by kergonath | 2025-06-17 06:20:44+00:00
> One might think that to be the case, but science is in a hurry to save our planet, and it has no patience for your skepticism. It may already be too late.

As a matter of fact, it is already too late for some of the consequences. The permafrost is not going to re-freeze, for example, and wildfires are already significantly on the rise.

The thing is, I don’t believe this because science, I know this for a fact because it was proven. It’s like nihilistic edgelords giving cynicism a bad name. Skepticism is not the rejection of facts because they are inconvenient. It is not stubbornness in the face of evidence, either.

> Maybe I don't trust it either. Maybe because I'm distrustful, the scientific method should prove, over and over again, that it's worth a damn.

Right, but then to prove itself it needs to be evaluated and assessed. You need a kind of method to do so, including a standard of proof and the basics of reasoning and logic. This framework is itself the scientific method. If you start from the axiom that it does not work, then the only conclusion is that it does not work, because how would you prove otherwise?

> If one truly though the scientific method worthy of any respect, such a person might say "that's ok, because it will go on re-proving what has already been proven".

Well, yeah. That’s what we do. Though the standards shift over time in the face of overwhelming evidence. We can not start from first principles every time, it just does not work and there are theories we can rely on. But when holes are found in these theories we try to figure out what the problem is and how to build better ones. The scientific method itself has been refined over centuries and the standards now are far from what Newton used. A common example is the evolution of what is considered to be a proof in Physics.

> But it doesn't seem altogether implausible that they might have enjoyed it once it happened even though they didn't ask.

I am sure some of them do, and not necessarily the best ones. But most of us are not attracted by public engagement and just want to do our science in our lab. We did not ask to become pawns in sectarian struggles. We rang the alarm because, honestly, when the house is on fire you have to do something and not doing it would mean some degree of responsibility in the outcome.

> It's really sort of hilarious how it's only my side that can ever be honest.

I am not following. I am not talking about sides. Regrettable attitudes towards science are not confined in one political or social tribe and there are examples in history of both right- and left-leaning ideologies becoming anti-science. But yeah, making a topic political in order to then claim that it is political is blatantly dishonest. It’s a cheap rhetorical trick with lasting consequences. What is political is how you address the situation, not whether reality is real.

> If we can't start here, then there can be no real conversation. Basically you're just asking me to surrender and admit that I'm the bad guy trying to cheat and swindle, everything I say is a lie, and you're the innocent victims. Haha.

You are reading way too much. First, I am not attacking you. Then, a good starting point is facts we can observe and things we can infer from them instead of the a priori position that reality is not real and the other side is just making stuff up.