4 ms·

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 rat

by 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 A paper like that should not be published unless it's been replicated multiple times, and even then with profound qualifications front and center indicating precisely which vaccine it applies to, etc.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.
    - api 8y ago
      You're assuming the discussion would be even slightly rational. It would consist of Jenny McCarthy and a bunch of homeopaths telling parents that this is proof that the Illuminati want their kids to have autism so they will worship Satan, or something about equally inane. I don't see much in the way of rational discussion of anything outside small specialized forums like this. Everything is dominated by loud anti-intellectual demagogues. The thing that disturbs me the most is that this kind of inane BS is making inroads among people that I thought knew better... people that I thought had brains. -- Responding to the reply since HN's anti-discourse rate limiter kicked in: You're right about the last paragraph, but it's mostly not the fault of science so much as our political leadership. Years ago when we invaded Iraq and then it came to light that there were no WMDs, never had been WMDs, and the whole thing was deliberately concocted, I remember saying to friends that this was going to have consequences with a capital C. I was right. I said the same thing after the 2008 bank bailouts. Major damage was done to the fundamental trust basis of our society and there will be consequences. I was right. During the 'oughts the elite of our society stacked their credibility up in a big pile and set it on fire. I wish I had an answer. If they were honorable they would own up to it, but I see none of that. Apparently they decided invading Iraq and bailing out banks was more important than the bedrock trust on which our society is built and they're committed to going down with the ship.

by api 8y ago

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.
  - api 8y ago
    You're assuming the discussion would be even slightly rational. It would consist of Jenny McCarthy and a bunch of homeopaths telling parents that this is proof that the Illuminati want their kids to have autism so they will worship Satan, or something about equally inane. I don't see much in the way of rational discussion of anything outside small specialized forums like this. Everything is dominated by loud anti-intellectual demagogues. The thing that disturbs me the most is that this kind of inane BS is making inroads among people that I thought knew better... people that I thought had brains. -- Responding to the reply since HN's anti-discourse rate limiter kicked in: You're right about the last paragraph, but it's mostly not the fault of science so much as our political leadership. Years ago when we invaded Iraq and then it came to light that there were no WMDs, never had been WMDs, and the whole thing was deliberately concocted, I remember saying to friends that this was going to have consequences with a capital C. I was right. I said the same thing after the 2008 bank bailouts. Major damage was done to the fundamental trust basis of our society and there will be consequences. I was right. During the 'oughts the elite of our society stacked their credibility up in a big pile and set it on fire. I wish I had an answer. If they were honorable they would own up to it, but I see none of that. Apparently they decided invading Iraq and bailing out banks was more important than the bedrock trust on which our society is built and they're committed to going down with the ship.