Pop Science Hate Thread - Peddling bullshit to the masses

[Penis Drager 2.0]

When people believe they *know* something merely because some "expert" or institution said it, then they're no longer engaged in discovering truth, all they do is repeat signals
I don't think the simplifier deserves the blame, the real problem is the notion that truth is something we *receive*, not something we must earn through effort

This problem is heavily compounded by popsci slop, though.
One of my biggest pet peeves with popsci is how it tends to overstate the certainty at which scientific institutions say certain things.

Headlines that start with "experts say" or end with "according to science" portray science and expertise as an institution which dictates the reality that us plebians are expected to accept. The scientists, for the most part, don't want it framed that way and are careful to draw the line between what they are confident about and what is educated speculation. Media deliberately blurs this line in their "simplification" to satisfy retards that want to be told the multiverse is real and hekkin valid science or that their political position is the objectively correct one as proven by science.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

This problem is heavily compounded by popsci slop, though.
One of my biggest pet peeves with popsci is how it tends to overstate the certainty at which scientific institutions say certain things.

Headlines that start with "experts say" or end with "according to science" portray science and expertise as an institution which dictates the reality that us plebians are expected to accept. The scientists, for the most part, don't want it framed that way and are careful to draw the line between what they are confident about and what is educated speculation. Media deliberately blurs this line in their "simplification" to satisfy retards that want to be told the multiverse is real and hekkin valid science or that their political position is the objectively correct one as proven by science.

Absolutely, the moment "science" becomes something you're supposed to believe because of who said it, as opposed to understand based on how it was reached, it stops being science and starts being a sermon
Sucks to suck for the scientists who don't want it that way, but unfortunately that doesn't change the outcome. Like, when you have a system where attention and funding are disconnected from accuracy, and where institutions are shielded from consequences, distortion becomes the norm
The incentives aren't aligned with truth, they're aligned with narrative compliance and emotional satisfaction
And that's the decisive reason why real filtering only happens when being wrong actually costs you (reputationally, financially, intellectually). When such a structure is in place, it's no longer an inevitable outcome for "pop sci" or simplification to turn into propaganda

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

As a former black hole enjoyer I’m sick of black holes. Black hole this. Black hole that.


also, people need to read Kuhn and Polanyi. Both give different lessons but both lend to humility. Kuhn for humility on how it evolves. Polanyi for some of how it’s shaped in the moment. It’s a sociological thing. One of pop sciences worst traits is getting people to revere science like a body of dogma instead of a process.

I have my own view on the Fermi Paradox, but the answer right now is, we don't fucking know

Ooh cool. Share it.

My real one is that space is too fucking big and FTL doesn’t exist. But my fun one is that civilizations tend to fall into civilization so bottlenecks. They either consolidate and then become totalitarian and technologically stagnant (a pattern inspired by massive Oriental land empires and Japan), or they manage to break down into such extreme factionalism that they can’t coalesce enough (Middle East and Africa, although the Middle East is inclined to consolidation without outside great powers mucking it up; we have seen both extremes before and after decolonization).

It takes the right geographical conditions to support great power politics and liberalism (two things that spur stable competition, between and within societies, that gives applied technology). Technology also broadens the stage of competition. So by the time you can really consider space exploration at all, your civilization is at the point of universal empire being a severe threat to the whole world.

The problem? Star Trek says globohomo one world government is heckin wholesome and an alt right basement dweller with a Roman statue bust profile said feudalism and empires are based.

 

[Chunky Salsa]

I think the entire question of the Fermi Paradox is essentially flawed. We have been looking at the stars for a galactic blink of an eye, and we barely know what we're even looking at. The universe could literally be teeming with life and we may have no clue until it rocks up in a flying saucer and teabags us with a green alien triball sack.

 

[NoIdeaWhatImDoing]

I used to listen to a podcast called science vs. I stopped when i realized all their conclusions just happened to confirm their super liberal worldview. You would think sometimes you would arrive to uncomfortable truths. But nope. I could predict what their conclusions were going to be.

 

[AnsemSoD1]

Most pieces of space-related science are unironically made-up, and Jack Parsons was an admitted occultist. I used to be fascinated with space too as a kid, now I'm into fantasy more.

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

Ooh cool. Share it

Sorry, for some reason I didn't see a notification on this until I just happened to run across this topic again.

Unfortunately my view on the Fermi Paradox itself is very boring: We appear to be alone because we're alone. What started a reasonable statistical assumption (earth and humanity are average and commonplace) has become a dogma. But it seems like there IS something special about us, even if we don't know exactly how or why. Humans are, as far as we know, the only sentient beings in the physical universe. Even though the discovery of so-called earth like planets has exploded, it turns out there's more to the evolution of complex life than just sitting in the habitable zone and waiting. It's also very helpful (for example) to have a bigass gravity shield like Jupiter to keep asteroids off your lawn.

It raises a bigger question of, if we are alone, WHY are we alone? By divine intervention? By cosmic chance, that there's something vanishingly rare about our planet? That something about the origin of life itself requires some special conditions? That evolution doesn't lead necessarily lead to anything smarter than apes?

What's worse, I am a (very, very amateur) proponent of convergent evolution, so I happen to think that once life gets started, something like humans are basically inevitable unless conditions prevent it. (In short, certain features have such strong benefit that you can't stop them from evolving, multiple independent times if necessary. Things like blood clotting, eyes... and intelligence.) The only scientist I've seen who believes that humans are both alone and inevitable (who also admits that it's completely ridiculous, and yet) is Simon Conway Morris, and I was kind of relieved to discover I'm not completely nuts on this one.

 

[Neodanthril]

Thread theme