The "pattern of being wrong" standard

[Dumb Ideologies]

A lot of the time people are working with incomplete information through no real fault of their own, and they're going to have a spotty pass-rate both in making future projections and judging the finer detail of past events. However, if being wrong before meant no one had to listen to your argument nobody would even be trying to fill in the info, and we'd have to rely on alternative measures to decide what to do and what our opinions are, which would probably be worse. Or not, I only went for this form of argument because the dice told me to.

[Heloin]

A broken clock can be right sometimes. Still makes the clock broken as hell.

Based on what, though? "The scientists' methods are right because they're right"? Or is it another one of those "because they said so" sort of things?

In theory, science is about putting ideas to the test, no? Both "hmm, let's see, this new disease is supposedly emerging from wildlife trade according to the same country downplaying it; which is plausible for now because of how fucked up that country's wildlife trade is; while the WHO is also somewhat downplaying it; gee I wonder what else these situations could have in common" reasoning and the WHO's reasoning that failed this time and before this time were put to the test. Need I remind you which one came out on top?

Well no. Every point you just made there is wrong. “Science” in the most nebulous discussion one could have is the study of world around us and in part discovering the truths to that world and reality. Putting ideas to the test is a component but that doesn’t actually mean what you think it means it seems. Asserting an idea as fact, with limited proof and evidence, is not only not putting an idea to the test it’s also a really bad idea and in fact is often very dangerous.

Claiming with no proof that what we now now as Covid-19 will cause a massive global pandemic in late 2019 is claiming a meteor will hit the earth every single day of your life. If you happen to be right then it’s purely an accident. The WHO was right with the information it had available and corrected findings when new information became available.

[Ifreann]

Scientists may be prone to bias (in all manner of directions), but science itself is not some monolithic “thing” or “viewpoint,” it is already an inherently adversarial process. That’s like, the entire point of the scientific method and competition in publishing, to play ideas and people against each other and to encourage looking at what we think we know and seeing if it’s accurate. Scientific publishing already contains lots of incentive for “dissent,” to question past results and come out with more accurate, (and juicer), results over time.

The difference is that that adversarial process already occurs between people who are actually fucking qualified, not random people on the street who think they know better on a topic they don’t actually know anything about. Which is, you know, logical.

Suppose there were an issue that would be a threat to the careers of many if not most in a particular discipline of science if they were to be honest about it. Would that not outweigh competitive incentives? How, if at all, would we find out?

No walk of life should be held immune from outsiders' criticism.

Bill Maher doesn't offer criticism of the medical establishment. He offers anecdotes about some parents believing that their child became Autistic shortly after being vaccinated. Did you know that the age at which children are usually vaccinated is around the same age at which symptoms of Autism become apparent? It's literally a coincidence. Two things coinciding. The Latin name for the fallacy is cum hoc, ergo propter hoc. With this, therefore because of this. A rational sceptic would not believe that there is a causal link between two things that happen around the same time without evidence of causation.

[Omniabstracta]

Scientists may be prone to bias (in all manner of directions), but science itself is not some monolithic “thing” or “viewpoint,” it is already an inherently adversarial process. That’s like, the entire point of the scientific method and competition in publishing, to play ideas and people against each other and to encourage looking at what we think we know and seeing if it’s accurate. Scientific publishing already contains lots of incentive for “dissent,” to question past results and come out with more accurate, (and juicer), results over time.

The difference is that that adversarial process already occurs between people who are actually fucking qualified, not random people on the street who think they know better on a topic they don’t actually know anything about. Which is, you know, logical.

Suppose there were an issue that would be a threat to the careers of many if not most in a particular discipline of science if they were to be honest about it. Would that not outweigh competitive incentives? How, if at all, would we find out?

No walk of life should be held immune from outsiders' criticism.

Again, you’re treating science as this thing where everybody’s buddy-buddy and concerned with each other’s well-being. Publishing is an grueling, exhausting, cutthroat process, and an international one at that. Most scientists really couldn’t care less if their fellow scientists are discredited or put out of a job.

And we know that because it happens all the time. You ever wonder what happened to all the phrenologists out there? You ever heard about the large and vocal group of geologists that tried (unsuccessfully) defending an Expanding Earth and geosynclines literally to their grave? What about the doctors on the tail end who still advised lobotomies and got their psychiatry patients addicted to ecstasy and God knows what else, you think the decades have treated them particularly well? Maybe we should look at fields like archaeology and history instead, where even within the field there are hundreds of bitter rivalries and antipodal ideas, and where scientists would love the opportunity to destroy the theories their opponents have spent half their lives on (hell, that’s practically a trope in movies at this point).

(I’ll add that in most of these cases, the public “dissent” or whatever you believe in was staunchly in favor of the scientific status quo, despite it being proven wrong and the field beginning to move past these things. As it turns out, people don’t just automatically provide a counter viewpoint without any incentive to do so, they just believe what they want to believe.)

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Based on what, though? "The scientists' methods are right because they're right"? Or is it another one of those "because they said so" sort of things?

In theory, science is about putting ideas to the test, no? Both "hmm, let's see, this new disease is supposedly emerging from wildlife trade according to the same country downplaying it; which is plausible for now because of how fucked up that country's wildlife trade is; while the WHO is also somewhat downplaying it; gee I wonder what else these situations could have in common" reasoning and the WHO's reasoning that failed this time and before this time were put to the test. Need I remind you which one came out on top?

Well no. Every point you just made there is wrong. “Science” in the most nebulous discussion one could have is the study of world around us and in part discovering the truths to that world and reality. Putting ideas to the test is a component but that doesn’t actually mean what you think it means it seems. Asserting an idea as fact, with limited proof and evidence, is not only not putting an idea to the test it’s also a really bad idea and in fact is often very dangerous.

Claiming with no proof that what we now now as Covid-19 will cause a massive global pandemic in late 2019 is claiming a meteor will hit the earth every single day of your life. If you happen to be right then it’s purely an accident. The WHO was right with the information it had available and corrected findings when new information became available.

Or perhaps was biased in favour of not pissing off one of the most powerful governments in the world by telling the truth? That one would explain them downplaying both SARS and COVID-19.

Again, scientists are subject to bias and perverse incentives just like every other walk of life. You know how Greenpeace sponsored a study that lied about GMO rat tumours? It just so happened that other scientists didn't share their bias, (which leaves one wondering what the hell Greenpeace was thinking) but what happens when the same incentives apply on a larger scale? Such as, you know, a "world" health organization that's part of a "united" nations organization that by its very nature includes some of the most sketchy, opaque governments in the world as member states?