3 ms·

I doubt Darwin would have anything to worry about today. If his paper actually got any attention on social media at all, it would not go against any of the bel

I doubt Darwin would have anything to worry about today. If his paper actually got any attention on social media at all, it would not go against any of the beliefs of the companies on social media. Frankly, given some of the things that regularly get said about groups of people, Darwin really wouldn't be that controversial. It was more problematic in his age. Heck, since 1950, even the Catholic Church acknowledges Darwin[1] and says there is no conflict. Which group would get Darwin fired? 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humani_generis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humani_generis

bobthechef 8y ago
> Heck, since 1950, even the Catholic Church acknowledges Darwin[1] and says there is no conflict. A bit tangential, but it's inaccurate and unfair to say that "even the Catholic Church acknowledges Darwin" because it plays into Protestant and Enlightenment anti-Catholic propaganda that continues to be repeated to this day. The Church is not in the business of making pronouncements about scientific questions as such. It has commented on subjects of a scientific nature in order to clarify any concerns that the Magisterium has perceived in the laity, etc, concerning issues related to or apparently related to doctrinal matters. However, not only is science not in the business of decreeing "official truths and acceptable beliefs", but the Church is not even a scientific institution as such, so there should be no expectation that the Church need to have an official position about such things (it has no position on evolution, for example) because it is not its department.
- protomyth 8y ago
  Look, the Catholic Church gets a lot of undeserved grief (and frankly some deserved), but if you look back they did make pronouncements about scientific questions and certainly some scientists did run afoul of the church.
gus_massa 8y ago
The problem is not to publish the same ideas of Darwin, because they have mostly become popular culture. Perhaps outside some circles is more dangerous to publish something against Darwin. The problem is what are the current theories that are too dangerous to publish because you will get a tweetstorm against you and get fired, so anyone sane will self censor and shut up. Let's pick a very safe example. A recent HN post was about a paper of low energy nuclear reactions (aka cold fusion). If I had full inquisition power, I'd recommend to fire the authors and burn all the copies of the paper, but luckily no one gave me full inquisition power and too lazy to even post a comment in the HN thread to call them crackpots. (Moreover, there is a tiny chance that they are right, I didn't read the full paper, but that intermediate neutron idea is too weird to be true.) Should they had shut up?
- protomyth 8y ago
  I doubt nuclear will ever be a safe topic, but they shouldn't shut up. Unless they have committed fraud or great incompetence, they shouldn't shut up. I would expect someone to try to duplicate their research. If that is shown to be impossible, then bring the pitchforks. Unless you pick some topic that is considered proven, the mob really isn't going to be an issue.

bobthechef 8y ago

> Heck, since 1950, even the Catholic Church acknowledges Darwin[1] and says there is no conflict. A bit tangential, but it's inaccurate and unfair to say that "even the Catholic Church acknowledges Darwin" because it plays into Protestant and Enlightenment anti-Catholic propaganda that continues to be repeated to this day. The Church is not in the business of making pronouncements about scientific questions as such. It has commented on subjects of a scientific nature in order to clarify any concerns that the Magisterium has perceived in the laity, etc, concerning issues related to or apparently related to doctrinal matters. However, not only is science not in the business of decreeing "official truths and acceptable beliefs", but the Church is not even a scientific institution as such, so there should be no expectation that the Church need to have an official position about such things (it has no position on evolution, for example) because it is not its department.

protomyth 8y ago
Look, the Catholic Church gets a lot of undeserved grief (and frankly some deserved), but if you look back they did make pronouncements about scientific questions and certainly some scientists did run afoul of the church.

gus_massa 8y ago

The problem is not to publish the same ideas of Darwin, because they have mostly become popular culture. Perhaps outside some circles is more dangerous to publish something against Darwin. The problem is what are the current theories that are too dangerous to publish because you will get a tweetstorm against you and get fired, so anyone sane will self censor and shut up. Let's pick a very safe example. A recent HN post was about a paper of low energy nuclear reactions (aka cold fusion). If I had full inquisition power, I'd recommend to fire the authors and burn all the copies of the paper, but luckily no one gave me full inquisition power and too lazy to even post a comment in the HN thread to call them crackpots. (Moreover, there is a tiny chance that they are right, I didn't read the full paper, but that intermediate neutron idea is too weird to be true.) Should they had shut up?

protomyth 8y ago
I doubt nuclear will ever be a safe topic, but they shouldn't shut up. Unless they have committed fraud or great incompetence, they shouldn't shut up. I would expect someone to try to duplicate their research. If that is shown to be impossible, then bring the pitchforks. Unless you pick some topic that is considered proven, the mob really isn't going to be an issue.