Not defer to particular individuals, but to defer to bodies of academic research I mean. Like with virology, I just don’t know enough about the subject to make any kind of proclamations. But there are many people producing large bodies of research into behaviours of viruses, so if that research suggests certain things are likely I’ll tend to believe them even if I don’t fully understand why. It’s more a matter of faith in the scientific process than faith in any individual, self declared expert. That said, I do understand the sometimes severe limitations in the peer review method of review, but I’m not sure I can think of a better alternative.
Same problem. The jounals publishing that research are being gatekept by politically motivated groups.
It’s more a matter of faith in the scientific process than faith in any individual, self declared expert.
If faith is involved it's not science. In this case you're not even ensuring they're following any particular process, you're just taking their word for it.
The validity of a scientific theory lies in it's ability to predict reality. If an academic body are making extreme claims and demanding extreme action, then it's reasonable for use to demand specific predictions with tight tolerances, then to expect reality to match those predictions. If they can't provide them or refuse to do so then that in and of itself is cause to distrust them.
If faith is involved it's not science.
But I’m not the scientist in this scenario. I have faith in the process they use to reach conclusions by testing hypotheses. There are certainly limitations to this, but it does appear to be the best practice we have. The alternative is personal expertise in every field which in spite of its impossibility flies in the face of Adam Smith, and that’s blasphemy as far as I’m concerned!
Regarding the predictions, most areas of science don’t really require this. I know in areas like climate change they probably should be able to do this with some degree of accuracy, but I would argue climate science is not a real scientific discipline anyway due to the lack of falsifiable hypotheses in the formulation of their theories. A lot of epidemiology seems to suffer from a similar ailment I’ve noticed over the past year. But modelling, in either climate science or epidemiology, is a statistical rather than strictly scientific discipline. And stats can be open to quite wide interpretation.
No part of science requires faith, not faith in a process, not faith in an institution or faith in an expert. All claims must be backed up by testable evidence.
You don't need personal expertise in every field to assess whether their predictions have been borne out or not. If someone is demanding drastic action (such as shutting down an economy) then they need to present their claims in a straightforward manner without technobabble which can be understood by anyone, not just specialists in their field. If they can't do so, and we are left with no way to distinguish empty jargon from nuanced argument, then we should make the default assumption that it's empty jargon.
(post is archived)