> We were both bothered by the current fetishization of science. It's troubling that otherwise well-educated, logical people have come to elevate science as this god-like authority...
I agree. But as you point out this is basically a reaction to the inverse: some loud non-scientists, which are overwhelmingly skeptical of science/medicine for the sake of sowing distrust, rather than being followed up by critical discussion.
I'm not in favor of blind trust of anything. But for "scientism" it's an unfortunate reactionary message against the blind and blanket mistrust of science/medicine that has become popular e.g. on some circles of the internet.
The problem is that many of the "skeptics" in media are more concerned with contrarianism and sowing doubt than healthy debate.
How do you have a rational discussion with someone who comes to the table set on not trusting the scientific process?
I agree. But as you point out this is basically a reaction to the inverse: some loud non-scientists, which are overwhelmingly skeptical of science/medicine for the sake of sowing distrust, rather than being followed up by critical discussion.
I'm not in favor of blind trust of anything. But for "scientism" it's an unfortunate reactionary message against the blind and blanket mistrust of science/medicine that has become popular e.g. on some circles of the internet.
The problem is that many of the "skeptics" in media are more concerned with contrarianism and sowing doubt than healthy debate.
How do you have a rational discussion with someone who comes to the table set on not trusting the scientific process?