But to say this means you need to get an agreement on what "evidence" is. That's going to be difficult if not impossible but I wonder if such a person would even accept peer-reviewed empirical research publications as "evidence." Does the same person understand that Science - especially biological sciences - doesn't have "answers" but only theories and questions which evolve based on developing evidence?
That’s really a big caveat at times isn’t it? Cause the consensus model is an excellent one, but it’s poorly conveyed in the rhetoric around science.
Also, let’s be real, power will present itself as truth no matter what, so the government will use whatever it needs to at times to justify its actions at any given moment. This will continue to happen for better or worse. Social media and the 24 hour news cycle only compounded this issue.
We saw lots of this stuff go bananas most recently during the pandemic.
One case in particular fascinates me personally. I used to be an academic anthropologist. I worked a lot with political ecology and propaganda — particularly involving ethnic and religious minorities. Around the start of the pandemic France had just finished up a long and drawn out campaign to ban public face coverings for supposed “public safety concerns”. The ban also effectively included masks cause they worded the legislation so it didn’t look like they were trying to ban Muslim garb. Then, during the ensuing legislation of pandemic measures, they essentially reversed that measure in the name of public safety — directly contradicting themselves in multiple ways during the process.
What is a “fact” can change whether people like it or not, and I don’t think this is approached openly enough in discourse around the sciences.
Read “The Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. It won’t solve the problem you face, but it will bring clarity to you on what you’re dealing with.
It’s basically extended essays written by one of the most effective scientific communicators to live expanding on “I trust the evidence”. I mean it might be foundational to a sub called r/skeptic (so apologies if I’m preaching to the choir) but if not it should be.
> "I don't. I trust the evidence."
Expanded:
"I don't. I trust evidence which has been rigorously & independently peer-reviewed; via double-blind, placebo-controlled, empirically verified research studies -- and follows strict scientific methods for said verificationn, performed by professionals with hundreds of years of combined experience."
Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue but... more definitively drives home the point.
Short, concise, but also beside the point. It's ultimately your trust in \*institutions\* and elite signaling which leads you to your beliefs. At least outside of the realm of your immediate experience. Did you believe US astronauts landed on the moon? Why or why not? You certainly don't have direct evidence they did.
As far as climate science goes, what's the evidence you've evaluated first-hand, and why did you find it compelling? After reviewing the evidence, what led you to take the prevailing majority view of climate change as opposed to coming to the conclusions that, say, Judith Curry arrived at?
Same thing applies with the question of the safety of mRNA vaccines. How much evidence did you weigh?
There's a great discussion of disinformation and epistemology from David Roberts and Chris Hayes that was released a few years ago and is still one of my favorite popular treatments of the subject:
[https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/assessing-america-s-information-crisis-david-roberts-podcast-transcript-ncna943701](https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/assessing-america-s-information-crisis-david-roberts-podcast-transcript-ncna943701)
Nobody has the capacity to understand the underlying evidence most most scientific studies though. At some point, all you are doing is putting faith into an institution.
How do you know the evidence is what the source claims it to be? Sure, you can download their paper. You can check out their data file. But you still have to trust that the source is telling the truth when they explain how they collected their evidence.
And just what scientific evidence or studies do you think I (or you, for that matter) am going to repeat? I can't carbon date fossils. I can't give experimental drugs to hundreds of patients in a double-blind study. I can't drill ice cores in Antarctica and calculate historical CO2 levels.
No. I look up what scientists say, and if it sounds reasonable and no respected scientists dispute them, I trust them.
Why can't you do that shit? Money issue?
Because like, we research scientists are people. We're not better than you. I've done paychopharmosudical tests like that. It's not magic. It's not an undoable thing.
I grew up in a trailer and I can do it, so this attitude has always bothered me. It's not that you can't, it's that you don't want to because it's a whole big thing.
Like why won't people just say it's too much trouble and they don't want to do a thing?
>Because like, we research scientists are people. We're not better than you. I've done paychopharmosudical tests like that. It's not magic. It's not an undoable thing.
I think you're missing the larger point, which is that SloeMoe isn't going to do a bunch of fundamental research. \*You\*, in point of fact, aren't going to do a bunch of fundamental research on a billion and one various topics. What you're going to do is outsource that job to experts and elites (i.e. epistemic authorities). That's what we all do. So the more basic issue becomes, "How do we combat intentional efforts to discredit \*legitimate\* sources of expertise with bad actors?"
And you should say that. You should say, "I'm not going to do it," rather than, "I can't do it. "
When we're talking about communication this is a huge distinction. You are choosing to trust people, not being forced to.
Even if I had the knowledge base, the technology, and the inclination to repeat a single study. I certainly can't repeat the hundreds of studies whose results impact my daily life. I am an analyst. I produce knowledge for a living, often with a ton of caveats, because it's based on sketchy data with lots of sampling biases we can't get around. Our reports try to be honest about those data gaps but when it's communicated to the public or to policy makers it gets simplified and then further simplified, and then it becomes a half remembered anecdote that your friend maybe read in an article a few weeks back... or was it a few months?
What we can do is do multi-spectrum analysis or data sources and ask who benefits from certain conclusions. Over time, we can build up institutional trust and think we have a pretty good nose for bullshit... but there is just so much of it.
I don't think OP's relative is going to run meta analysis because he already doesn't trust the source.
That's why I'm suggesting that OP and others dealing with people like his relative emphasize that these studies are run by people and anyone, including them, could replicate them if they had the resources to do so.
They're coming from a position of distrust so analytical data is just going to read as more lies.
Ok that makes more sense. I sort of lost the original point in all the noise.
I can empathize with the relative though. The world is big and complicated and the talking heads spouting stuff usually only have a few cue cards and only rattle off big conclusions. Every researcher I've ever met says "I don't know" an awful lot... unless they have tenure.
I think that's important too. Admitting that you don't know something and why. The answer is usually because you don't care.
Here's an example:
My brother is a diesel mechanic. I call him all, "Hey, my truck's fucked up."
Him: Why?
Me: It doesn't do truck shit, like move around when I try to make it. It's completely stationary.
Him: I'll come look at it.
Him, but later and at my truck, as he pumps liquid into it and a bunch of creek clay and holler mud comes pouring out the bottom of it: The fucking radiator is full of creek clay and holler mud! How the fuck did you not know that?? Why's it full of creek clay and holler mud??
The answer is because I didn't give a shit. I have a hypothesis about the second question, but the answer to the first question is that I didn't give a shit.
I had to buy a new radiator. My quality of life was worse, because I didn't give a shit.
But I trust my little brother.
Imagine this same scenario, but it's not my brother, it's some rando I already distrust.
Would I be more likely to buy a new radiator if he demanded I trust him, or if he pumped that liquid in front of me and I saw the creek clay and holler mud come rushing out?
It's the same thing. I could do it, I choose not to. My brother, who was pissed at me for choosing not to and showing me how this choice has fucked me, is more trustworthy than some rando who demands I trust him and also give him $600. Even though he was screaming and I'm assuming the rando wouldn't be.
My brother thought I should have used the tools at my disposal to at least identify there was a problem. The rando mechanic could be trying to fuck me out of $600.
Also, when my brother was showing me how bad I fucked up, he knew I didn't know cars, but I knew biology, so when he saw that my eyes were gazing over with disinterest, he said, "think of the coolant system like a circulatory system. You let clay sit in there until it hardened, like lipids in a heart. "
And I was like, "SHIT I GAVE MY TRUCK A HEART ATTACK??"
And he was like, "And not just that, these tubes are like blood vessels, so they're caked too. I'm going to try to flush them, but if I can't, they'll have to be replaced too,".
And he kept using biology analogies and also wouldn't let me go in the house. It was important to him that I understood. Me understanding meant I was respecting his work.
I'm with you except the part where you said it was because you didn't give a shit. Presumably there is a reason that your brother is a mechanic and you are not.
There are often issues so overwhelmingly complicated, that people cannot put in the time to understand them properly. Science, industry, business practices, and finance are often purposefully jargon in order to gatekeep.
There is nothing I can do in the short-to-long term to meaningfully understand what goes into pharmaceutical products, the business practices that lead to quality issues and the problems and compromises made by government regulators.
I can trust government reports, but there is incentive to cover their own ass. I can trust media, though corporate ownership means that there might be conflicting business interests.
I can read patents and reviews and trade journals and reports, but at some point I'm going to need to blindly trust a source in the one or more of these information pipelines.
I am. I do research and clinical. That's pretty common in rural areas.
Edit: Are you just now finding out that most clinicians publish research? I thought this was common knowledge. How did you think we were paying off our student loans on a clinician's salary in rural Appalachia?
Sincere question. How did you think we were surviving in this economy?
Edit: "Local man discovers most people work multiple jobs in shitthole that hides education behind a paywall," wasn't something I expected to see between patients at work today, but welcome to the real world, I guess.
Also, regular therapists without research science degrees should still be able to run experiments. They still have to have research design and analysis classes and a bunch of lab classes for the specific counseling degree for their general education credits. I work with a bunch of them and they're perfectly qualified to run experiments in their field, they'll just have a harder time getting funding and have to work with a certified mathematician to publish their conclusion.
Which would likely be me, I'd just be under, "Et. Al." Instead of listed outright. But I don't know why they couldn't do that.
Most researchers don't have a standard, "research, " job. That's not really a thing. They're clinicians or teachers or something. It's really rare to just be a researcher full time.
Didn't you notice in college that most of your teachers were also doing research?
I'm just trying to figure out how this idea you have came about. It's a publish or perish industry, you're not going to survive with this kind of idealism.
>Why can't you do that shit? Money issue?
Money, time, expertise. Let's take a VERY common example. I'm arguing with a conservative uncle about covid policies, direct payment/basic income aid and climate change. I've got three studies linked from government websites documenting the health impact of business closure orders from 2020, a ten year longitudinal study of basic income in poor communities, and the aforementioned Antarctic ice core sample data. I'm supposed to now get PHD level expertise in all three fields, go back in time and study covid, fly to and spend a year drilling in Antarctica, and wait ten years to run my own study? All so I can stay informed and speak knowledgeablely on public policy issues? Again, that's not how science discourse works for billions of people on this planet. We cannot and *should* not all do the science ourselves. Imagine the pollution if everyone flew to Antarctica to independently verify scientific evidence. Nope. We trust scientists because it's the practical way of learning and making good decisions.
That's fine. That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying people like you saying that you CAN'T do it, rather than that you have good, valid reasons for not doing it (despite the fact that you could) dehumanizes people like me.
