Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

(reason.com)

Show context

Crayfish3348 ◴[19 Nov 24 17:23 UTC] No.42185914[source]▶

A book came out in August 2024 called "Soda Science: Making the World Safe for Coca-Cola," by Susan Greenhalgh. She's a professor (emeritus) at Harvard. The book is a history. It shows how the Coca-Cola Company turned to "science" when the company was beset by the obesity crisis of the 1990s and health advocates were calling for, among other things, soda taxes.

Coca-Cola "mobilized allies in academia to create a soda-defense science that would protect profits by advocating exercise, not dietary restraint, as the priority solution to obesity." It was a successful campaign and did particularly well in the Far East. "In China, this distorted science has left its mark not just on national obesity policies but on the apparatus for managing chronic disease generally."

Point being, the science that Coca-Cola propagated is entirely legitimate. But that science itself does not tell the whole, obvious truth, which is that there is certainly a correlation in a society between obesity rates and overall sugar-soda consumption rates. "Coke’s research isn’t fake science, Greenhalgh argues; it was real science, conducted by real and eminent scientists, but distorted by its aim."

"Trust the science" can thus be a dangerous call to arms. Here's the book, if anybody's interested. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo221451...

replies(9): >>42186121 #>>42186583 #>>42186598 #>>42186814 #>>42187567 #>>42188158 #>>42191357 #>>42193675 #>>42194208 #

1. treflop ◴[19 Nov 24 20:09 UTC] No.42187567[source]▶

>>42185914 #

I think this related to the “critical thinking” skill that all my teachers always stressed about growing up.

But I still don’t know how to put in useful words what “critical thinking” is because it’s not one thing.

It requires synthesizing a lot of information together in very specific and meticulous ways. And through feedback, collecting your previous thoughts and keeping track of how often you are correct or incorrect.

You can explain critical thinking in many ways but none of it will teach someone critical thinking.

replies(4): >>42187820 #>>42188328 #>>42189162 #>>42195636 #

2. UltraSane ◴[19 Nov 24 20:35 UTC] No.42187820[source]▶

>>42187567 (TP) #

I think of Critical Thinking as a closed loop process that aligns a person's mental model of the world with reality. It is just using the scientific method to analyze information in daily life. When done correctly and consistently it is like a really good spam filter against lies and bullshit.

3. narag ◴[19 Nov 24 21:34 UTC] No.42188328[source]▶

>>42187567 (TP) #

The real trick is that critical thinking is almost always being critical with someone that's trying to mislead you.

Many people try to do it with many different methods. So you're right it's not one thing. Also nobody will teach you all the techniques because they're keeping theirs secret.

Everybody lies.

replies(1): >>42196918 #

4. regpertom ◴[19 Nov 24 23:25 UTC] No.42189162[source]▶

>>42187567 (TP) #

I go with critical thinking being thinking about thinking, or meta thinking. Which is to say have a thought, doesn’t really matter what, and then analyse it. Example is throw a dart at the board and then evaluate it compared to your expectations and desires. Feel free to throw a bullseye right away but that’s a different thing. Which is to say, imo, that critical thinking isn’t about being perfect all the time.

5. dpkonofa ◴[20 Nov 24 16:37 UTC] No.42195636[source]▶

>>42187567 (TP) #

Critical thinking is one thing but that "thing" is a process rather than an individual item. Critical thinking, like science, is a process that iterates upon itself. You analyze the information you have and make a conclusion based on that information. The "critical" part comes in when you take a step back and then use that same process to analyze your conclusion and poke holes in it, checking to see if the information you have supports that hole or supports the conclusion.

It's like saying that a computer is one thing despite the fact that the one thing is made up of multiple pieces.

6. alsetmusic ◴[20 Nov 24 18:45 UTC] No.42196918[source]▶

>>42188328 #

> Also nobody will teach you all the techniques because they're keeping theirs secret.

Sounds more like people who like to use propaganda who keep their methods in shadows (not always, though). I try to teach critical thinking all the time. I bet you do too. Do you not try to inform loved ones how detect spam or scams? How to evaluate what's true in their inbox or on a webpage? Do you have anything to withhold in such a scenario?

↑