> This map shows which parts of the U.S. ignore the science.
I'm starting to dislike the phrase "the science", since I usually hear it used as a conversational bludgeon. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommended 8:30 AM as a minimum start time, that's not the same as "the science" definitely saying one thing or another. I don't have kids, and don't really care when schools start, so this is less a comment about that as it is about how annoying "the science" is as a phrase, how it's not a good description of how science works, and how it's usually misapplied to end conversations in favor of your prior opinion.
> I'm starting to dislike the phrase "the science", since I usually hear it used as a conversational bludgeon
This also goes up there with the "in this house we believe SCIENCE IS REAL" signs.
We're currently living through the replication crisis and are awash in fraudulent academic journals. I don't think people who say this stuff would actually engage with you in a conversation about proper p-values for given sample sizes. So it's really just shorthand for trying to associate yourself to a certain intellectual class.
> trying to associate yourself to a certain intellectual class.
In general, it's filling the vacuum left by religion. One part of that is what you identified: people generally need something greater than themselves to identify with, and "intellectual" is a tempting option.
Another part of it is that people generally crave certainty and fear the unknown. Religion fills that need by providing crisp, clean answers that don't provide a lot of room for questions and "what if"s. In the absence of a traditional organized religion, people try to fill that void with what seems to be the new, popular replacement—science.
Unfortunately, science is by design all about uncertainty. As soon as it becomes a dogma it ceases to be science.
> Another part of it is that people generally crave certainty and fear the unknown... Unfortunately, science is by design all about uncertainty.
It's not a surprise that people put "science" up on a pedestal when science education is too often about getting the correct answer to questions. Instead of asking questions and understanding the limitations of any approach to answering them. Restraint and humility aren't exciting, but they're so important.
A reasonable amount of skepticism is fundamental to science. But skepticism can be taken too far. The goal should be to maximize the number of true beliefs that we hold. If I choose not to believe in the mass of the proton or the structure of DNA because of my skepticism, then I have a false belief. The best strategy for maximizing true belief is to accept most of the claims of science at face value, while acknowledging that they might change in the future and that we should update our beliefs when new evidence comes to light.
> The most fundamental element to science is skepticism.
We probably agree on the right way to apply “skepticism” re science.
But the self-described “skeptics” I know often ignore evidence. Which is one way the word (Words! They suck!) can be validly interpreted.
I would say the fundamental element of science is “the evidence based search to continually improve our current understanding”.
I particularly like how “understanding” inoculates against the more static, subjective, bias friendly, identity and ideologically based, implications of “belief”.
"Believing", "trusting", "following" science means using information from an entity that presumably follows the scientific method to ascertain their information, and is otherwise fallible and subject to change pending new data.
This is in contrast to "believing" information from an entity that did not procure information via the scientific method, and is usually infallible and not subject to change pending new data.
Yes and no. Obviously, blind and religious faith is not reasonable when we are talking about science. However, a lot of structures in science are are about making "belief" or "trust" a bit more objective than what you could do as an individual. (Peer) reviews, academic journals and conferences and even things like SciHub are, in the end, to a large degree about trust.
What's the alternative? Following every single argument every researcher makes back to the beginning and replicate their work before you base any further work or thought on what they did or said? That's not really feasible in most domains.
And, personally, I'd rather call the basis of science curiosity and not (just) skepticism.
I This House We Believe That
Simplistic Platitudes
Trite Tautologies
And Semantically Overloaded Aphorisms
Are Poor Substitudes
For Respectful And Rational Discussions
About Complex Ideas
The "in this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics" signs used to be kinda popular. I guess that's the dumbed-down version of them that gets accepted by the masses.
I wonder if whoever coined the phrase knew it was a joke deprecating whoever buys it. Like those movies where the point is "those monsters are horrible, aren't they? yeah, you are doing basically the same right now."
i don't think there is a connection. the first one is a joke for people that know about the laws of physics, rather like this sign: "Obey gravity! It's the law!"
Those signs are usually accompanied by a few other slogans that should tip you off that they're a response to certain cultural force in the world that lauds ignorance and hate - they're not trying to say they're intellectuals, they just listen to their doctors and do their best to take a kind and informed approach.
It strikes me as a response to a trend callousness and deliberate ignorance.
Those signs are just as guilty of pushing ignorance and hate as the cultural force you're alluding to—you perceive them to be different because their ignorance overlaps with yours and they hate the things you hate.
Signs like these take a strawman version of "the other side" and define the residents of the home in opposition to that strawman. It's evidence that the person who put it up views themselves as part of the culture war, not evidence that they strive to be kind to and understanding of people who are different than them.
I agree with you about having annoyance with the phrase especially in the use of divisive topics.
I disagree in that, I don't think this is a divisive topic. I have not heard of a valid critique for school start times should be later aside from schools being a daycare supplement for working parents. But that's not science, its politics/economics. "The science" is, in my experience, very clear that young people should be allowed to wake-up later in the day to better conform with their natural sleep cycles.
