5 ms·

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 A paper like that should not be published unless it's been replicated multiple times, and even then with profound qualifications front and center indicating precisely which vaccine it applies to, etc.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.
    - quotemstr 8y ago
      However irrational the discussion, it'll be worse if a real conspiracy to suppress the truth is exposed. Besides, part of the reason the Jenny McCarthys of the world get traction at all is that trust in scientists among the public has declined, and this decline stems directly from "science" telling the public things that are demonstrably untrue.
      - fjsolwmv 8y ago
        McCarthy gets traction because she trusts too much in a massive fraud, to the point where she is a profiting partner in the fraud, not because "science" lied to her.
    - 8y ago
- crawfordcomeaux 8y ago
  Choosing action out of fear of what may come, as opposed to finding a loving solution with an eye to the past, present, and future, is less likely to produce desirable and sustainable outcomes. If we keep avoiding having conversations geared toward developing mutual understanding and respect vs trying to be right or change other people, we'll collectively regress further.
  - api 8y ago
    I hope you are right, but all it takes is a visit to any large social media site or 30 minutes of watching political news (any political news) to renew my cynicism. I really don't see anyone anywhere who is even interested in the truth. People want their side to win for non-rational emotional reasons. They're only interested in what truths can be cherry picked or spun to support their cause. Truths that don't support the cause are ignored and denied.
    - crawfordcomeaux 8y ago
      Absolutely. The rise of Trump and the alt-right shows how shame is an unsustainable mechanism for social change, though most people in the US still seem to be applying shame/outrage. Trump and Russian bots have also shown how emotionally reactive we are, as a people. I see this as the result of us not teaching emotional responsibility and boundaries as part of normative cultures. Learning and practicing nonviolent communication is how I started learning to navigate my emotions at age 33. 2.5 years later and my life is completely different, as a result. I highly recommend it for anyone who's having difficulty witnessing where humanity is presently at. Also, turn off the news and social media while learning it. Learning to be different from the norm can be really hard when the norm's so persistently reinforced. Besides, if I can't read something without maintaining a mindful perspective, I'm not ready to clearly think about it, much less choose a loving response in action/word to it. If I can't affect the world in a loving, sustainable way, I prefer to get myself into a headspace where I can, rather than react.
      - api 8y ago
        I totally agree about shame. I've been going on for a while about what I call "abstinence based environmental policy," which is trying to shame people into being poorer to save the Earth. It works about as well as shaming teens into not having sex, hence the analogy.
- scythe 8y ago
  >Such a paper could have a death toll in the hundreds. That's a rather small death toll compared to the one associated with "Improvements in or relating to the transmutation of chemical elements" by Szilard in 1932. Are you suggesting he should have been excommunicated? >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. That is ridiculous. At most a statement by the authors in the frontmatter repudiating the relevant conspiracy theories should suffice.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  > We have political movements that are committed to removing basic human rights from 50% of the population, so sure. Are you saying the publication of this paper will lead to the removal of basic human rights from 50% of the population? If not, what is the relevance of this? > Maybe when Roosh doesn't have millions of followers we can discuss this stuff openly. Who is Roosh and why does them having millions of followers mean we cannot discuss this stuff openly? > 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. If your hypothetical paper followed proper scientific procedures, it absolutely should be published. I'm honestly astonished that you would think otherwise. This is how science works. A scientific paper should not be censored on ideological grounds, and trying to do so will backfire by creating public distrust of scientific institutions.
- rdtsc 8y ago
  > 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 Except if the paper had been effectively published then deleted, wouldn't it do the opposite? That won't be an incentive to duplicate or prove it wrong by other scientists, but those who'd use it to support their conspiracy theories would be even more convinced they were right all along because "Look, they censored the paper. Clearly they are trying to hide the truth. That shows we've been right all along".

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.
  - quotemstr 8y ago
    However irrational the discussion, it'll be worse if a real conspiracy to suppress the truth is exposed. Besides, part of the reason the Jenny McCarthys of the world get traction at all is that trust in scientists among the public has declined, and this decline stems directly from "science" telling the public things that are demonstrably untrue.
    - fjsolwmv 8y ago
      McCarthy gets traction because she trusts too much in a massive fraud, to the point where she is a profiting partner in the fraud, not because "science" lied to her.
  - 8y ago
crawfordcomeaux 8y ago
Choosing action out of fear of what may come, as opposed to finding a loving solution with an eye to the past, present, and future, is less likely to produce desirable and sustainable outcomes. If we keep avoiding having conversations geared toward developing mutual understanding and respect vs trying to be right or change other people, we'll collectively regress further.
- api 8y ago
  I hope you are right, but all it takes is a visit to any large social media site or 30 minutes of watching political news (any political news) to renew my cynicism. I really don't see anyone anywhere who is even interested in the truth. People want their side to win for non-rational emotional reasons. They're only interested in what truths can be cherry picked or spun to support their cause. Truths that don't support the cause are ignored and denied.
  - crawfordcomeaux 8y ago
    Absolutely. The rise of Trump and the alt-right shows how shame is an unsustainable mechanism for social change, though most people in the US still seem to be applying shame/outrage. Trump and Russian bots have also shown how emotionally reactive we are, as a people. I see this as the result of us not teaching emotional responsibility and boundaries as part of normative cultures. Learning and practicing nonviolent communication is how I started learning to navigate my emotions at age 33. 2.5 years later and my life is completely different, as a result. I highly recommend it for anyone who's having difficulty witnessing where humanity is presently at. Also, turn off the news and social media while learning it. Learning to be different from the norm can be really hard when the norm's so persistently reinforced. Besides, if I can't read something without maintaining a mindful perspective, I'm not ready to clearly think about it, much less choose a loving response in action/word to it. If I can't affect the world in a loving, sustainable way, I prefer to get myself into a headspace where I can, rather than react.
    - api 8y ago
      I totally agree about shame. I've been going on for a while about what I call "abstinence based environmental policy," which is trying to shame people into being poorer to save the Earth. It works about as well as shaming teens into not having sex, hence the analogy.
scythe 8y ago
>Such a paper could have a death toll in the hundreds. That's a rather small death toll compared to the one associated with "Improvements in or relating to the transmutation of chemical elements" by Szilard in 1932. Are you suggesting he should have been excommunicated? >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. That is ridiculous. At most a statement by the authors in the frontmatter repudiating the relevant conspiracy theories should suffice.
antidesitter 8y ago
> We have political movements that are committed to removing basic human rights from 50% of the population, so sure. Are you saying the publication of this paper will lead to the removal of basic human rights from 50% of the population? If not, what is the relevance of this? > Maybe when Roosh doesn't have millions of followers we can discuss this stuff openly. Who is Roosh and why does them having millions of followers mean we cannot discuss this stuff openly? > 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. If your hypothetical paper followed proper scientific procedures, it absolutely should be published. I'm honestly astonished that you would think otherwise. This is how science works. A scientific paper should not be censored on ideological grounds, and trying to do so will backfire by creating public distrust of scientific institutions.
rdtsc 8y ago
> 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 Except if the paper had been effectively published then deleted, wouldn't it do the opposite? That won't be an incentive to duplicate or prove it wrong by other scientists, but those who'd use it to support their conspiracy theories would be even more convinced they were right all along because "Look, they censored the paper. Clearly they are trying to hide the truth. That shows we've been right all along".