[wegs]

This was not what I expected. I expected the standard line about how the general public should trust scientists, and a fight for a greater role of scientists in decision-making.

It was a good read.

I think the pieces I would add are a clear understanding of the flaws of scientific processes:

* Circle of mutual adoration hiring processes

* Cursory-at-best peer review in many disciplines

* Impact over integrity in hiring

* Selection biases in science reporting (and more generally, the pay-per-click incentive structures places on games-of-telephone)

... and so on.

As well as a clearer understanding of how we go from hypothesis to fact. In many policy discussions, I see individual scientific papers cited which is a nonsense way to use science. One can find a paper which says anything and most results are false. That's still part of the process. Once a result has been poked at from enough directions, it becomes a theory and then an fact. Connecting the hypothetical process to empirical process would be awesome to see in schools.

[nvahalik]

Science is seeing full-well the problem that many religions (at least, those with Scriptures) have been having for centuries. (s/hypothesis/belief/ and s/fact/creed/).

* I see individual scripture references cited (out of context). (Called "proof texting"... "See, here's the proof!")

* One can find a verse which says anything (if you ignore the context).

* Once an idea has been poked at from enough directions, it becomes a belief and then a creed (or a part of one).

Science, like religion also has a method: exegesis vs. the scientific method. A source: scripture vs. creation. Etc. etc.

Sadly, this is not a problem which can be "fixed". You can have your die-hard zealots on either side. The evidence can be placed before them. You can show them that their error (heresy) has been denounced for a thousand years. But yet erroneous beliefs are still rampant.

[kspacewalk2]

I have a somewhat less charitable take on the whole "context incorporation"/exegesis process. It's simply a process of reconciling an ancient, mostly irrelevant religious text to the modern-day economic, social and political realities. What do you need the Bible to do for you, dear leader/dear society? A la carte options available with a little exegesis.

- Need the Bible to justify slavery? With a little judicious exegesis, here you go! Oh, society realized slavery is an abhorrent crime? Time to dust off your trusty exegesis experts.

- Is homosexuality a horrible sin punishable by death, or is that now an anachronistic view which is making us bleed subscribers... scratch, the faithful? Religion Has A Method to correct this!

- etc., etc.

[gspr]

I'll bite: examples, please.

[neonological]

These are political flaws and flaws with human systems.

You are missing the logical flaw buried within the scientific method itself.

Nothing in science and therefore reality can be proven to be true. We can only falsify things in science.

What this means is every claim ever made by anyone or any scientist from now to eternity can never be proven to be true.

We can only make repeated attempts at falsifying things. After we fail to falsify a thing enough times we can say, hey this theory is maybe true. That is the best science can do and that is what nobody, including most of the people on hacker news do NOT understand.

There is literally no such thing as an actual “fact” in science and therefore in reality as we know it.

This flaw is the origin of most of the distrust in science it is also the reason why blind trust of the scientific method itself is wrong. No claim made by a scientist has actually ever been proven.

[kbelder]

Why do you see it as a flaw? Constantly shedding false beliefs equates to constant improvement.

We all want to get closer to the truth; science is one technique for doing so, and since there's no direct line to God, it's the most efficient one. It has the best corrective feedback loops.

[lotsofpulp]

> I think the pieces I would add are a clear understanding of the flaws of scientific processes:

>* Circle of mutual adoration hiring processes

>* Cursory-at-best peer review in many disciplines

>* Impact over integrity in hiring

>* Selection biases in science reporting (and more generally, the pay-per-click incentive structures places on games-of-telephone)

None of these are part of the scientific process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[thereddaikon]

They didn't at any point say the scientific method. And I'm pretty sure that's intentional because there is nothing inherently wrong with the scientific method. The problem is with the processes we have built around modern academia which leads to a system that does not give an ideal or intended outcome.

[brightball]

If you ever take the time to read the studies being cited, they also rarely say what people think they say when citing them.