Conversation

Noticing two distinct versions of being selectively scientific that I was conflating. There is filtering scientific impulses through a motivated bias (red science/blue science etc), and there is filtering them through tasteful judgment (where the state of knowledge can handle it)
1
14
To treat *all* selective application of science as bad faith is clueless. To be scientific about everything is to be scientific about nothing. Characteristic of clueless cargo-culting of ceremonialized methodology. To be scientific about nothing is craven solipsism.
2
6
To judge whether a particular use of a scientific way of seeing is both good faith and competent, you need to assess *how* a person is being selective in the application. The mere fact of selectivity only tells you the person is not clueless.
Replying to
2x2: tasteless vs tasteful, legible vs illegible politics. Tasteless+illegible = random acts of sciencing Tasteful+illegible = intuits the alchemy-chemistry boundary well Tasteful+legible = aesthete, vulnerable to beauty > truth errors Tasteless+legible = culture war mook
2
9