4 ms·
Yesterday I was at a brewery in a particularly nerdy, computer-sciency part of town. There were a couple of guys having drinks at the end of the bar, and they w
by afpx 8y ago
Yesterday I was at a brewery in a particularly nerdy, computer-sciency part of town. There were a couple of guys having drinks at the end of the bar, and they were conversing loudly enough that I knew they wanted to be heard.
One loud guy says to the other, “my professor at [mumbled] college told us that there’s no way that smoking can cause birth defects. He said that research would be unethical because they’d have to force women to have babies and force them to smoke. Blah blah blah ...” All the guys around him nod in agreement then go on to share screeds about how the liberals are ruining all the fun the world and violating their personal freedoms.
And, I’m thinking to myself, “What the F is going on?” They were talking confidently enough that even I second-guessed my my beliefs on smoking. So, I hit Google Scholar, read the abstracts of the top 5 papers (out of hundreds), and then felt relief that, yes, the science on this topic seems legit and well-explored. And, yes, it is dangeous for pregnant women to smoke.
But, I’m still bothered. These guys seemed like educated, and likely intelligent, people. And, yet, they’re trapped in a political belief system that is making them doubt science wholesale. Some authority figures (likely with same political stance) can tell them ‘facts’ with enough conviction that these guys buy it without question. And, worse, they go on to confidently spread memes about the unreliability of science, scientists, and the liberal political agenda.
To me, as a scientist, this is scary as hell. For 300+ years, we’ve been using science as our most reliable way to understand the world and make rational predictions. And, now, people are disavowing science if it slightly goes against their belief system. What does this means for the future? I don’t know, but I can’t imagine that it’s good.
(By the way, I don’t consider myself a ‘liberal’, although that’s what I am called these days. Generally, I just try to learn a lot about things and side with what seems like the most rational position.)
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago>By the way, I don’t consider myself a ‘liberal’, although that’s what I am called these days. It seems a small minority on the left and probably slightly larger one on the right love to pigeonhole people into these categories. Meanwhile the majority don't really think of themselves in those terms and are feeling politically homeless.
- amanaplanacanal 8y agoYes. That kind of labeling is a nice way of short-circuiting people's though process. If you label someone, then everybody can see that they are either friend, or enemy, and you don't have to spend further energy trying to see if what they are saying makes sense. It is terrible for rational discussion, and I wish people would just stop doing it.
- guscost 8y agoNot present in this anecdote: - The replication crisis is real - The university system is a huge and corrupt industry - The university is no longer a "safe space" for wrong-thinkers But sure, whenever someone rejects good science it's the fault of those darn Republicans!
- amanaplanacanal 8y agoI'm trying to see where he blamed Republicans, and I'm not seeing it. Do you want to rethink or reword that?
- Latteland 8y agoThere is some truth in those comments, but it's also true that climate change is real and we are accelerating it with our choices to burn more carbon based fuels. It's basically undeniable at this stage, yet people whose lives are inconvenienced by it deny the truth. You cannot and should not use problems in certain papers as an excuse to deny the inexcusable.