3 ms·

These matters come in degrees, so global warming is a credible threat with supporting evidence. Everlasting damnation is not a credible threat, since we've nev

These matters come in degrees, so global warming is a credible threat with supporting evidence. Everlasting damnation is not a credible threat, since we've never had anyone come back to life and demonstrate the damages. I'm not holding my breath :) So the answer to the question, "am i at risk of everlasting damnation?" would be at the top of the page: No we haven't seen any evidence to support everlasting damnation. Don't censor anything, just push it out of view to the degree it's damaging. Cancer claims made by religions go on page 2. You should have to work to get bad information, not the other way around. Let them sue to have their story at the top, their argument is not going to hold up. You've used evidence (or lack thereof) to come to your conclusion. And what have they got, an appeal to emotion? The truth is out their for people to see. Was I robbing the liquor store? No, work has me on camera at the time the robbery took place. Slam dunk. Will god cure my cancer? Not that we know of, but here is some medications you ought to take or you're likely to die. And here is our study showing that. And you've used these study standards before to great benefit when you've flown, used your cellphone and ate your food.

marcus_holmes 10y ago
That works if you accept that science (as practiced by our institutions) is impartial, correct, unbiased and open. It clearly and obviously is not all of these things. A body of scientists have just recently complained about commercial organisations releasing papers in order to sow doubt. How would Google handle that? It's judgement calls and subjective decisions all the way down. Any of which can be challenged. I understand why they don't want to do this. Your truth is not and has never been the same as someone else's truth. The very idea of objective truth is debatable in some of these areas (e.g. "has any nation tried true communism?") Google is not and should not be the judge of everyone's truths
- state_less 10y ago
  > Your truth is not and has never been the same as someone else's truth. Hopefully we can both agree that we are having this conversation. :) If so, we believe that truth is real and shared between individuals. Other common facts are sports, world events and books - at times we all look through the same lens. Science is like this too. Science happily ask for you to see for yourself. Now look at another truth, cigarettes cause cancer. The tobacco industry denied these findings. But now we censor them and their advertising based on this truth. If we didn't censor the tobacco industry, we'd get cancer more often and die. When we have a clear argument and damages, at least bump them down the page. If you allow the disinformation campaign to continue, you corrupt the integrity of the system. This can manifest itself in a very ugly and damaging ways, cancer or worse.

marcus_holmes 10y ago

That works if you accept that science (as practiced by our institutions) is impartial, correct, unbiased and open. It clearly and obviously is not all of these things. A body of scientists have just recently complained about commercial organisations releasing papers in order to sow doubt. How would Google handle that? It's judgement calls and subjective decisions all the way down. Any of which can be challenged. I understand why they don't want to do this. Your truth is not and has never been the same as someone else's truth. The very idea of objective truth is debatable in some of these areas (e.g. "has any nation tried true communism?") Google is not and should not be the judge of everyone's truths

state_less 10y ago
> Your truth is not and has never been the same as someone else's truth. Hopefully we can both agree that we are having this conversation. :) If so, we believe that truth is real and shared between individuals. Other common facts are sports, world events and books - at times we all look through the same lens. Science is like this too. Science happily ask for you to see for yourself. Now look at another truth, cigarettes cause cancer. The tobacco industry denied these findings. But now we censor them and their advertising based on this truth. If we didn't censor the tobacco industry, we'd get cancer more often and die. When we have a clear argument and damages, at least bump them down the page. If you allow the disinformation campaign to continue, you corrupt the integrity of the system. This can manifest itself in a very ugly and damaging ways, cancer or worse.