This can probably be addressed in itself by separating "aftercare" into an hour in the morning of "beforecare" in cases where parents really need to drop their kids off early. It's far from convenient for parents to pick their kids up at 3:30 PM, especially after waiting in a long line of cars, so we already have buffer times for that.
For a personal perspective, when I was in high school, if I had needed to take the bus, I would have had to get on it before 6 AM, since I was at the beginning of the route (first or second stop, IIRC). Luckily, some family friends had a daughter who was an upperclassman at the same school, and she drove me. I would guess there are few parents well-served by their teenagers getting up at five in the morning.
It also depends on how far the parents have to commute. I grew up in the LA area and my parents both worked in downtown LA. Getting up at 5 am was the routine for my parents.
>“The science" is, in my experience, very clear that young people should be allowed to wake-up later in the day to better conform with their natural sleep cycles.
That already crosses into politics. Science can answer if-then statements. Once you start using the word "should", you are talking about morality, preference, and tradeoffs.
> That already crosses into politics. Science can answer if-then statements.
In that case, I will also cross over into politics by expressing the opinion that answers to if-then statements should, when they are available, be taken into account in political decision-making.
That is correct. They should be taken Into account. However, Politics is the process of weighing the against cost and tradeoffs. Science can say if later sleep is better for learning. It can't tell you about f better learning is worth it
To avoid being diverted by broad generalities, let's note that with regard to this specific issue, the political decision-making progress will be sub-optimal if it does not take into account the existence of objective evidence concerning the effect of students' circadian rhythms on their ability to satisfy the politically-chosen, yet still objective, goals of education policy.
Fully agree that it should be taken into account.
My point is simply that taken into account does not mean it clear or defacto decision. Even education policy is not a issue that trumps all other considerations.
The process of comparing and weighing inputs is making policy, not science. You can try to reduce policy making to some weighted equations, but that doesn't make it science. Science doesn't encompass all logic and mathematics.
I'm having a hard time putting this into words but your viewpoint really feels like, to phrase it as a software engineering analogy, a new developer that comes into a 20 year old project, looks at what currently exists, calls it all trash, says the people that came before you were dumb and didn't know what they were doing, and you just start rewriting all the code.
Do you really think all the states and people that decided these things in the past were all stupid, or not following "the science" back then, or just picked start times at random? Do you really think you know better than all those states and people? Did the science change since then? Did the reasons to start school early/late change since then? Maybe they did. But if they did, you could maybe elaborate on that rather than just saying "the science is so clear" and dictating the way things should be.
that assumes that science had a factor at all in deciding when school should start.
let's look back at the 1800s when school became commonplace. at that time science decided what was the best time to get up and milk the cows. and how to make the most of the available daylight. work and school had to fit into that schedule. so in a way science was used to decide school times indirectly. what is important is to consider that school has not changed since then.
however in the meantime new research suggests that we should rethink schools, and so here we are questioning whether current school starting times are still adequate. this is not saying that in the past people were stupid or picked the times at random, only that the factors that led to those choices have changed.
> Do you really think all the states and people that decided these things in the past were all stupid, or not following "the science" back then
Yes. Why do you believe otherwise?
> or just picked start times at random
No, they chose based on when they needed daycare to start, because the workday was starting. Or, because the children needed to be available to work the fields during certain hours. Things have changed.
> Do you really think you know better than all those states and people
Yes.
> Did the science change since then
Yes.
> you could maybe elaborate on that rather than just saying "the science is so clear"
Does every discussion need to re-articulate the accumulated evidence? Can't there be some assumption of informed debate?
> Do you really think all the states and people that decided these things in the past were all stupid, or not following "the science" back then
I don't really disagree with your point, but... Have you looked at the overall quality of the decisions those people made?
They were not stupid, but the overall amount of real information they dealt with was ridiculously low. And the overall amount of fake information they dealt with was ridiculous high. The odds of any random choice they made being a good one aren't very high.
I am opting to interpret your response in the best way possible and am responding in kind spirit.
> your viewpoint really feels like, to phrase it as a software engineering analogy, a new developer that comes into a 20 year old project, looks at what currently exists, calls it all trash, says the people that came before you were dumb and didn't know what they were doing, and you just start rewriting all the code.
Do you think society has peaked and our understanding of civics hasn't evolved? That nothing can ever be better? To continue your analogy, your (unstated) viewpoint is like the stodgy programmer stubbornly sticking to PHP "because it works" and refusing to accept that webtech has evolved and there are better tools. Or a more contemporary way, an old C programmer stubbornly refusing to learn Rust because "C just works". Does it make sense to put Rust into the project? Possibly not, there are many excellent reasons not to. But its a discussion worth having.
