Thread by @BenjySarlin

Ye olde thread

https://twitter.com/b_fung/status/1488152159208472577

I think a lot of the "We believe in SCIENCE" discourse is poisoned by basic misunderstandings about what it is: A process. Especially in a new situation, it's awaiting research, then interpretations, then real world verification, then new research, etc etc etc

This is easily exploited, because you can always point to old findings or interpretations being wrong or inconclusive or superseded by new evidence and cherry pick which to emphasize. But that's how it's supposed to work. Truth is a continuous verification process.

It can be hard figuring out who to trust, but fields like science and journalism at least have a set of professional methods you can hold up as an ideal even if they're never perfectly met. People who show their work, question their priors, respond to new evidence, stand out.

This is easier to track the more you follow a field and existing research. Politics is nice because you get this big clear outcome every 2 and 4 years that tests all the polling and strategic theories with troves of new data. Those who don't update priors are easy to spot.