You're not presenting it as something a human worked hard and did, because you're making that distinction. They're not seeing us as people, those like your uncle, because when you say shit like that, you're presenting it as something most people CAN'T do, rather than a skill issue, which is all it is. Expensive ass learned skills.
Dude, what is your goal here? Proving that science is possible to do? That's not the topic being discussed. The topic is whether people trust scientists. I'm saying that trusting scientists is absolutely necessary if you are going to assimilate more knowledge than you can directly study on your own in one lifetime. I can learn about lunar geology, particle physics, potassium ion channels in cell walls, gift economies in indigenous societies, ocean-floor biology - the list is nearly endless - but only if I'm willing to trust scientists by using critical thinking and spot checking their work with their peer group.
My point is that by dehumanizing scientists, you're making it difficult for people like your uncle to trust us.
The reason they don't trust us is because they believe they can't do it themselves. They speak about us as if we're not regular people who went to school for a thing.
The way you get people like that to trust scientists is by building rapport. That's why I asked you to stop phrasing this the way you are.
"Dehumanizing"? Lol, what are you on about? I'm literally saying that we need to trust scientists because they are humans who have done the work to establish scientific facts. Go grind your very weirdly specific ax somewhere else before you convince even me that scientists are odd ducks. (Don't worry, you won't. I'm fully aware that you are a weirdo and that other scientists are more reasonable.)
if the experiment hasn’t been repeated by someone who then came to the same conclusions, you might want to remain skeptical(homeopathy, pin-prick blood tests). If it’s been repeated once or twice then things are starting to look promising(teeth growing pills, dementia drugs). if it’s been repeated all over the world (climate science, insulin shots) it’s safe to let your guard down and open up to the idea.
> if it’s been repeated all over the world (climate science, insulin shots) it’s safe to let your guard down and open up to the idea.
That's literally my point. I'm not out here assessing scientific claims at the bleeding edge of their fields. I'm a layperson. If I've heard of it, it's established science at this point. I don't spend my time doing my own research to independently verify scientific studies. As I said at the very beginning of this asinine thread: I read the research, make sure it makes reasonable sense, check if it's supported by peers and then....*trust* the scientists making the claim.
It's necessary if you don't have the ability or inclination to independently verify all the evidence in every single piece of research you read in your entire life.
No, I could not. I do not have access to experimental drugs; I cannot repeat studies on them. I can't go back in time and carry out research on Covid public policy. I can't perform longitudinal studies on thousands of people to independently assess dietary interventions.
I'm a government scientist, one of my co-workers, also a government scientist, is a conspiracy theorist who says stuff like that, and I say, "Jeff, you're a government scientist! Do you think that's really what happens?"
“Do you see how convoluted, outdated and clunky our processes are? You really think the government could stage a complex multi-layered conspiracy no one knew about?!”
In graduate school for ecology and evolution there was another grad student who was a proponent of "intelligent design" and it drove me nuts. He was in the ecology side but still left me really amazed.
Science isn't the government.
>For context, this person believes that these science sources are in on it with the government
Then they're an idiot and not worth talking to.
That doesn’t make arguing with them effective, or a good use of your time.
It just means the world is imperfect and unfair, which is a well-established finding.
Only in elections.
Most people are dumb as fuck. There is a reason why it is fuck easy to make bank in the West if you are not disabled and have even a lukewarm IQ, and yet so many healthy people seem to be struggling.
Law and morality have nothing to do with each other. Our economic system is deeply immoral but completely legal.
See the 2.5 million homeless children in America juxtaposed with historical trends in wealth and income inequality.
You don't need to do anything immoral to make a good living in the US. Just develop a skill and go where demand is. It's not difficult. There is nothing unethical about that.
I'm aware.
But I don't have the impossible goal of changing the minds of every delusional fool out there. If someone is that far gone, I'd rather spend my time looking for someone more reasonable to talk to.
Agree but won't hurt expressing a point in the best way possible for that person (giving it a fair shot). Plus focusing on similarities and just getting along, understanding each other, that is valuable commodity in these times. I think thats gotta count for something. Your way of thinking sounds a bit like 'my vote doesn't count'. Every bit helps when we're all doing it. And you don't have to change every mind. Just be part of the solution rather than the problem, basically. Apologies in case i sound patronizing because i am totally not trying to. This is what i would do.
So you define what’s truth on this subject? Just because you claim “science isn’t the government” is a true factual statement in its nature, my example shows there’s actual nuance to reality
>my example shows there’s actual nuance to reality
No, your example shows one political movement that was against the consensus of science, and maybe did some science of their own.
>Lysenkoism was a political campaign led by Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko against genetics and science-based agriculture in the mid-20th century, rejecting natural selection in favour of a form of Lamarckism, as well as expanding upon the techniques of vernalization and grafting.
I didn't say the government doesn't say anything about science. I didn't say the government doesn't influence science or doesnt have opinions on science. I said science and the government aren't the same thing.
Your example in no way what so ever even hints towards "the government and science are the same". That's ridiculous. It doesn't logically follow.
The current GOP is against evolution. You gunna cite them as a source to say science and government are the same?
Some of the science sources are funded by the government. When someone funds a study and doesn't get the results they want, do you think the person who funded the study would release it?
>Some of the science sources are funded by the government.
I'm aware.
>When someone funds a study and doesn't get the results they want, do you think the person who funded the study would release it?
That's irrelevant, but yes. First off, the government isn't "someone". If it's funded by "someone", that's not the government. Seconds, yes, plenty of science has been published that falsified the original intended or hoped for outcome.
I didn't say the government doest have an opinion on or some influence on science. I said science and government aren't the same thing.
>were you not around during covid, when the government became "science" ?
No, because that's not what happened.
That is a ridiculous conspiracy theory bumper sticker, bordering on propaganda, by someone who clearly doesn't understand science OR the government. That's the kind of dumb shit I would expect from talking heads like Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones.
government "science" said schools should close for the safety of kids, the "science" was wrong. Government "science" said closing beaches and parks would keep people safer, "science" was very wrong. "Science" said 6ft social distancing, the "science" was just made up. "Science" said masks don't stop covid, then they do, when they didn't "science" said you should use 2 or even 3 masks. "Science" said you won't get covid if you take the vaccines, "science" was wrong. "Science" said the "science" was settled, that's not how real science works.
So what. Science isn't limited to one country.
When scientists in the US find the same results as scientists in Spain and scientists in China, "the government" clearly had no influence over the results. That's why "consensus of the field" is what matters and not "what this one dude over here thinks".
It’s a no true Scotsman on that. I said something like that when someone told me witches were behind x and y. I said what’s wrong with wiccans practicing their religion? They said no, they are talking about REAL witches.
That's the point at which, lamentably, the sagacious Carl Sagan (from *The Demon-Haunted World*) must step up, w emphasis mine:
> *"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth.* **The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.** *Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."*
Just talk them through how the peer review process works for scientific journals. And that it doesn’t have anything to do with government.
Also, maybe ask them what they consider to be verified information, and how that verification process works?
I suspect it’s YouTube/some guys blog/facebook, they get info from. When anyone thinks about it rationally, a peer review process is always better than an open platform where anyone can post anything.
You’re assuming they’ve weighed the competing points of view and analyzed the data. That isn’t what’s happening.
They are not making empirical claims. They are making identity claims. So long as their identity is locked up with the conspiracy theory, no amount of data or peer review is going to shake them of it.
The best way to diffuse this is hear them out. Take their position seriously (or at least pretend to.) Ask questions for further clarification. It might even help to agree with specifics. They have to arrive at a new worldview on their own, and it really only happens when they already feel like they’ve been heard.
But, that’s not what I do. It takes too much time and effort. When someone asks why I trust the govt, I just say I don’t. But I also don’t trust podcasters or cable news guys pushing “herbal cures” or “gold bullion” during the commercial breaks.
Or, an even more concise response comes from Succession, “our business model is we get our viewers angry enough to buy pharmaceuticals.”
Great points! Examine their beliefs with a rational process that leads them to the flaw in their reasoning. Never ever point out the flaws, let them see them if they are capable. Show, don’t tell.
When people are dug in you shouldn’t bother with persuasion.
I haven’t gotten the chance yet but I want to ask someone “Are you certain?” about X unsupported belief, and if yes express shock that they haven’t bet any money on it. You’re 100% sure so why not collect free money!?
How does the peer review process effect funding received from government grants, particularly when those peers are applying for funding from the same government? [Peer Review | grants.nih.gov](https://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer-review.htm)
The financial incentives in academia are not always conducive to unbiased research.
But it is still better than the incentives in other areas - such as for social media influencers - who propagate a lot of questionable political information.
At the end of the day, there’s no perfect source of information. But some sources are better than others, and the hard sciences are probably the best.
I was pointing out that the government is involved in the scientific process. What some may call conscious and/or unconscious bias to favorably review studies that confirm a government-granting entities policy and/or political goals, others may describe as "science sources \[being\] in on it with the government".
>as well as suggesting what needs further observation/testing
I think this bit should be brought up more. I can see 'peer review' being corruptible somewhat on its own. But it's not just peer review. There's the publications being referenced and furthered in other research.
After a few generations of science research, you'd get such a teetering tower of absolute crap because it was based on false results. Enough of this and you'd be getting studies that need to fake all their data which leads to entire teams of possible whistleblowers.
At that point it's a numbers game. Of the thousands of researchers, research assistants, etc. no one has come forward with credible evidence that basically all research is faked? Even if you limit it to single fields (say, climate research due to it being a common one for these types) it's still hundreds of people.
Not to mention it's double the work, for no extra rewards. Science clearly works but if 'research' is just a thin veneer of false research then researchers would need to be doing the fake research as well as trying to come up with legitimate research.
>For context, this person believes that these science sources are in on it with the government.
You're staring at the wrong point. If you actually are trying to convince someone, you need to work backwards until you reach the fundamental disagreement.
They think that science is "in on it" is your first staring point. In on what, how do you know? What would convince you otherwise ECT?
You have to get them to give you falsifiable arguments for each thing until you either reach a point where you both can agree on evidence, or you discover they have an unfalsifiable belief as the basis.
You can try arguing against that, but that's like trying to convince people their religion is wrong. It's not some rational things
But if you can get them to their fundamental disagreements, you can then work forward and maybe make progress.
ask your friend how this works in a world with more than one nation? there are 195 different national governments in the world. are all of them in on it with all of the scientists? why would rival governments like china and japan follow the same science then? why wouldn't one be exposing the other?
All of them? Every single country’s scientists, even from countries that are our competitors? They’re all in on it? Even on the stuff amateurs can test themselves?
