in science. Forget the mythological Murphy and his modernist "laws."
notes: * I think I read that there is a specific circle in Dante's Inferno only for the writers of legislation.
It astounds me that people take E (purported data) at face value. I come from an auditing background - motto smth like “don’t accept anything until you have done some work to prove it reliable”. Show your work.
"From this it follows that nearly all research that involves statistics is deeply saturated in scientism."
Agree, and can see how deeply distressing this must be to a faithful statistician. You're fighting the good fight.
Feeling fortunate to be an engineer, where there is still little BS, because otherwise things fall down. That does not mean that engineering is impervious to scientism, but everyone will know IF that dam has breaks. In that sense, I'm protected.
Scienceness=Truthiness. Back when I started college in the 70s, one of my majors was something called Government. It was the study of how governments work and don't work.
Then they changed the name to Political Science, and all the sudden the words of credentialed political scientists became unquestionable Truth. After all, it was science, wasn't it, so it had to be true. Their MODELS became creeds.
And philosophical materialism was no longer tolerated. DEI is a logical consequence of this.
Love this! Continuing down the path of believe versus bet could get us to a rational stance on things if ony we folowed the 'bet' pathway. Shame its too complicated for a one line headline (though you expresed beautifully)
"If we accept this scientists priors and model then theres an x% risk of us all dying" versus "global boiling 5 years to save the planet" i guess we know which sells!
Scientism can be thought of as (mistakenly) extending science into engineering and technology. Understanding is the domain of science. Action is the domain of technology. "Follow the Science" is being misunderstood as "Follow the Technology."
« The science » is a reification. One can follow the North Star and one can follow in the footsteps of the man in front. One cannot follow « the science ».
This is a cry for certainty in an uncertain world, a cry which must remain unanswered bc the most difficult and most interesting questions in life are beyond empirical knowledge.
Good points. I need to reread, but have trouble understanding belief as an "act". It strikes me as a mental state that just happens as a result of what (evidence) one is exposed to. I believe many things, but don't seem to recall choosing any of them! I definitely agree one can make choices that affect beliefs, especially regarding what evidence is considered. And the models and similar elements of scientific research are certainly subjectively chosen. So maybe this was what your emphasis. Am I missing something? Is my notion of "belief" different?
I was thinking about epidemiology as I was reading this post. It assumes (epidemiology, not the post) certain things about the immune system. If the understanding of those things changes substantially, the epidemiological design of "experiments" and its analyses would have to be rejected. But policy and legislation* are being made today using the very iffy methods of epidemiology. Let that sink in.
That is the cost of bad science: corrupt governance that nullifies moral behavior and kills people after ransacking all wealth and health.
Also, anyone who likes the way things are now needs to make sure that no error in science is ever corrected, or else his lattice of corruption would be rip apart.
And with that I reach the uplifting conclusion that the future is bright: things cannot get worse in science. Forget the mythological Murphy and his modernist "laws."
notes: * I think I read that there is a specific circle in Dante's Inferno only for the writers of legislation.
It astounds me that people take E (purported data) at face value. I come from an auditing background - motto smth like “don’t accept anything until you have done some work to prove it reliable”. Show your work.
"From this it follows that nearly all research that involves statistics is deeply saturated in scientism."
Agree, and can see how deeply distressing this must be to a faithful statistician. You're fighting the good fight.
Feeling fortunate to be an engineer, where there is still little BS, because otherwise things fall down. That does not mean that engineering is impervious to scientism, but everyone will know IF that dam has breaks. In that sense, I'm protected.
Scienceness=Truthiness. Back when I started college in the 70s, one of my majors was something called Government. It was the study of how governments work and don't work.
Then they changed the name to Political Science, and all the sudden the words of credentialed political scientists became unquestionable Truth. After all, it was science, wasn't it, so it had to be true. Their MODELS became creeds.
And philosophical materialism was no longer tolerated. DEI is a logical consequence of this.
Die p-value! Die!
Love this! Continuing down the path of believe versus bet could get us to a rational stance on things if ony we folowed the 'bet' pathway. Shame its too complicated for a one line headline (though you expresed beautifully)
"If we accept this scientists priors and model then theres an x% risk of us all dying" versus "global boiling 5 years to save the planet" i guess we know which sells!
Scientism can be thought of as (mistakenly) extending science into engineering and technology. Understanding is the domain of science. Action is the domain of technology. "Follow the Science" is being misunderstood as "Follow the Technology."
« The science » is a reification. One can follow the North Star and one can follow in the footsteps of the man in front. One cannot follow « the science ».
This is a cry for certainty in an uncertain world, a cry which must remain unanswered bc the most difficult and most interesting questions in life are beyond empirical knowledge.
Follow the silenced.
Sometimes I think the "call to action" is defer scrutiny on E.
My head hurts!
I’m a Troop.
With you.
Where are we going?
Good points. I need to reread, but have trouble understanding belief as an "act". It strikes me as a mental state that just happens as a result of what (evidence) one is exposed to. I believe many things, but don't seem to recall choosing any of them! I definitely agree one can make choices that affect beliefs, especially regarding what evidence is considered. And the models and similar elements of scientific research are certainly subjectively chosen. So maybe this was what your emphasis. Am I missing something? Is my notion of "belief" different?