4 ms·

What happens when the lone voice is in the right, and the mass of people are in the wrong, and all of the preponderance of current science and wisdom is against

What happens when the lone voice is in the right, and the mass of people are in the wrong, and all of the preponderance of current science and wisdom is against the lone voice? It's no great stretch to find examples through history of this in different social contexts.

s73ver 9y ago
If the preponderance of current science is against the lone voice, then it's highly likely that the lone voice is not in the right.
- arnioxux 9y ago
  "Science" is often thrown around to justify things it shouldn't. Sociology hasn't had as much success as "hard" sciences so we should distinguish between the two. (for example with the controversy around major psychology experiments being unreplicable etc)
- glenstein 9y ago
  In the history of science we are apt to celebrate singular voices that overturn conventional wisdom. What we don't see is the large number of cranks with TimeCube theories who imagine themselves to be geniuses. The history of science has a kind of survivorship bias toward good ideas, and most people who think they're the next Galileo are almost definitely wrong.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  I have some pretty ironclad faith in the scientific method, but far less so in the scientific establishment. Don't get me wrong, I don't think scientists are doing a bad job and don't think I could do any better as an individual if I were a scientist. But most people's understanding of "science" goes through tons of filters that hurt its quality: statistical illiteracy among scientists, messed-up incentives in the publishing process, political pressure within research, skew in what the media is incentivized to cover, the obscene amount of dishonesty and incompetence in science reporting, etc etc. I've yet to meet someone with such faith in science whose understanding of what "science" is goes beyond pop-science articles and things that all of their friends "know" are scientific fact.
- pnathan 9y ago
  I think you're right. There are a lot of cranks out there. But history suggests a lot of lone voices who got ruthlessly suppressed while actually being right. The important bit - to me, at least - is we don't run a witch hunt against the lone voices. If they are right, they should be heard out - if they are wrong, they can ignored. And, if dangerous, they can be no-platformed, etc.
- naiveattack 9y ago
  Yes, but what happens when the voice of science is underrepresented? Now read the grandparent comment again. Perhaps it's just that the people who actually have the useful-science-shit to do aren't in stupid discussion threads like this one? ;)
eiriklv 9y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
- jerrylives 9y ago
  These two instances are not at all remotely comparable lol
  - eiriklv 9y ago
    Just popped into my mind as I recently saw a documentary about him.
JoshTriplett 9y ago
> What happens when the lone voice is in the right, and the mass of people are in the wrong, and all of the preponderance of current science and wisdom is against the lone voice? Unless you're trying to endorse that memo, perhaps you should save this comment for when that actually happens.
- nostrademons 9y ago
  It's possible to defend somebody's right to say something without defending what they're actually saying. (Come to think of it, that's exactly what Google's official response did.)
- pnathan 9y ago
  How would we know? In all likelihood, we'd be in the majority then too... Are we actually right? is a good question. Are we letting people ask the provocative questions to move forward is the bigger question that must be asked. Wherever we are on the political question. Truth often is uncomfortable. Now, if I say "I think the memo was wrong", could you trust me? Would I be conforming ideologically to avoid blow back... or would I really believe it? :) I leave it to those who know me or hunt comment histories to form an opinion...
wutbrodo 9y ago
This is what's so insane to me about how willing people are to throw away the foundations of civilized society for short-term political victories. Especially for those who claim to be fighting for the marginalized, it should be obvious to anyone who's not a complete idiot that the marginalized are those who suffer in the long run when dissenting speech is punished. Not to get nakedly political, but for someone who became old enough to start being aware of politics in the early 2000s, it was pretty easy to look at the GWB and Obama administrations and fall into the narrative of "oh, our side are clearly the good guys" as a kid and early in college (as I think most kids do). The last few years have made it clear to me that this amoral, either-with-me-or-my-enemy approach to politics is pretty independent of where you lie on the political spectrum. Every part of the spectrum has its shitty people and unfortunately we're in a cycle where those people are the ones dominating the discourse everywhere you look. There's a reason wars of religion and ideology are always the bloodiest. If it's 1600s Europe and you're a soldier in a war of conquest, it's a lot easier to see the enemy soldiers and civilians as just trying to get by in the world buffeted by the same forces you are. On the other hand, if their entire existence and belief system are an affront to God, it was a hell of a lot easier for the worst and most bloodthirsty parts of the human psyche to kick in. The social technologies we've developed to handle pluralism nonviolently have been incredibly successful by the standards of most of human history. I guess all it takes is enough stupid, myopic, and/or amoral people to sacrifice the stability they engender for short-term political gain. I see the same thing playing out (in much less dramatic fashion) among many of my nominally compassionate, kind-hearted friends. The other side isn't considered misguided, or to have a different understanding of the world (or heaven forbid, possibly more correct than you): they're just evil. Every dirty rhetorical trick to twist their words is fair game, and attempts from decent people to even point out that the other side is being misrepresented is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It happened just this weekend: my friend mocked one of the points the essay author made, and when I pointed out that he was misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) it, his response was something like "I don't think men are the ones who need help in the world at this point in time". There's no such thing as truth or honesty to most people, just "how can I spin this to support what I already know the answer _should_ be"
- pnathan 9y ago

s73ver 9y ago

If the preponderance of current science is against the lone voice, then it's highly likely that the lone voice is not in the right.