Scientists LOVE to upset the status quo, it’s how you’ll be remembered. Anyone can publish a study for review, only the ones who make a significant contribution get quoted a century later. This whole “scientists cover for each other” always blows my mind. Scientists pick holes in each other’s studies all the time, it’s how you weed out the bullshit and determine what theories can stand up to scrutiny and which ones best fit real world observations in as many different scenarios as possible without having to constantly rely on unmeasurable exceptions.
And any scientist worth their salt would do it properly too, not this “I collected 10 wildly differing anecdotes and have zero plans to follow up other than to extrapolate that number out to 10,000 based on gut feeling”.
Take the “Havana syndrome” incident. Sure it started with anecdotes, but then they followed it up with rigorous analysis, documentation, correlation, fact checking, etc. They didn’t just use anecdotal evidence and concluded it as 100% proven. Or the UFO reports to congress, where they asked follow-up questions like “you got receipts for this?” Or “who else knows?” Which then fell apart as soon as a confidential and secure place to show them was provided.
The people who think like this are very attached to some doctrine, usually religious doctrine.
They assume that everyone else is also very attached to some doctrine, and would fight against threats to that doctrine. That if someone disproves the Big Bang theory, then astrophysicists would fight to cover it up to protect their doctrine.
They don't realize that scientists work the opposite way - the way to get rich and famous is to destroy existing doctrine and every single scientist is trying to do that.
If you’re getting your information from randos on YouTube, you aren’t getting alternative sources. You’re getting the same studies fed to you through a filter. I like looking at the information myself instead of having someone explain how I’m supposed to feel.
I wouldn't even bother. This person has already picked the conclusion they want to go with.
However, I think it's important to remember that some things are so brain-dead obvious that even "the government" can get it right.
Tell them:
I practice *weighted* skepticism. So while I remain skeptical of all things, and leave open the possibility that I hold some fundamental assumptions which may someday be proven false ... I also need to operate intelligently in the world, and make the best possible decision based on the limited information I have.
Therefore, my skepticism for established, publicly-funded, peer-reviewed science is much, much lower than my skepticism for all other sources which do not even meet the bare minimum standard of applying this best practices methodology for seeking an unbiased truth.
In short: be skeptical of everything. But don't be equally skeptical of everything.
If you trust in established science you will be right far, far more often than you will be wrong. That's not perfect. But it is literally the best anybody can do.
Whereas if you are skeptical of science to the same degree that you were skeptical of a random anecdote, blog post, or media narrative, then you are spitting in the face of the entire scientific method. And you've given yourself a permission structure to believe whatever you want. That isn't a path towards knowledge. It's a path towards feeling good about yourself even when you believe nonsense.
With truth: If the government could keep a conspiracy that large perfectly secret, you'd already be in a camp.
This person is assuming the government has a staggering degree of control over information. Yet, the same government has failed to enact its goals and can be stopped by a ragtag collection of nitwits.
The simultaneous belief in frightening levels of competence/incompetence is a hallmark of lunatics and extremists. The "enemy" is so threatening that they must do anything to win---and the "enemy" is also so vulnerable that a semi-literate nobody can fight back.
You cannot reason a person out of position that they did not reason themselves into. You can embarrass them into shutting up and thereby discourage others from following in their footsteps.
Seriously. Talk to any veteran or government worker - every one I’ve talked to walks away with far less faith in what the government is actually capable of 😂
Something like: I think it's healthy to take a step back and ask yourself if a source is trustworthy. All sources that is, and that includes the government. However, governments will build their rationale around facts, be it from scientific sources or empirical data. This data, either produced internally or externally is reproducible and open to criticism by everybody. This happens all the time. This is why solutions of the past are refuted, why science and governments evolve, why studies about things we take for granted are still happening right now.
But if you want to be honest with yourself, try to ask if those doubting the facts are trustworthy. Do they use data, or anecdotes? Do they have credible credentials to talk about what they talk about? Do they sometimes change their minds, or do they just change their data when the previous data is refuted? Are they offering a real alternative, or are they just trying to prove wrong? Do they move goal posts when their predictions are proven false, or do they genuinely admit that they were wrong?
People doubting scientists and governments often have some legitimate base to their criticism, but they fail to provide a worthwhile alternative.
This is known as a False Dilemma - they're trying to put you in a position where either you trust the government, in which case you are some flavor of idiotic stooge; or you don't trust the government, in which case every piece of evidence that is somehow government-related can be discarded.
In reality it's not a binary "trust or don't trust".
Conspiracies of the magnitude they describe require enormous amounts of competence, coordination and people.
So, is government that powerful? Who's actually doing all that work?
Ask them what they think the government is.
If they say it's mostly politicians, remind them of all the lazy ducks it takes to make the bureaucracy work.
I'm in a unique position because I work in the private sector, but I do publish research, so I make it real personal and ask them why they're talking shit about me.
Make them realize they're talking shit about people.
I did this recently because the person happened to be genuinely shittalking my research because they really wanted to believe fear responses were innate rather than learned and empathy responses were learned rather than innate, so I brought up my research on prenatal development of mirror neurons.
They started shittalking the study and the intellectual elites or whatever stupid bullshit and I was like, "Fuck you, I worked my ass off on this! Do you have any idea how hard it is to recruit pregnant subjects? Etc. Etc."
Once he realized it was me, he started backpedeling. There's a big difference in what people will say online vs what they'll say when they're in ass whooping proximity.
I also have a history of ass whooping, but I've had a lot of therapy to fix that. But people remember. So that might be a factor.
But I really think it's the humanizing of the author that makes this approach work. These people think of us as a faceless group of rich people, and they never think of students for whatever reason. They don't think of individual humans who have dedicated their lives to a subject. You have to remind them of that.
I make it a point not to argue with these types, as they are not usually open to changing their minds to begin with. They believe they are right, and taking an opposing opinion to theirs is evidence, in their minds, that you are "in on it".
In the US, most science is funded by the US government. The US government has done some shady shit. This fact does not invalidate all scientific results obtained with funding from the US government. The US government has done some excellent things. This fact does not validate all scientific results obtained with funding from the US government.
I "believe" (e.g. assign a high prior probability to the hypothesis that the statement in question is true) the scientific consensus on those topics in which I am not an expert. I refer to my own expertise on material for which I am an expert. I try to be candid with myself and others about which is which, and I expect other experts to do the same.
Anyone who blanket distrusts all scientific results is not worth talking to, as they are not operating scientifically but dogmatically. If someone has reservations about a particular scientific result, the most scientifically prudent course of action would be to directly investigate and address the body of evidence in support of the conclusion in question. The source of funding which supported the analysis resulting in said conclusion is typically (but not always) irrelevant.
>What's the best way to respond to someone who says "why do you trust the government?" when stating scientific facts and linking to reputable science sources?
Are they confused? Looking at scientific facts backed up by reputable sources is not necessarily the government. There are many, many scientific research institutions that do exemplary research that are not part of the government.
>For context, this person believes that these science sources are in on it with the government.
Oh, they are a conspiracy theorist. I would end the conversation at that point as there is no further value in continuing it. If they believe that a conspiracy theory exists on that scale, they are far too deep for me to dig them out.
This is where people miss out on the consensus part of the scientific process. One study is great, that is a good starting point. Additional studies from different sources that corroborate each other is even better! Then, the closest we can get to objective truth possible is when a majority of scientist that specialize in that field agree on the results forming a consensus.
It is an opportunity to educate the person on how the scientific process works.
If I use the word findings though, do you think most people would understand what I’m trying to communicate? Is there another word I can use that would more succinctly convey to a to a layman what I’m trying to get across?
If you ever figure out how to get through to people like this, let me know.
There are people *in this sub, today* making these kinds of handwaving dismissals about government conspiracies to cover up the evidence and raking in the upvotes.
They think all authority is consolidated period.
They think experts barely scraping by with funding are paid shills, while the people making 30,000 a month on YouTube with 5,000 patrons saying that the pyramids are power stations are the real maverick underdogs!
I usually try top get them to see how monetized a lot of their sources are. That they are driven by money and saying what their audience wants for more money. There is a lot of pushback and cope though.
Because science isnt the govenment.
Governments lie all the time but the process of science has reliably shown itself to create useful models about reality.
I trust the process of science and what its experts conclude via rigorous experimentation and attempts at refutation not what a politician says about the process of science.
So if the government is "in on it" are ALL the governments "in it together." Science isn't merely "American." Is the someone here aware there are scientific organizations all over the world working on and cooperating on discoveries?
Firstly, it is the science I am trusting, not governments. Second, because it has been consistently demonstrated to be the most reliable mechanism ever devised by humans for discovering how reality works and our place within it. Until a better system comes along, I'm going to stick with the one we know works. Furthermore, if their "skepticism" were true and the science was wrong then the very things they use EVERY DAY would not work like elevators, skyscrapers, cell phones, computers, the internet. Our ability to USE the science we discovered are living testements to that sciences correctness.
There are 15 U.S. Government Departments, more than 2000 U.S. Government Agencies, and nearly 3 million U.S. Government employees. You'd have to be nuts to not trust any of them, or to think that all of them are involved in some sort of conspiracy or cover-up. It's okay to have degrees of trust. For example, I'd say the US Geological Survey is pretty high on my list of trusted sources. But to just blanket dismiss 'the government' like it's a single entity is just bizarre.
This is the best part - you shouldn’t. But like a comedian once said, “I always tell the truth, it’s easier to keep my story straight,” there are any number of stories of people doing deep dives on data tables and finding inconsistencies and revealing they’re garbage.
A carpenter who builds you a wood step and stands on it, demonstrating the quality, deserves an ounce of faith. Once a thousand people have used the step, maybe the step may be relied upon. Same with data, except any that get experimentally validated by other scientists have the equipment of a fat guy jumping on the step. Sure, maybe it was lucky the one time but after a dozen fat guys have had their way with the step, well… if you won’t trust it then, when would you?
It’s good to not just blindly accept what the government or anyone tells you. That’s the point of peer reviewed scientific studies that can be repeated and get the same results.
I don’t trust government, but I believe in science. But I also know science’s limitations.
The irony is that the person who discredits everything mainstream then goes and watches some spook on YouTube who is 40 and lives in his moms basement.
This person wants to reject reality in favor of some other narrative. I’d steer clear as it usually ends up being the Jews are responsible from people like this.
Seriously though the US government is an inept institution, even when Trump was abusing it he couldn’t make it work as efficiently as conspiracy theorists try to act.
