Article The strange paradox of modern science denialism

[C C]

https://bigthink.com/13-8/the-strange-pa...denialism/

EXCERPT: Claiming that it’s “hilarious what these astrophysicists have to say about the Universe” simultaneously undermines what it wants to claim. These deniers admit that there are astrophysicists who spend decades training in mathematics, computing, and technology. And with that training, these astrophysicists clearly go on to build fantastically powerful telescopes that gather data from across the galaxy or the Universe. That training is also what gives astrophysicists the ability to transform raw data from the instruments into accurate cosmic images or maps or spectra or whatever. The important point is that no one has any problem admitting that this process is how we see the Universe we then want to develop theories for.

It’s exactly at this point that the remarkable contradiction emerges. Somehow, even though these astrophysicists have the skills to deliver all this data, they can’t be trusted to come up with useful theories to explain that data. That task, according to these kinds of deniers, is better left to some random dude in his mom’s basement. And if that guy has somehow garnered a few hundred thousand followers, then that’s all the more proof that he’s the one to listen to. The back-and-forth I find between accounts of people who take this kind of position is fascinating because they are using the fruits of science to deny science... (MORE - missing details)

[Syne]

There's a difference between practical "useful theories" and pushing an ideology. Science has never been good at deriving meaning.

[Yazata]

https://bigthink.com/13-8/the-strange-pa...denialism/

EXCERPT: Claiming that it’s “hilarious what these astrophysicists have to say about the Universe” simultaneously undermines what it wants to claim.

I don't know who he's quoting and I'm not sure that I'd call it "hilarious". 'Worthy of a great deal of scepticism' might be a better choice of words.

These deniers

Perhaps Adam Frank should define what he means by "denier". It's obvious that he means it as an insult. And most likely it's a caricature as well.

admit that there are astrophysicists who spend decades training in mathematics, computing, and technology.

OK. And theologians spend similar amounts of time training in Christology, Ecclesiology and Eschatology.

And with that training, these astrophysicists clearly go on to build fantastically powerful telescopes that gather data from across the galaxy or the Universe. That training is also what gives astrophysicists the ability to transform raw data from the instruments into accurate cosmic images or maps or spectra or whatever. The important point is that no one has any problem admitting that this process is how we see the Universe we then want to develop theories for.

Scepticism might be raised about "accurate cosmic images". Many of the instruments that astrophysicists use are hugely dependent on large bodies of preexisting theory. So the "data" comes straight out of the oven cooked into highly theory-laden form. The "cosmic images" are only "accurate" if a whole host of built-in assumptions are also correct.

It’s exactly at this point that the remarkable contradiction emerges. Somehow, even though these astrophysicists have the skills to deliver all this data, they can’t be trusted to come up with useful theories to explain that data. That task, according to these kinds of deniers, is better left to some random dude in his mom’s basement.

More insults. Is the issue really "some random dude in his mom's basement" presuming to produce better astrophysical explanations than the astrophysicists? Maybe some people do that. (I'd call them "cranks", not "deniers".) And "random dudes" have not only the right, but more importantly the power, to believe whatever they want to believe. There isn't a damn thing that Adam Frank can do about that, regardless of how heretical he believes another person's beliefs to be.

Or is the issue more accurately that many people express doubts, they don't automatically believe everything said to them in the name of "science"? Is the issue really that many people refuse to be abjectly credulous? And isn't the bottom-line complaint that many of us are failing to grant the professors the intellectual and moral authority that professors seem to often think that they are entitled to by right?

Use of the word "denier" suggests that I'm right about that, that the problem isn't crank theories emerging from mom's basement, but rather that many people "deny" (fail to fully believe and proclaim the truth of) things that they are told to believe.

The real "paradox" (it isn't really, though it's certainly ironic) is that it's often precisely those rightly demanding that people practice 'critical thinking' that start shrieking about "denial" when critical thinking is applied to what they themselves demand that others uncritically believe. Apparently 'critical thinking' is only to be applied to what those horrible other-people think, never to what the authorities tell them to think. If you fail to accept those things and proclaim their truth based on little more than your faith in the authorities, then you become a "denier".

It's sad. I've always loved science (at one time I wanted to be a scientist) even though my talents and interests are a better fit for philosophy. But I always perceived both science and philosophy as fascinating mutually interactive explorations into the unknown.

But in the last twenty years, particularly after COVID, global warming and the merging of science and politics, I've started to perceive science as increasingly authoritarian (for the reasons expressed above). Science is starting to resemble the medieval church. It's not a good thing and it really saddens me.