4 ms·

When opponents think about how 'damaging' papers like this are, they should also consider how damaging things like this are to the field in general, and how the

• whatshisface 8y ago
  At least the controversy about string theory has been in the public eye for a while now. It seems like physics hit the worst of it in the 90s and the public trust we have now is relatively sturdy.
  • nopinsight 8y ago
    The public trusts most areas of physics because we use them to build many artifacts, some quite amazing, we interact with everyday and also because there are solid experiments that repeatedly confirm them. Some may extend this trust to the most modern areas yet without experimental confirmations, but not everyone does. The situation is quite different for many softer sciences for which neither of the above conditions is true. If the public found out they have been misled by a whole field for decades, the trust in that field could be shaken to a great extent. Even adjacent fields could be affected as collateral damage.
• api 8y ago
  It's a tough issue because both sides are right. Recent political and social events show that the general public is not yet able to discuss issues like this rationally and maturely. Yet at the same time science must be free to inquire without political restriction. I do not have an answer.
  • WillPostForFood 8y ago
    Just consider that by oppressing the truth, science, and free inquiry, it adds to the inability to discusses issues rationally and maturely, it doesn't protect them.
  • antidesitter 8y ago
    You are ambivalent about whether this article should have been censored in the way it was?
    • api 8y ago
      We have political movements that are committed to removing basic human rights from 50% of the population, so sure. Maybe when Roosh doesn't have millions of followers we can discuss this stuff openly. It's an argument for scientific guilds in areas like this. God I hate writing this. Ten years ago I would have totally had the opposite opinion. That was back when I thought we'd moved past these things. Recent outpourings of racist and fascist ideologies have proven that we have not. Either that or we have profoundly regressed intellectually in the last 10-15 years. In any case the situation with demagoguery is so bad that extraordinary measures may be needed to prevent real and tangible harm. Edit: Let me give you a different example. Let's say there's a study that shows a weak link between a vaccine and autism. If it were published, it would be amplified far out of proportion to its findings and used to convince millions of parents not to vaccinate their kids. Such a paper could have a death toll in the hundreds. A paper like that should not be published unless it's been replicated multiple times, and even then with profound qualifications front and center indicating precisely which vaccine it applies to, etc.
      • quotemstr 8y ago
        Have you considered the dangers of giving unreasonable people a monopoly on the truth? If you refuse to candidly discuss the truths of the world, people will turn to those who will. Regarding your autism example: of there were an acknowledged weak link, we could at least have a discussion about it, and maybe do research on mitigating the risk. But if there were a link between autism and vaccination and your scientific guilds spent decades denying it, and then the truth came out, the public would never trust another damn thing you said ever again. Even if you made a safe vaccine, nobody would take it. I'm disappointed that after 10,000 years of civilization we have to re-learn this ancient lesson yet another time. Nobody has ever accomplished a net good by slowing the accumulation of knowledge.