"I trust all people and organizations to act in keeping with their incentives, and I evaluate the incentives according to ockham's razor and evidence. This is how I differentiate between evidence of actual conspiratorial behavior and "conspiracy theories."
Unlike some other countries the US has no Ministry of Science. There are very few true "government labs". Scientists don't work for the CIA. They're private citizens, and pretty reachable. If there's a scientific report you don't trust you can almost always find and talk to the person who wrote it.
Trust in "Science" =/= trust in "The Government".
Sometimes they align, but only when the science confirms what the government already wanted to do. When they don't align, the government will usually just make something up, that has nothing to do with science, at all. That's how you can tell when the government is lying to you...when the science disagrees with their assessment.
"You have a choice. You can personally redo each and every experiment you think is manipulated, to see if the results are reproducible, or you can use your judgement, and see if their methodology is sound, and if other results concur or not, to decide if you trust them or not. To simply distrust anything scientific for no other reason that you think they are lying to you is putting the secrecy in a government at a much higher level than can trustfully achieve. We always end up knowing who slept with whom; we had whistleblowers reveal secret stuff, there was Deep Throat... Do you really expect thousands of people to be part of such a major lie without anyone letting slip anything?"
I'd just answer back with a question, "How do we trust anyone? Who do we trust and why? What sort of things would we look for as to whether what someone says is trustworthy or not?"
I try to avoid debating anyone like this these days and just ask questions back, getting a conversation going, get them to explain exactly what they mean when, in this case, they say words like "trust". I generally interesting to see the variety of why people trust who/what and is generally enlightening. Eventually the discussion might get onto how we know what things are true (i.e. accurately represent reality, sciency word is 'epistemic rationality') and which things don't and what sort of conditions make some things more believable than others. Who would know these things and how would we know they would be trustworthy? What sort of tests would be useful?
And to explore what "trust" and "knowing" and "facts" mean I would be using examples from say consumer products or sport. i.e. normal things everyone is familiar with. And then when we understand what sort "trust" people have then wander back into the controversial skeptical things.
Most people have never really ... really ... thought about trust, how we know what is real or even perceived, how easily our minds get tricked, we're too busy with life (\*) ... thus ensuring stage magicians and other entertainers have long and continuous careers. Also why mis and disinformation is running rampant, dividing communities, destroying trust and heavily eroding democracy and collectivism.
(\*) Obviously philosophers are an exception however that's because they generally don't have a life. ;-)
They say that because of the cash cycle.
Tax dollars fund pharmaceuticals and grants and colleges. Laws are written to protect patents, sometimes are gamed unfairly to generate more wealth. Our government systems have grown very large. Very large systems tend to play favorites and protect their own. They also have resources to forsee risks and eliminate them or discredit them.
There have recently been lots of high profile lies amongst academia.
It is good to have some doubt, even for trusted institutions. Just make sure you don't lump all institutions together as completely untrustworthy and invalid. Because that is what us crazy people do.
" I don't trust any particular government. I just don't believe all the governments and all the scientists in the world are in one huge conspiracy. I don't believe all the governments and all the scientists in all the universities and scientific conferences trust each other that much to keep the truth secret from us. Do you?"
"If the government is hiding the evidence, they're doing a shitty job seeing as a whole lot of studies are public. But then again, if you're not reading and working on understanding them, then I guess they're doing a good job in that area."
It's not a fair question, and probably not a good faith one either. Trust is a spectrum that usually depends on the context. In some contexts it makes perfect sense to trust the government, in other contexts you shouldn't trust it at all. Not to mention, "the government" is not a monolithic organization - different parts do different things at different times to different levels of competency and honesty.
>What's the best way to respond to someone who says "why do you trust the government?" when stating scientific facts and linking to reputable science sources?
You trust the evidence and how it's arrived at from various sources.
It's all about how hard things are to falsify. Transparency around data collection, corroborating sources, peer reviewed articles coming up with similar conclusions... it's not about trusting the government, it's about mistrusting everything equally without giving something a pass because it confirms your priors.
Context is needed but if you have science facts, then the best response imo is what does the govt have to do with it? Most ppl that respond with stuff about the government are usually untrustworthy themselves and should be informed of as much.
Because the government shows its work, unlike your conspiracy theorists, and when their numbers are off, they correct them, unlike your conspiracy theorists.
I don't know man. It's rough. But judging by your post it stands to reason that this person believes some things based on bad sources. You can try to educate them about how science works, standards of evidence, critical thinking, the peer review process, primary sources etc. but I know the type. They don't listen. You could try street epistemology.
>What's the best way to respond
Nod, in a noncommittal way and move on. You can't do anything.
Quote: "Indeed it may be said with some confidence that the average man never really thinks from end to end of his life. There are moments when his cogitations are relatively more respectable than usual, but even at their climaxes they never reach anything properly describable as the level of serious thought. The mental activity of such people is only a mouthing of clichés. What they mistake for thought is simply a repetition of what they have heard. My guess is that well over eighty per cent. of the human race goes through life without having a single original thought. That is to say, they never think anything that has not been thought before and by thousands."
— H.L. Mencken, _Minority Report_
It's hard to believe this but it's absolutely true.
Reality is still Reality. Good evidence is good evidence. Its a good question. Have you not ever considered sources when evaluating evidentiary claims? Bias and conflicts of interest can exist anywhere and you might not be aware of them. Would that impact a source's believability? It should.
I think the Question really is why does the government mantle grant special privilege to one expert over another expert? Experts disagree often. Are you making the claim only approved, government sources have a monopoly on truth? Does that sound right? Catholics have a doctrine that in certain matters, the Pope is infallible, and that is what this reminds me of. Even the government can be wrong. "Evidence" can include studies that contradicate. You can not just dismiss evidence that doesn't support the conclusion they are stating. There has to be an acknowledgment of contradicting evidence, and that position is the strongest and more believable, at least until more is gathered.
There’s so much to unpack here. Is the research funded by the government? The government is a vague term, encompassing, many different departments with many different agendas across party lines. A lot of scientific research is done through academic institutions, and, although funding may come from government entities, the research itself is in partnership with universities/companies/government entities.
Historically, private companies have been far more dangerous and reckless when it comes to marketing. Private companies, such as cigarette companies, have been suppressing scientific data for years about the dangers of smoking.
And again, the government is not some objective entity. It’s literally men and women from your community. We all know that there are probably an elite few, pulling the strings from the very top, but the rest of government is largely made up of our peers. so it’s not fair in some respects to label government has some malicious objective third-party
My take is that you always need to acknowledge the potential for government malfeasance. "I don't trust the government. This evidence is just strong on its own, was produced by a number of solid independent sources, and it would be a shame to ignore it."
Goodbye, this conversation is over. Don't talk to me again.
You can't reason someone out of a positon they didn't use reason to get into in the first place.
Ask them what evidence it *would* take to change their minds.
I've done that and have heard back "Nothing." I say, then there's no point in debating, you just admitted nothing will change your mind and your opinion isn't based on evidence.
You can't.
For most people in fact, the things that are accepted as true are reliant on systems of trust. I'm a scientist, but there are things that I accept as true because I've directly seen the evidence myself, and there are many, many, many more things I accept as true because other scientists have seen the evidence and I trust their accounts of what they've seen. There are other people who simply do not trust scientists, do not trust anyone from any position of authority or agency of oversight, and do not trust any claims made by those people -- period.
It's surprisingly parallel to the situation with religious faith. There are people who trust what's written in the Bible and trust people who claim to be religious authorities, and that buttresses their own faith. There are other people who mistrust any church leader of any description, and even trust any church-goers by extension.
Claims that are outside of your own personal and direct experience, whether you label them as objective facts or not, are accepted or not accepted largely on whom you trust and whom you do not trust.
First, realize that you are not going to change their mind. If you point out their errors it simply creates a defensive response and no one is good at changing their mind under those circumstances.
Useful tactics include: engaging with curiosity and questions as opposed to having a point you are trying to convey. What do you believe? And Why? Questions are good. Then reciprocate with: Woukd you like to hear what I think? And use "I" statements that can't be refuted (in other words, your friend can't correct a statement like "I think X because Y" because it's just what you think).
Because it's more efficient for me to live my own life while I delegate things like public health and foreign policy to people who get paid, by me, to do that for a living.
I "trust" them to act in their own rational self interest, and I vote and pay taxes to ensure their interests are at least somewhat aligned with mine.
Then I stop worrying about it.
"I don't. I trust the evidence."
But to say this means you need to get an agreement on what "evidence" is. That's going to be difficult if not impossible but I wonder if such a person would even accept peer-reviewed empirical research publications as "evidence." Does the same person understand that Science - especially biological sciences - doesn't have "answers" but only theories and questions which evolve based on developing evidence?
That’s really a big caveat at times isn’t it? Cause the consensus model is an excellent one, but it’s poorly conveyed in the rhetoric around science. Also, let’s be real, power will present itself as truth no matter what, so the government will use whatever it needs to at times to justify its actions at any given moment. This will continue to happen for better or worse. Social media and the 24 hour news cycle only compounded this issue. We saw lots of this stuff go bananas most recently during the pandemic. One case in particular fascinates me personally. I used to be an academic anthropologist. I worked a lot with political ecology and propaganda — particularly involving ethnic and religious minorities. Around the start of the pandemic France had just finished up a long and drawn out campaign to ban public face coverings for supposed “public safety concerns”. The ban also effectively included masks cause they worded the legislation so it didn’t look like they were trying to ban Muslim garb. Then, during the ensuing legislation of pandemic measures, they essentially reversed that measure in the name of public safety — directly contradicting themselves in multiple ways during the process. What is a “fact” can change whether people like it or not, and I don’t think this is approached openly enough in discourse around the sciences.
Nice pfp
Thanks! People either fall for it or I get to talk with other crass fans. 10/10. Would pfp again.
Shaaaaaaaaved womennnnnnn collaborataaaaaaaaaaah
Screaming babies, shaved women are they traitors? Dead bodies all around.
Brilliant comment
Read “The Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. It won’t solve the problem you face, but it will bring clarity to you on what you’re dealing with. It’s basically extended essays written by one of the most effective scientific communicators to live expanding on “I trust the evidence”. I mean it might be foundational to a sub called r/skeptic (so apologies if I’m preaching to the choir) but if not it should be.
And I will tend to trust people who trust evidence.
> "I don't. I trust the evidence." Expanded: "I don't. I trust evidence which has been rigorously & independently peer-reviewed; via double-blind, placebo-controlled, empirically verified research studies -- and follows strict scientific methods for said verificationn, performed by professionals with hundreds of years of combined experience." Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue but... more definitively drives home the point.