> Do you really think all the states and people that decided these things in the past were all stupid, or not following "the science" back then, or just picked start times at random?
If I were to hazard a guess, I imagine most school systems are still bound by the legacy of farmwork and the start/end times are holdovers from that. I doubt the timing has significantly changed since schooling became a primary factor of our lives. But that's just a guess. I would certainly hope that the people who start a new school district are taking into account many factors before dictating a start time.
> Do you really think you know better than all those states and people?
I do not feel the need to be beholden to history for history's sake. My own post acknowledged (one) challenge with changing the start time. But...
> Did the science change since then? Did the reasons to start school early/late change since then?
This is exactly what I and others have posited, yes.
> Maybe they did. But if they did, you could maybe elaborate on that rather than just saying "the science is so clear" and dictating the way things should be.
Others in this thread have posted extensive good research on this very subject for your consumption. I myself have posted a reference to a book I found useful and entertaining. Not every single comment needs to be a doctoral thesis containing every possible scrap of information or interpretation on a subject. This, and other subjects of the like, are artifacts _with context_. Within context of this post, it is in direct response to an article that explains the reason with even more links and a friendly bulleted list.
A mildly provocative analogy is demanding a link to every peer-reviewed journal when discussing climate change. I don't feel the need to point out every scrap of research to state a claim that "Climate change is real". I will merely state, especially in a comment to an article discussing legacy policy around climate change, that climate change is real.
"The science" has become religious dogma to many people, the complete anthesis of science. When people say they (follow) "the science" I don't even bother listening to what they have to say anymore.
IMO, the problem runs deeper than that. Using the same word for the natural sciences and the social sciences makes little sense. It is a quirk of the language which lends a great deal of undeserved credibility to the social sciences. The two are in desperate need of a lexical divorce.
It is now being used as a term to divide and pick sides. Data can be a bunch of different things and life is about trade offs. When someone says ignoring science I always think they are a hiding an economic or other fact they don't want someone to look too closely at.
> The American Academy of Pediatrics recommended 8:30 AM as a minimum start time, that's not the same as "the science" definitely saying one thing or another.
This is a nitpick at best. From outside a given field, one generally has no option but to pick one or some sources as authoritative and refer to them (or to declare no source is authoritative).
In other words, if I say “the science says XYZ” this is shorthand for “my preferred authoritative sources of information on the relevant field assert XYZ”
Can this be incorrect? Yes. Is this often used as a bludgeon? Yes, and reasonably so: without piercing the research veil, what discussion could exist besides disagreeing on a sources’ authority?
If I say “the science says kids shouldn’t wake before 8 am”, and you respond with some neuroscience argument that childrens brain can adapt to waking up before 8 am, you are essentially making an off topic argument: I am referencing an authoritative position, not arguing why that position is correct. In that sense, yes, I am applying a bludgeon; and I right well should, because I can’t have a meaningful engagement with your scientific position anyways.
I see your sentiment often and even though I agree that usage of “the science says” is a poor description of how science works, nonetheless language is an evolving construct and “the science says ___” is a mainstream construct in English language dialogue at this point
There’s nothing wrong with appealing to authority. Often times it’s the best we can do. Sometimes authority is not sufficiently convincing and in such situations it’s fine to point out that whatever “the science” refers to needs more evidence supporting their claims
It's appealing to authority without having to even do the absolute bare minimum of mentioning what the authority you're appealing to is. Is the authority some person's blogpost? Is the authority the FDA? Who knows. "The science" is the authority, whoever that might be, which doesn't mean squat.
Yes it’s laziness. It’s essentially equivalent to hearsay without proper citations. However it opens the door to less lazy conversation for those who care to ask for sources, and most importantly it sets the baseline expectations that those sources will be grounded by science and not like, my reiki teacher told me kids should wake up after 8 am
There’s something to be said by beginning a conversation with a shared understanding of what is considered a reasonable ground truth.
> I'm starting to dislike the phrase "the science"
I dislike it when it is used to describe something that is not science.
> I don't have kids, and don't really care when schools start
As a taxpayer, your money is being wasted trying to teach sleepy teenagers who are not the right physical state for learning. Given that these are future coworkers and the people that will be funding the government when you are retired, it might be wise to suggest maybe spend monty teaching teens when they are awake and physically ready to learn?
It's pretty much typical late 2010s/early 2020s "I f'n love science" pop culture mentality. People who actually love science would view scientific claims with a critical eye, because that's what someone practicing good science would do.
I'm starting to dislike the phrase "the science", since I usually hear it used as a conversational bludgeon. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommended 8:30 AM as a minimum start time, that's not the same as "the science" definitely saying one thing or another. I don't have kids, and don't really care when schools start, so this is less a comment about that as it is about how annoying "the science" is as a phrase, how it's not a good description of how science works, and how it's usually misapplied to end conversations in favor of your prior opinion.