arnioxux 9y ago
"Science" is often thrown around to justify things it shouldn't. Sociology hasn't had as much success as "hard" sciences so we should distinguish between the two. (for example with the controversy around major psychology experiments being unreplicable etc)
glenstein 9y ago
In the history of science we are apt to celebrate singular voices that overturn conventional wisdom. What we don't see is the large number of cranks with TimeCube theories who imagine themselves to be geniuses. The history of science has a kind of survivorship bias toward good ideas, and most people who think they're the next Galileo are almost definitely wrong.
wutbrodo 9y ago
I have some pretty ironclad faith in the scientific method, but far less so in the scientific establishment. Don't get me wrong, I don't think scientists are doing a bad job and don't think I could do any better as an individual if I were a scientist. But most people's understanding of "science" goes through tons of filters that hurt its quality: statistical illiteracy among scientists, messed-up incentives in the publishing process, political pressure within research, skew in what the media is incentivized to cover, the obscene amount of dishonesty and incompetence in science reporting, etc etc. I've yet to meet someone with such faith in science whose understanding of what "science" is goes beyond pop-science articles and things that all of their friends "know" are scientific fact.
pnathan 9y ago
I think you're right. There are a lot of cranks out there. But history suggests a lot of lone voices who got ruthlessly suppressed while actually being right. The important bit - to me, at least - is we don't run a witch hunt against the lone voices. If they are right, they should be heard out - if they are wrong, they can ignored. And, if dangerous, they can be no-platformed, etc.
naiveattack 9y ago
Yes, but what happens when the voice of science is underrepresented? Now read the grandparent comment again. Perhaps it's just that the people who actually have the useful-science-shit to do aren't in stupid discussion threads like this one? ;)

eiriklv 9y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

jerrylives 9y ago
These two instances are not at all remotely comparable lol
- eiriklv 9y ago
  Just popped into my mind as I recently saw a documentary about him.

JoshTriplett 9y ago

> What happens when the lone voice is in the right, and the mass of people are in the wrong, and all of the preponderance of current science and wisdom is against the lone voice? Unless you're trying to endorse that memo, perhaps you should save this comment for when that actually happens.

nostrademons 9y ago
It's possible to defend somebody's right to say something without defending what they're actually saying. (Come to think of it, that's exactly what Google's official response did.)
pnathan 9y ago
How would we know? In all likelihood, we'd be in the majority then too... Are we actually right? is a good question. Are we letting people ask the provocative questions to move forward is the bigger question that must be asked. Wherever we are on the political question. Truth often is uncomfortable. Now, if I say "I think the memo was wrong", could you trust me? Would I be conforming ideologically to avoid blow back... or would I really believe it? :) I leave it to those who know me or hunt comment histories to form an opinion...

wutbrodo 9y ago

This is what's so insane to me about how willing people are to throw away the foundations of civilized society for short-term political victories. Especially for those who claim to be fighting for the marginalized, it should be obvious to anyone who's not a complete idiot that the marginalized are those who suffer in the long run when dissenting speech is punished. Not to get nakedly political, but for someone who became old enough to start being aware of politics in the early 2000s, it was pretty easy to look at the GWB and Obama administrations and fall into the narrative of "oh, our side are clearly the good guys" as a kid and early in college (as I think most kids do). The last few years have made it clear to me that this amoral, either-with-me-or-my-enemy approach to politics is pretty independent of where you lie on the political spectrum. Every part of the spectrum has its shitty people and unfortunately we're in a cycle where those people are the ones dominating the discourse everywhere you look. There's a reason wars of religion and ideology are always the bloodiest. If it's 1600s Europe and you're a soldier in a war of conquest, it's a lot easier to see the enemy soldiers and civilians as just trying to get by in the world buffeted by the same forces you are. On the other hand, if their entire existence and belief system are an affront to God, it was a hell of a lot easier for the worst and most bloodthirsty parts of the human psyche to kick in. The social technologies we've developed to handle pluralism nonviolently have been incredibly successful by the standards of most of human history. I guess all it takes is enough stupid, myopic, and/or amoral people to sacrifice the stability they engender for short-term political gain. I see the same thing playing out (in much less dramatic fashion) among many of my nominally compassionate, kind-hearted friends. The other side isn't considered misguided, or to have a different understanding of the world (or heaven forbid, possibly more correct than you): they're just evil. Every dirty rhetorical trick to twist their words is fair game, and attempts from decent people to even point out that the other side is being misrepresented is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It happened just this weekend: my friend mocked one of the points the essay author made, and when I pointed out that he was misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) it, his response was something like "I don't think men are the ones who need help in the world at this point in time". There's no such thing as truth or honesty to most people, just "how can I spin this to support what I already know the answer _should_ be"

pnathan 9y ago