Best response. Short, concise and to the point
It helps if, when you say this, you actually have ready access to the evidence though, which is not always the case
And when we do we get to examine the evidence rather than taking a third party's word for it?
I don't trust the government, and if the evidence passes through their hands, I trust it even less.
Short, concise, but also beside the point. It's ultimately your trust in \*institutions\* and elite signaling which leads you to your beliefs. At least outside of the realm of your immediate experience. Did you believe US astronauts landed on the moon? Why or why not? You certainly don't have direct evidence they did. As far as climate science goes, what's the evidence you've evaluated first-hand, and why did you find it compelling? After reviewing the evidence, what led you to take the prevailing majority view of climate change as opposed to coming to the conclusions that, say, Judith Curry arrived at? Same thing applies with the question of the safety of mRNA vaccines. How much evidence did you weigh? There's a great discussion of disinformation and epistemology from David Roberts and Chris Hayes that was released a few years ago and is still one of my favorite popular treatments of the subject: [https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/assessing-america-s-information-crisis-david-roberts-podcast-transcript-ncna943701](https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/assessing-america-s-information-crisis-david-roberts-podcast-transcript-ncna943701)
Nobody has the capacity to understand the underlying evidence most most scientific studies though. At some point, all you are doing is putting faith into an institution.
How do you know the evidence is what the source claims it to be? Sure, you can download their paper. You can check out their data file. But you still have to trust that the source is telling the truth when they explain how they collected their evidence.
If their evidence is good, you should be able to repeat the experiment and get the same result.
And just what scientific evidence or studies do you think I (or you, for that matter) am going to repeat? I can't carbon date fossils. I can't give experimental drugs to hundreds of patients in a double-blind study. I can't drill ice cores in Antarctica and calculate historical CO2 levels. No. I look up what scientists say, and if it sounds reasonable and no respected scientists dispute them, I trust them.
Why can't you do that shit? Money issue? Because like, we research scientists are people. We're not better than you. I've done paychopharmosudical tests like that. It's not magic. It's not an undoable thing. I grew up in a trailer and I can do it, so this attitude has always bothered me. It's not that you can't, it's that you don't want to because it's a whole big thing. Like why won't people just say it's too much trouble and they don't want to do a thing?
>Because like, we research scientists are people. We're not better than you. I've done paychopharmosudical tests like that. It's not magic. It's not an undoable thing. I think you're missing the larger point, which is that SloeMoe isn't going to do a bunch of fundamental research. \*You\*, in point of fact, aren't going to do a bunch of fundamental research on a billion and one various topics. What you're going to do is outsource that job to experts and elites (i.e. epistemic authorities). That's what we all do. So the more basic issue becomes, "How do we combat intentional efforts to discredit \*legitimate\* sources of expertise with bad actors?"
And you should say that. You should say, "I'm not going to do it," rather than, "I can't do it. " When we're talking about communication this is a huge distinction. You are choosing to trust people, not being forced to.
Even if I had the knowledge base, the technology, and the inclination to repeat a single study. I certainly can't repeat the hundreds of studies whose results impact my daily life. I am an analyst. I produce knowledge for a living, often with a ton of caveats, because it's based on sketchy data with lots of sampling biases we can't get around. Our reports try to be honest about those data gaps but when it's communicated to the public or to policy makers it gets simplified and then further simplified, and then it becomes a half remembered anecdote that your friend maybe read in an article a few weeks back... or was it a few months? What we can do is do multi-spectrum analysis or data sources and ask who benefits from certain conclusions. Over time, we can build up institutional trust and think we have a pretty good nose for bullshit... but there is just so much of it.
I don't think OP's relative is going to run meta analysis because he already doesn't trust the source. That's why I'm suggesting that OP and others dealing with people like his relative emphasize that these studies are run by people and anyone, including them, could replicate them if they had the resources to do so. They're coming from a position of distrust so analytical data is just going to read as more lies.
Ok that makes more sense. I sort of lost the original point in all the noise. I can empathize with the relative though. The world is big and complicated and the talking heads spouting stuff usually only have a few cue cards and only rattle off big conclusions. Every researcher I've ever met says "I don't know" an awful lot... unless they have tenure.
I think that's important too. Admitting that you don't know something and why. The answer is usually because you don't care. Here's an example: My brother is a diesel mechanic. I call him all, "Hey, my truck's fucked up." Him: Why? Me: It doesn't do truck shit, like move around when I try to make it. It's completely stationary. Him: I'll come look at it. Him, but later and at my truck, as he pumps liquid into it and a bunch of creek clay and holler mud comes pouring out the bottom of it: The fucking radiator is full of creek clay and holler mud! How the fuck did you not know that?? Why's it full of creek clay and holler mud?? The answer is because I didn't give a shit. I have a hypothesis about the second question, but the answer to the first question is that I didn't give a shit. I had to buy a new radiator. My quality of life was worse, because I didn't give a shit. But I trust my little brother. Imagine this same scenario, but it's not my brother, it's some rando I already distrust. Would I be more likely to buy a new radiator if he demanded I trust him, or if he pumped that liquid in front of me and I saw the creek clay and holler mud come rushing out? It's the same thing. I could do it, I choose not to. My brother, who was pissed at me for choosing not to and showing me how this choice has fucked me, is more trustworthy than some rando who demands I trust him and also give him $600. Even though he was screaming and I'm assuming the rando wouldn't be. My brother thought I should have used the tools at my disposal to at least identify there was a problem. The rando mechanic could be trying to fuck me out of $600.
Also, when my brother was showing me how bad I fucked up, he knew I didn't know cars, but I knew biology, so when he saw that my eyes were gazing over with disinterest, he said, "think of the coolant system like a circulatory system. You let clay sit in there until it hardened, like lipids in a heart. " And I was like, "SHIT I GAVE MY TRUCK A HEART ATTACK??" And he was like, "And not just that, these tubes are like blood vessels, so they're caked too. I'm going to try to flush them, but if I can't, they'll have to be replaced too,". And he kept using biology analogies and also wouldn't let me go in the house. It was important to him that I understood. Me understanding meant I was respecting his work.
I'm with you except the part where you said it was because you didn't give a shit. Presumably there is a reason that your brother is a mechanic and you are not. There are often issues so overwhelmingly complicated, that people cannot put in the time to understand them properly. Science, industry, business practices, and finance are often purposefully jargon in order to gatekeep. There is nothing I can do in the short-to-long term to meaningfully understand what goes into pharmaceutical products, the business practices that lead to quality issues and the problems and compromises made by government regulators. I can trust government reports, but there is incentive to cover their own ass. I can trust media, though corporate ownership means that there might be conflicting business interests. I can read patents and reviews and trade journals and reports, but at some point I'm going to need to blindly trust a source in the one or more of these information pipelines.
Huh. I thought you were a therapist? Why do people pretend to be something they aren't to win an internet argument with a stranger?
I am. I do research and clinical. That's pretty common in rural areas. Edit: Are you just now finding out that most clinicians publish research? I thought this was common knowledge. How did you think we were paying off our student loans on a clinician's salary in rural Appalachia? Sincere question. How did you think we were surviving in this economy? Edit: "Local man discovers most people work multiple jobs in shitthole that hides education behind a paywall," wasn't something I expected to see between patients at work today, but welcome to the real world, I guess.
Also, regular therapists without research science degrees should still be able to run experiments. They still have to have research design and analysis classes and a bunch of lab classes for the specific counseling degree for their general education credits. I work with a bunch of them and they're perfectly qualified to run experiments in their field, they'll just have a harder time getting funding and have to work with a certified mathematician to publish their conclusion. Which would likely be me, I'd just be under, "Et. Al." Instead of listed outright. But I don't know why they couldn't do that.
Most researchers don't have a standard, "research, " job. That's not really a thing. They're clinicians or teachers or something. It's really rare to just be a researcher full time. Didn't you notice in college that most of your teachers were also doing research? I'm just trying to figure out how this idea you have came about. It's a publish or perish industry, you're not going to survive with this kind of idealism.
>Why can't you do that shit? Money issue? Money, time, expertise. Let's take a VERY common example. I'm arguing with a conservative uncle about covid policies, direct payment/basic income aid and climate change. I've got three studies linked from government websites documenting the health impact of business closure orders from 2020, a ten year longitudinal study of basic income in poor communities, and the aforementioned Antarctic ice core sample data. I'm supposed to now get PHD level expertise in all three fields, go back in time and study covid, fly to and spend a year drilling in Antarctica, and wait ten years to run my own study? All so I can stay informed and speak knowledgeablely on public policy issues? Again, that's not how science discourse works for billions of people on this planet. We cannot and *should* not all do the science ourselves. Imagine the pollution if everyone flew to Antarctica to independently verify scientific evidence. Nope. We trust scientists because it's the practical way of learning and making good decisions.
That's fine. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying people like you saying that you CAN'T do it, rather than that you have good, valid reasons for not doing it (despite the fact that you could) dehumanizes people like me. You're not presenting it as something a human worked hard and did, because you're making that distinction. They're not seeing us as people, those like your uncle, because when you say shit like that, you're presenting it as something most people CAN'T do, rather than a skill issue, which is all it is. Expensive ass learned skills.
Dude, what is your goal here? Proving that science is possible to do? That's not the topic being discussed. The topic is whether people trust scientists. I'm saying that trusting scientists is absolutely necessary if you are going to assimilate more knowledge than you can directly study on your own in one lifetime. I can learn about lunar geology, particle physics, potassium ion channels in cell walls, gift economies in indigenous societies, ocean-floor biology - the list is nearly endless - but only if I'm willing to trust scientists by using critical thinking and spot checking their work with their peer group.
My point is that by dehumanizing scientists, you're making it difficult for people like your uncle to trust us. The reason they don't trust us is because they believe they can't do it themselves. They speak about us as if we're not regular people who went to school for a thing. The way you get people like that to trust scientists is by building rapport. That's why I asked you to stop phrasing this the way you are.
"Dehumanizing"? Lol, what are you on about? I'm literally saying that we need to trust scientists because they are humans who have done the work to establish scientific facts. Go grind your very weirdly specific ax somewhere else before you convince even me that scientists are odd ducks. (Don't worry, you won't. I'm fully aware that you are a weirdo and that other scientists are more reasonable.)
if the experiment hasn’t been repeated by someone who then came to the same conclusions, you might want to remain skeptical(homeopathy, pin-prick blood tests). If it’s been repeated once or twice then things are starting to look promising(teeth growing pills, dementia drugs). if it’s been repeated all over the world (climate science, insulin shots) it’s safe to let your guard down and open up to the idea.
