RE: Scientific Evidence Shouldn't Dictate Your Opinion
I adhere to scientific principles more than you think. The only reason I wrote this article is because people rely way too much on things that are beyond their control. Let's get real now. You are asked to put your blind faith on many aspects that you have no idea what is going on. Whether we talk about food or weather there are massive vested interests at play. These are the main issues, not evolution or some abstract theories that do not impact people's lives directly.
The fact that most people do not understand what is going on , should indeed make them wary — not blind followers to the scientific method. You described above the IDEAL way things are done. Go through a few papers and you see that most experiments are not even replicable, scientists don't even bother doing them for the "same of science and knowledge" but prefer to do their own thing, publish under their own name. These things demonstrate ego in some aspects and of course when larger interests are in play, financial incentives.
I will quote Richard Feynman here, living without knowing. This is what the main message of the post was. I did point out that science is the best tool we have. What I criticized is the sociology of science as it unfolds in various institutions and how that affects epistemology.
I guess I could summarize my point as this: what allows you to have a valid critical mindset towards science is the very understanding of how science works, both at its core and in its sociology, as you've put it. Both blind faith in it and blind disregard of it are equally radical and unreasonable. The key to navigating scientific knowledge in a way which benefits both the individual and the societies lies in a truly informed criticism of its best and worse practices.
When I wrote about the several responsible parts, I guess I was slightly touching the sociological aspect of science. With respect to that, the best way people have to defend themselves from fraud and bad science or bad scientific journalism is through a solid scientific literacy, not through a rigid denial of all science. People might intelligently rely on what they find to be sound science, and criticize what they consider to be flawed science, but for that they need to know and understand the process.
And I never thought you did not adhere to scientific principles, quite the contrary. A moderate skeptical attitude is paramount in any serious scientific endeavor.
"put your blind faith on many aspects that you have no idea what is going on."
That's because much of science is too complicated for all laypeople. If you can understand it, the source materials and methods are always public and available, and explainatory courses are held at universities across the world.
I don't even know how you can be blind and scientific.
There's risks in that, absolutely! But if you're a layperson, you should defer to an authority. That's not -ism in any way.
nop. that's blind belief