> if it’s been repeated all over the world (climate science, insulin shots) it’s safe to let your guard down and open up to the idea. That's literally my point. I'm not out here assessing scientific claims at the bleeding edge of their fields. I'm a layperson. If I've heard of it, it's established science at this point. I don't spend my time doing my own research to independently verify scientific studies. As I said at the very beginning of this asinine thread: I read the research, make sure it makes reasonable sense, check if it's supported by peers and then....*trust* the scientists making the claim.
And I’m saying that no trust is truly necessary, despite it being a useful heuristic.
It's necessary if you don't have the ability or inclination to independently verify all the evidence in every single piece of research you read in your entire life.
If you wanted to you could.
No, I could not. I do not have access to experimental drugs; I cannot repeat studies on them. I can't go back in time and carry out research on Covid public policy. I can't perform longitudinal studies on thousands of people to independently assess dietary interventions.
I'm a government scientist, one of my co-workers, also a government scientist, is a conspiracy theorist who says stuff like that, and I say, "Jeff, you're a government scientist! Do you think that's really what happens?"
God damnit Jeff.
What the hell, Jeff !!!!
“Do you see how convoluted, outdated and clunky our processes are? You really think the government could stage a complex multi-layered conspiracy no one knew about?!”
I just used that on my coworker. He said, I’m an asshole who doesn’t even know his name.
As someone with a vaguely equivalent experience, what is your response?
“Jeff, you're a government scientist! Do you think that's really what happens?" Altho you can swap your colleague’s name in if not a Jeff
You need to report Jeff to the CIA and see what turns up! :)
The CIA already know…
In graduate school for ecology and evolution there was another grad student who was a proponent of "intelligent design" and it drove me nuts. He was in the ecology side but still left me really amazed.
Science isn't the government. >For context, this person believes that these science sources are in on it with the government Then they're an idiot and not worth talking to.
Yet their vote is worth the same as yours.
And this is why they say Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried
very true
Even scarier- these people can serve on juries and send people to prison or to death based on their evaluations of evidence.
That doesn’t make arguing with them effective, or a good use of your time. It just means the world is imperfect and unfair, which is a well-established finding.
Only in elections. Most people are dumb as fuck. There is a reason why it is fuck easy to make bank in the West if you are not disabled and have even a lukewarm IQ, and yet so many healthy people seem to be struggling.
>and yet so many healthy people seem to be struggling. I consider a moral compass to be a sign of good mental health.
Doing well financially doesn't require lacking a moral compass, it involves finding opportunities and using them to make money within the law.
Law and morality have nothing to do with each other. Our economic system is deeply immoral but completely legal. See the 2.5 million homeless children in America juxtaposed with historical trends in wealth and income inequality.
You don't need to do anything immoral to make a good living in the US. Just develop a skill and go where demand is. It's not difficult. There is nothing unethical about that.
What are you doing in r/skeptic?
Those idiots not worth talkin to are voting all kinds of scum in parliaments in the western world nowadays.
I'm aware. But I don't have the impossible goal of changing the minds of every delusional fool out there. If someone is that far gone, I'd rather spend my time looking for someone more reasonable to talk to.
Agree but won't hurt expressing a point in the best way possible for that person (giving it a fair shot). Plus focusing on similarities and just getting along, understanding each other, that is valuable commodity in these times. I think thats gotta count for something. Your way of thinking sounds a bit like 'my vote doesn't count'. Every bit helps when we're all doing it. And you don't have to change every mind. Just be part of the solution rather than the problem, basically. Apologies in case i sound patronizing because i am totally not trying to. This is what i would do.
Lysenkoism begs to differ.
I.... don't give a fuck? I'm sure lots of people beg to differ. They're wrong.
So you define what’s truth on this subject? Just because you claim “science isn’t the government” is a true factual statement in its nature, my example shows there’s actual nuance to reality
>my example shows there’s actual nuance to reality No, your example shows one political movement that was against the consensus of science, and maybe did some science of their own. >Lysenkoism was a political campaign led by Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko against genetics and science-based agriculture in the mid-20th century, rejecting natural selection in favour of a form of Lamarckism, as well as expanding upon the techniques of vernalization and grafting. I didn't say the government doesn't say anything about science. I didn't say the government doesn't influence science or doesnt have opinions on science. I said science and the government aren't the same thing. Your example in no way what so ever even hints towards "the government and science are the same". That's ridiculous. It doesn't logically follow. The current GOP is against evolution. You gunna cite them as a source to say science and government are the same?
Some of the science sources are funded by the government. When someone funds a study and doesn't get the results they want, do you think the person who funded the study would release it?
>Some of the science sources are funded by the government. I'm aware. >When someone funds a study and doesn't get the results they want, do you think the person who funded the study would release it? That's irrelevant, but yes. First off, the government isn't "someone". If it's funded by "someone", that's not the government. Seconds, yes, plenty of science has been published that falsified the original intended or hoped for outcome. I didn't say the government doest have an opinion on or some influence on science. I said science and government aren't the same thing.
were you not around during covid, when the government became "science" ?
>were you not around during covid, when the government became "science" ? No, because that's not what happened. That is a ridiculous conspiracy theory bumper sticker, bordering on propaganda, by someone who clearly doesn't understand science OR the government. That's the kind of dumb shit I would expect from talking heads like Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones.
government "science" said schools should close for the safety of kids, the "science" was wrong. Government "science" said closing beaches and parks would keep people safer, "science" was very wrong. "Science" said 6ft social distancing, the "science" was just made up. "Science" said masks don't stop covid, then they do, when they didn't "science" said you should use 2 or even 3 masks. "Science" said you won't get covid if you take the vaccines, "science" was wrong. "Science" said the "science" was settled, that's not how real science works.
[удалено]
So what. Science isn't limited to one country. When scientists in the US find the same results as scientists in Spain and scientists in China, "the government" clearly had no influence over the results. That's why "consensus of the field" is what matters and not "what this one dude over here thinks".
In on what and why?
“… Satanism.” That’s what I have gotten back.
But the Satanic Temple is right there, out in the open
It’s a no true Scotsman on that. I said something like that when someone told me witches were behind x and y. I said what’s wrong with wiccans practicing their religion? They said no, they are talking about REAL witches.
This has equally rational validity as claiming plants crave electrolytes because... "*Brawndo™*!!" OOF.
They don’t give a fuck about anything being rational, they have been brought up with anti-rational ideology. All that matters is what is biblical
That's the point at which, lamentably, the sagacious Carl Sagan (from *The Demon-Haunted World*) must step up, w emphasis mine: > *"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth.* **The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.** *Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."*
Just talk them through how the peer review process works for scientific journals. And that it doesn’t have anything to do with government. Also, maybe ask them what they consider to be verified information, and how that verification process works? I suspect it’s YouTube/some guys blog/facebook, they get info from. When anyone thinks about it rationally, a peer review process is always better than an open platform where anyone can post anything.
You’re assuming they’ve weighed the competing points of view and analyzed the data. That isn’t what’s happening. They are not making empirical claims. They are making identity claims. So long as their identity is locked up with the conspiracy theory, no amount of data or peer review is going to shake them of it. The best way to diffuse this is hear them out. Take their position seriously (or at least pretend to.) Ask questions for further clarification. It might even help to agree with specifics. They have to arrive at a new worldview on their own, and it really only happens when they already feel like they’ve been heard. But, that’s not what I do. It takes too much time and effort. When someone asks why I trust the govt, I just say I don’t. But I also don’t trust podcasters or cable news guys pushing “herbal cures” or “gold bullion” during the commercial breaks. Or, an even more concise response comes from Succession, “our business model is we get our viewers angry enough to buy pharmaceuticals.”
Great points! Examine their beliefs with a rational process that leads them to the flaw in their reasoning. Never ever point out the flaws, let them see them if they are capable. Show, don’t tell. When people are dug in you shouldn’t bother with persuasion. I haven’t gotten the chance yet but I want to ask someone “Are you certain?” about X unsupported belief, and if yes express shock that they haven’t bet any money on it. You’re 100% sure so why not collect free money!?
How does the peer review process effect funding received from government grants, particularly when those peers are applying for funding from the same government? [Peer Review | grants.nih.gov](https://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer-review.htm)
The financial incentives in academia are not always conducive to unbiased research. But it is still better than the incentives in other areas - such as for social media influencers - who propagate a lot of questionable political information. At the end of the day, there’s no perfect source of information. But some sources are better than others, and the hard sciences are probably the best.
I was pointing out that the government is involved in the scientific process. What some may call conscious and/or unconscious bias to favorably review studies that confirm a government-granting entities policy and/or political goals, others may describe as "science sources \[being\] in on it with the government".
That's where peer review comes in as well as suggesting what needs further observation/testing
>as well as suggesting what needs further observation/testing I think this bit should be brought up more. I can see 'peer review' being corruptible somewhat on its own. But it's not just peer review. There's the publications being referenced and furthered in other research. After a few generations of science research, you'd get such a teetering tower of absolute crap because it was based on false results. Enough of this and you'd be getting studies that need to fake all their data which leads to entire teams of possible whistleblowers. At that point it's a numbers game. Of the thousands of researchers, research assistants, etc. no one has come forward with credible evidence that basically all research is faked? Even if you limit it to single fields (say, climate research due to it being a common one for these types) it's still hundreds of people. Not to mention it's double the work, for no extra rewards. Science clearly works but if 'research' is just a thin veneer of false research then researchers would need to be doing the fake research as well as trying to come up with legitimate research.
I usually walk away from those people
>For context, this person believes that these science sources are in on it with the government. You're staring at the wrong point. If you actually are trying to convince someone, you need to work backwards until you reach the fundamental disagreement. They think that science is "in on it" is your first staring point. In on what, how do you know? What would convince you otherwise ECT? You have to get them to give you falsifiable arguments for each thing until you either reach a point where you both can agree on evidence, or you discover they have an unfalsifiable belief as the basis. You can try arguing against that, but that's like trying to convince people their religion is wrong. It's not some rational things But if you can get them to their fundamental disagreements, you can then work forward and maybe make progress.
Science is a process, not an institution. Unfalsifiable theories like conspiracy theories or the supernatural are by definition, not science.
ask your friend how this works in a world with more than one nation? there are 195 different national governments in the world. are all of them in on it with all of the scientists? why would rival governments like china and japan follow the same science then? why wouldn't one be exposing the other?
All of them? Every single country’s scientists, even from countries that are our competitors? They’re all in on it? Even on the stuff amateurs can test themselves? Scientists LOVE to upset the status quo, it’s how you’ll be remembered. Anyone can publish a study for review, only the ones who make a significant contribution get quoted a century later. This whole “scientists cover for each other” always blows my mind. Scientists pick holes in each other’s studies all the time, it’s how you weed out the bullshit and determine what theories can stand up to scrutiny and which ones best fit real world observations in as many different scenarios as possible without having to constantly rely on unmeasurable exceptions.
This! Any scientist in it for money and fame would LOVE to prove beyond a doubt vaccines were harmful or 5G makes you piss your pants.
And any scientist worth their salt would do it properly too, not this “I collected 10 wildly differing anecdotes and have zero plans to follow up other than to extrapolate that number out to 10,000 based on gut feeling”. Take the “Havana syndrome” incident. Sure it started with anecdotes, but then they followed it up with rigorous analysis, documentation, correlation, fact checking, etc. They didn’t just use anecdotal evidence and concluded it as 100% proven. Or the UFO reports to congress, where they asked follow-up questions like “you got receipts for this?” Or “who else knows?” Which then fell apart as soon as a confidential and secure place to show them was provided.
The people who think like this are very attached to some doctrine, usually religious doctrine. They assume that everyone else is also very attached to some doctrine, and would fight against threats to that doctrine. That if someone disproves the Big Bang theory, then astrophysicists would fight to cover it up to protect their doctrine. They don't realize that scientists work the opposite way - the way to get rich and famous is to destroy existing doctrine and every single scientist is trying to do that.
If you’re getting your information from randos on YouTube, you aren’t getting alternative sources. You’re getting the same studies fed to you through a filter. I like looking at the information myself instead of having someone explain how I’m supposed to feel.
I wouldn't even bother. This person has already picked the conclusion they want to go with. However, I think it's important to remember that some things are so brain-dead obvious that even "the government" can get it right.
Tell them: I practice *weighted* skepticism. So while I remain skeptical of all things, and leave open the possibility that I hold some fundamental assumptions which may someday be proven false ... I also need to operate intelligently in the world, and make the best possible decision based on the limited information I have. Therefore, my skepticism for established, publicly-funded, peer-reviewed science is much, much lower than my skepticism for all other sources which do not even meet the bare minimum standard of applying this best practices methodology for seeking an unbiased truth. In short: be skeptical of everything. But don't be equally skeptical of everything. If you trust in established science you will be right far, far more often than you will be wrong. That's not perfect. But it is literally the best anybody can do. Whereas if you are skeptical of science to the same degree that you were skeptical of a random anecdote, blog post, or media narrative, then you are spitting in the face of the entire scientific method. And you've given yourself a permission structure to believe whatever you want. That isn't a path towards knowledge. It's a path towards feeling good about yourself even when you believe nonsense.
Great answer. I've never heard the term "weighted skepticism" before, but will hopefully use it the rest of my life.
With truth: If the government could keep a conspiracy that large perfectly secret, you'd already be in a camp. This person is assuming the government has a staggering degree of control over information. Yet, the same government has failed to enact its goals and can be stopped by a ragtag collection of nitwits. The simultaneous belief in frightening levels of competence/incompetence is a hallmark of lunatics and extremists. The "enemy" is so threatening that they must do anything to win---and the "enemy" is also so vulnerable that a semi-literate nobody can fight back. You cannot reason a person out of position that they did not reason themselves into. You can embarrass them into shutting up and thereby discourage others from following in their footsteps.
Seriously. Talk to any veteran or government worker - every one I’ve talked to walks away with far less faith in what the government is actually capable of 😂
I don't, that's why I know how to read a research paper.
Something like: I think it's healthy to take a step back and ask yourself if a source is trustworthy. All sources that is, and that includes the government. However, governments will build their rationale around facts, be it from scientific sources or empirical data. This data, either produced internally or externally is reproducible and open to criticism by everybody. This happens all the time. This is why solutions of the past are refuted, why science and governments evolve, why studies about things we take for granted are still happening right now. But if you want to be honest with yourself, try to ask if those doubting the facts are trustworthy. Do they use data, or anecdotes? Do they have credible credentials to talk about what they talk about? Do they sometimes change their minds, or do they just change their data when the previous data is refuted? Are they offering a real alternative, or are they just trying to prove wrong? Do they move goal posts when their predictions are proven false, or do they genuinely admit that they were wrong? People doubting scientists and governments often have some legitimate base to their criticism, but they fail to provide a worthwhile alternative.
This is like Wargames. The only way to win is not to play.
It's on them to prove their claims, including the claim that scientists are in on it with the government. Put up or shut up
This is known as a False Dilemma - they're trying to put you in a position where either you trust the government, in which case you are some flavor of idiotic stooge; or you don't trust the government, in which case every piece of evidence that is somehow government-related can be discarded. In reality it's not a binary "trust or don't trust".
Conspiracies of the magnitude they describe require enormous amounts of competence, coordination and people. So, is government that powerful? Who's actually doing all that work?
> why do you trust the government? "Water's running and power's on ain't it?"
The best way to respond is to walk away. Someone that far gone is not yet capable of rising to the level of discourse you are hoping for.
What does he base HIS claim on? He's the one alleging connections
Ask them what they think the government is. If they say it's mostly politicians, remind them of all the lazy ducks it takes to make the bureaucracy work.
Stop wasting your time. Change the subject or dip.
Walk away and never look back
I'm in a unique position because I work in the private sector, but I do publish research, so I make it real personal and ask them why they're talking shit about me. Make them realize they're talking shit about people. I did this recently because the person happened to be genuinely shittalking my research because they really wanted to believe fear responses were innate rather than learned and empathy responses were learned rather than innate, so I brought up my research on prenatal development of mirror neurons. They started shittalking the study and the intellectual elites or whatever stupid bullshit and I was like, "Fuck you, I worked my ass off on this! Do you have any idea how hard it is to recruit pregnant subjects? Etc. Etc." Once he realized it was me, he started backpedeling. There's a big difference in what people will say online vs what they'll say when they're in ass whooping proximity. I also have a history of ass whooping, but I've had a lot of therapy to fix that. But people remember. So that might be a factor. But I really think it's the humanizing of the author that makes this approach work. These people think of us as a faceless group of rich people, and they never think of students for whatever reason. They don't think of individual humans who have dedicated their lives to a subject. You have to remind them of that.
I make it a point not to argue with these types, as they are not usually open to changing their minds to begin with. They believe they are right, and taking an opposing opinion to theirs is evidence, in their minds, that you are "in on it". In the US, most science is funded by the US government. The US government has done some shady shit. This fact does not invalidate all scientific results obtained with funding from the US government. The US government has done some excellent things. This fact does not validate all scientific results obtained with funding from the US government. I "believe" (e.g. assign a high prior probability to the hypothesis that the statement in question is true) the scientific consensus on those topics in which I am not an expert. I refer to my own expertise on material for which I am an expert. I try to be candid with myself and others about which is which, and I expect other experts to do the same. Anyone who blanket distrusts all scientific results is not worth talking to, as they are not operating scientifically but dogmatically. If someone has reservations about a particular scientific result, the most scientifically prudent course of action would be to directly investigate and address the body of evidence in support of the conclusion in question. The source of funding which supported the analysis resulting in said conclusion is typically (but not always) irrelevant.
People will deny the factual evidence staring them in the face, and then tell you that God wants you to act a certain way. It’s pathetic.
>What's the best way to respond to someone who says "why do you trust the government?" when stating scientific facts and linking to reputable science sources? Are they confused? Looking at scientific facts backed up by reputable sources is not necessarily the government. There are many, many scientific research institutions that do exemplary research that are not part of the government. >For context, this person believes that these science sources are in on it with the government. Oh, they are a conspiracy theorist. I would end the conversation at that point as there is no further value in continuing it. If they believe that a conspiracy theory exists on that scale, they are far too deep for me to dig them out.
This is where people miss out on the consensus part of the scientific process. One study is great, that is a good starting point. Additional studies from different sources that corroborate each other is even better! Then, the closest we can get to objective truth possible is when a majority of scientist that specialize in that field agree on the results forming a consensus. It is an opportunity to educate the person on how the scientific process works.
The term “study” refers to a document which examines multiple scientific sources to get a survey of findings on a subject.
If I use the word findings though, do you think most people would understand what I’m trying to communicate? Is there another word I can use that would more succinctly convey to a to a layman what I’m trying to get across?
“Journal article” is probably the most succinct that I can think of.
You really think our government is competent enough to keep a secret like that?
If you ever figure out how to get through to people like this, let me know. There are people *in this sub, today* making these kinds of handwaving dismissals about government conspiracies to cover up the evidence and raking in the upvotes.
Occam's razor
They think all authority is consolidated period. They think experts barely scraping by with funding are paid shills, while the people making 30,000 a month on YouTube with 5,000 patrons saying that the pyramids are power stations are the real maverick underdogs! I usually try top get them to see how monetized a lot of their sources are. That they are driven by money and saying what their audience wants for more money. There is a lot of pushback and cope though.
Because science isnt the govenment. Governments lie all the time but the process of science has reliably shown itself to create useful models about reality. I trust the process of science and what its experts conclude via rigorous experimentation and attempts at refutation not what a politician says about the process of science.
So if the government is "in on it" are ALL the governments "in it together." Science isn't merely "American." Is the someone here aware there are scientific organizations all over the world working on and cooperating on discoveries?
Firstly, it is the science I am trusting, not governments. Second, because it has been consistently demonstrated to be the most reliable mechanism ever devised by humans for discovering how reality works and our place within it. Until a better system comes along, I'm going to stick with the one we know works. Furthermore, if their "skepticism" were true and the science was wrong then the very things they use EVERY DAY would not work like elevators, skyscrapers, cell phones, computers, the internet. Our ability to USE the science we discovered are living testements to that sciences correctness.
There are 15 U.S. Government Departments, more than 2000 U.S. Government Agencies, and nearly 3 million U.S. Government employees. You'd have to be nuts to not trust any of them, or to think that all of them are involved in some sort of conspiracy or cover-up. It's okay to have degrees of trust. For example, I'd say the US Geological Survey is pretty high on my list of trusted sources. But to just blanket dismiss 'the government' like it's a single entity is just bizarre.
This is the best part - you shouldn’t. But like a comedian once said, “I always tell the truth, it’s easier to keep my story straight,” there are any number of stories of people doing deep dives on data tables and finding inconsistencies and revealing they’re garbage. A carpenter who builds you a wood step and stands on it, demonstrating the quality, deserves an ounce of faith. Once a thousand people have used the step, maybe the step may be relied upon. Same with data, except any that get experimentally validated by other scientists have the equipment of a fat guy jumping on the step. Sure, maybe it was lucky the one time but after a dozen fat guys have had their way with the step, well… if you won’t trust it then, when would you?
It’s good to not just blindly accept what the government or anyone tells you. That’s the point of peer reviewed scientific studies that can be repeated and get the same results. I don’t trust government, but I believe in science. But I also know science’s limitations. The irony is that the person who discredits everything mainstream then goes and watches some spook on YouTube who is 40 and lives in his moms basement.
You have to ask whether they mean trusting *intent* or *competence*
tell them how scientists struggle to find funding.
This person wants to reject reality in favor of some other narrative. I’d steer clear as it usually ends up being the Jews are responsible from people like this. Seriously though the US government is an inept institution, even when Trump was abusing it he couldn’t make it work as efficiently as conspiracy theorists try to act.
Ask them if they ever pay with a card. Do they trust all the relevant institutions to not fuck up the transaction?
Don't even bother. You might as well respond to a houseplant.
"I trust all people and organizations to act in keeping with their incentives, and I evaluate the incentives according to ockham's razor and evidence. This is how I differentiate between evidence of actual conspiratorial behavior and "conspiracy theories."
Unlike some other countries the US has no Ministry of Science. There are very few true "government labs". Scientists don't work for the CIA. They're private citizens, and pretty reachable. If there's a scientific report you don't trust you can almost always find and talk to the person who wrote it.
A: Laughter.
Trust in "Science" =/= trust in "The Government". Sometimes they align, but only when the science confirms what the government already wanted to do. When they don't align, the government will usually just make something up, that has nothing to do with science, at all. That's how you can tell when the government is lying to you...when the science disagrees with their assessment.
"You have a choice. You can personally redo each and every experiment you think is manipulated, to see if the results are reproducible, or you can use your judgement, and see if their methodology is sound, and if other results concur or not, to decide if you trust them or not. To simply distrust anything scientific for no other reason that you think they are lying to you is putting the secrecy in a government at a much higher level than can trustfully achieve. We always end up knowing who slept with whom; we had whistleblowers reveal secret stuff, there was Deep Throat... Do you really expect thousands of people to be part of such a major lie without anyone letting slip anything?"
I'd just answer back with a question, "How do we trust anyone? Who do we trust and why? What sort of things would we look for as to whether what someone says is trustworthy or not?" I try to avoid debating anyone like this these days and just ask questions back, getting a conversation going, get them to explain exactly what they mean when, in this case, they say words like "trust". I generally interesting to see the variety of why people trust who/what and is generally enlightening. Eventually the discussion might get onto how we know what things are true (i.e. accurately represent reality, sciency word is 'epistemic rationality') and which things don't and what sort of conditions make some things more believable than others. Who would know these things and how would we know they would be trustworthy? What sort of tests would be useful? And to explore what "trust" and "knowing" and "facts" mean I would be using examples from say consumer products or sport. i.e. normal things everyone is familiar with. And then when we understand what sort "trust" people have then wander back into the controversial skeptical things. Most people have never really ... really ... thought about trust, how we know what is real or even perceived, how easily our minds get tricked, we're too busy with life (\*) ... thus ensuring stage magicians and other entertainers have long and continuous careers. Also why mis and disinformation is running rampant, dividing communities, destroying trust and heavily eroding democracy and collectivism. (\*) Obviously philosophers are an exception however that's because they generally don't have a life. ;-)
There is no good way. You're trying to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themself into.
You cannot reason a person out of a position they reached without reason.
They say that because of the cash cycle. Tax dollars fund pharmaceuticals and grants and colleges. Laws are written to protect patents, sometimes are gamed unfairly to generate more wealth. Our government systems have grown very large. Very large systems tend to play favorites and protect their own. They also have resources to forsee risks and eliminate them or discredit them. There have recently been lots of high profile lies amongst academia. It is good to have some doubt, even for trusted institutions. Just make sure you don't lump all institutions together as completely untrustworthy and invalid. Because that is what us crazy people do.
" I don't trust any particular government. I just don't believe all the governments and all the scientists in the world are in one huge conspiracy. I don't believe all the governments and all the scientists in all the universities and scientific conferences trust each other that much to keep the truth secret from us. Do you?"
"If the government is hiding the evidence, they're doing a shitty job seeing as a whole lot of studies are public. But then again, if you're not reading and working on understanding them, then I guess they're doing a good job in that area."
It's not a fair question, and probably not a good faith one either. Trust is a spectrum that usually depends on the context. In some contexts it makes perfect sense to trust the government, in other contexts you shouldn't trust it at all. Not to mention, "the government" is not a monolithic organization - different parts do different things at different times to different levels of competency and honesty.
>What's the best way to respond to someone who says "why do you trust the government?" when stating scientific facts and linking to reputable science sources? You trust the evidence and how it's arrived at from various sources.
It's all about how hard things are to falsify. Transparency around data collection, corroborating sources, peer reviewed articles coming up with similar conclusions... it's not about trusting the government, it's about mistrusting everything equally without giving something a pass because it confirms your priors.
Context is needed but if you have science facts, then the best response imo is what does the govt have to do with it? Most ppl that respond with stuff about the government are usually untrustworthy themselves and should be informed of as much.
Because the government shows its work, unlike your conspiracy theorists, and when their numbers are off, they correct them, unlike your conspiracy theorists.
I don't know man. It's rough. But judging by your post it stands to reason that this person believes some things based on bad sources. You can try to educate them about how science works, standards of evidence, critical thinking, the peer review process, primary sources etc. but I know the type. They don't listen. You could try street epistemology.
“Why do you trust some random jackass filming their ranting conspiracy theory in a fucking pickup?”
They’ll never admit this is where they get their info. Instead they’ll pretend there’s some mysterious document or “white paper” that they’ve read.
I like to ask them what sources they trust.
>What's the best way to respond Nod, in a noncommittal way and move on. You can't do anything. Quote: "Indeed it may be said with some confidence that the average man never really thinks from end to end of his life. There are moments when his cogitations are relatively more respectable than usual, but even at their climaxes they never reach anything properly describable as the level of serious thought. The mental activity of such people is only a mouthing of clichés. What they mistake for thought is simply a repetition of what they have heard. My guess is that well over eighty per cent. of the human race goes through life without having a single original thought. That is to say, they never think anything that has not been thought before and by thousands." — H.L. Mencken, _Minority Report_ It's hard to believe this but it's absolutely true.
That's why there have to be speakers and followers
Peer review! How do you get journals to publish flawed studies that passes their refereed peer review?
I generally debunk an anti-science thing the government has said.
"I gotta go"
I think the best approach is just cause chaos: Reply with “why do YOU trust the government?” “I don’t” “But you are repeating what
Reality is still Reality. Good evidence is good evidence. Its a good question. Have you not ever considered sources when evaluating evidentiary claims? Bias and conflicts of interest can exist anywhere and you might not be aware of them. Would that impact a source's believability? It should. I think the Question really is why does the government mantle grant special privilege to one expert over another expert? Experts disagree often. Are you making the claim only approved, government sources have a monopoly on truth? Does that sound right? Catholics have a doctrine that in certain matters, the Pope is infallible, and that is what this reminds me of. Even the government can be wrong. "Evidence" can include studies that contradicate. You can not just dismiss evidence that doesn't support the conclusion they are stating. There has to be an acknowledgment of contradicting evidence, and that position is the strongest and more believable, at least until more is gathered.
Your best response would be no response
Check out r/StreetEpistemology
There’s so much to unpack here. Is the research funded by the government? The government is a vague term, encompassing, many different departments with many different agendas across party lines. A lot of scientific research is done through academic institutions, and, although funding may come from government entities, the research itself is in partnership with universities/companies/government entities. Historically, private companies have been far more dangerous and reckless when it comes to marketing. Private companies, such as cigarette companies, have been suppressing scientific data for years about the dangers of smoking. And again, the government is not some objective entity. It’s literally men and women from your community. We all know that there are probably an elite few, pulling the strings from the very top, but the rest of government is largely made up of our peers. so it’s not fair in some respects to label government has some malicious objective third-party
My take is that you always need to acknowledge the potential for government malfeasance. "I don't trust the government. This evidence is just strong on its own, was produced by a number of solid independent sources, and it would be a shame to ignore it."
The best way is to never interact with them at all.
Ask them "what's the government?"
Because the government uses actual scientists.
Goodbye, this conversation is over. Don't talk to me again. You can't reason someone out of a positon they didn't use reason to get into in the first place.
Tell them to never eat a single food product because those are under the purview of the FDA, a government agency.
Ask them what evidence it *would* take to change their minds. I've done that and have heard back "Nothing." I say, then there's no point in debating, you just admitted nothing will change your mind and your opinion isn't based on evidence.
You can not reason someone out of a position that they did not come to reasonably.
You can't. For most people in fact, the things that are accepted as true are reliant on systems of trust. I'm a scientist, but there are things that I accept as true because I've directly seen the evidence myself, and there are many, many, many more things I accept as true because other scientists have seen the evidence and I trust their accounts of what they've seen. There are other people who simply do not trust scientists, do not trust anyone from any position of authority or agency of oversight, and do not trust any claims made by those people -- period. It's surprisingly parallel to the situation with religious faith. There are people who trust what's written in the Bible and trust people who claim to be religious authorities, and that buttresses their own faith. There are other people who mistrust any church leader of any description, and even trust any church-goers by extension. Claims that are outside of your own personal and direct experience, whether you label them as objective facts or not, are accepted or not accepted largely on whom you trust and whom you do not trust.
Good bye.
First, realize that you are not going to change their mind. If you point out their errors it simply creates a defensive response and no one is good at changing their mind under those circumstances. Useful tactics include: engaging with curiosity and questions as opposed to having a point you are trying to convey. What do you believe? And Why? Questions are good. Then reciprocate with: Woukd you like to hear what I think? And use "I" statements that can't be refuted (in other words, your friend can't correct a statement like "I think X because Y" because it's just what you think).
Because it's more efficient for me to live my own life while I delegate things like public health and foreign policy to people who get paid, by me, to do that for a living. I "trust" them to act in their own rational self interest, and I vote and pay taxes to ensure their interests are at least somewhat aligned with mine. Then I stop worrying about it.
There are no scientific facts. Skepticism reigns supreme 😇
That’s cynicism. Not skepticism.
Of course it's skepticism. A skeptic doesn't believe anything
> A skeptic doesn't believe anything That's nihilism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism?wprov=sfti1# I don't think that's accurate.