9 ms·

About this: "Hanging in the Louvre Museum in Paris is an imposing painting, The Preaching of St Paul at Ephesus. In this 1649 work by Eustache Le Sueur, the fi

About this: "Hanging in the Louvre Museum in Paris is an imposing painting, The Preaching of St Paul at Ephesus. In this 1649 work by Eustache Le Sueur, the fiery apostle lifts his right hand as if scolding the audience, while clutching a book of scripture in his left. Among the rapt or fearful listeners are people busily throwing books into a fire." Okay, but in the USA, over the last 60 years we've seen an astonishing loss of religious authority, as well as parental authority, as well as teaching authority. There is no way to bring back scientific authority without also discussing the wider loss of authority. Nor is the USA alone, but it is not the entire West that is effected. Anyone who wants to see the contrast can visit Britain, and then Poland. In Poland, you can still see the older social structures, and older notions about both religious authority and teaching authority and parental authority. In the USA, in the year 2019, it is common to see these things: 1. a person at a party says they are "spiritual, but I don't believe in organized religion" 2. a parent spanks their child because their child misbehaved, and the parent is then investigated by the authorities 3. a teacher goes off script to offer their personal opinion of the Vietnam War, and then finds their whole career is at risk Every single profession is now under attack in the USA. The older spirit of independent professions is now under attack. I'm not saying this is good or bad, I'm just pointing out it is a fact of life. There has been some progress made in stamping out certain abuses of power, but at the cost of stripping most of the professions of their previous independence. If you'd like to bring back scientific authority, you need to address the wider issues.

savingthrow 8y ago
> 2. a parent spanks their child because their child misbehaved, and the parent is then investigated by the authorities They should be investigated if their parenting is so poor that they resort to physical violence against the child. It's absurd to suggest that hitting children is acceptable - as absurd as saying a boss can slap an employee, or that a husband can slap his spouse. You can be an authoritative parent without abusing your child.
- MockObject 8y ago
  The author's (or your, or my) personal opinion on spanking is very much not the issue here.
  - savingthrow 8y ago
    Sure, but parent poster mentioned violence against the child and I'm always always going to say that it's wrong.
- cossray 8y ago
  I honestly don't get this. When did spanking your child amount to 'physical violence'? We became too liberal with even the basics.
  - AndrewDucker 8y ago
    How is hitting a child not physical violence? What definition of violence are you using which doesn't include hitting children?
    - war1025 8y ago
      There is a huge difference between swatting someone to get their attention and hitting someone with enough force to cause injury.
      - lmm 8y ago
        If it's meant as a punishment it's not "to get their attention"; it's done to inflict pain. Again, it wouldn't be acceptable with an adult; just apply the same standard.
        JamesBarney 8y ago
        I don't think how to deal with an adult is a good guide for what's an acceptable way to deal with children. For instance if someone were to put their wife in timeout or take away her allowance that would make them an abusive a-hole, but these are perfectly acceptable punishments for a child. Likewise leaving one's wife is an acceptable option for an adult but not for a child.
        ConceptJunkie 8y ago
        I would put my child in time-out if he left his wife.
        war1025 8y ago
        Children are driven mainly by emotion. Particularly young children. Pain is an emotion that tends to override other emotions. A brief, sharp pain can snap them out of an emotional loop they found themselves caught in. Since the pain is very brief, they tend to revert back to a much more reasonable state afterwards. All that said, yes there is a difference between parenting and abuse. However, children are not tiny adults. They are tiny humans. You can often tell how they are feeling or why they are feeling that way, but it isn't by thinking the way a well-adjusted adult would. The whole point of parenting is to help them get to that point eventually.
- thetrumanshow 8y ago
  If you lead a child by the arm against their will, is this tantamount to physical violence or no? If we're busy redefining what is the acceptable behavior in parenting, we better discuss this all the way to the limits.
  - happytoexplain 8y ago
    You sound like you're being sarcastic, but I can't be sure. It sounds like you think the premise is ridiculous, but your second sentence is totally reasonable - of course we should discuss all aspects of a topic. Again, I'm not sure if your first question was honest or not, but answering it is straightforward and I think you'll find only extreme minorities of opposing opinions: Leading forcibly by the arm may be objectionable in some contexts, but it is not physical violence in most cases where the person being lead doesn't have the strength to turn the struggle into violence, so for children it almost never is (if the parent isn't using unnecessary force).
    - ip26 8y ago
      I think your parent comment is alluding to the attempts by certain groups to massively expand the use/scope of the word "violence", e.g. the "speech as violence" idea.
      - happytoexplain 8y ago
        I think that would be a reasonable point if that was the topic, but I don't think you're right about their intention because the topic is very explicitly about physical violence. Steering over to the philosophical realm of non-physical "violence" as an abstract concept would be a pretty dramatic departure from the topic, especially since it's not even stated in the comment. They even use an act of physically overpowering a person as their example.
        thetrumanshow 8y ago
        Correct: I do understand that the definition of violence has been expanded in some areas of public discourse, but it wasn't my point. My point was to find out where the poster believed to be the new demarcation line for physical violence that is acceptable (in parenting). I intended to suggest that leading by the arm might be considered violence by some, perhaps including myself.
unknownkadath 8y ago
Are you saying that the problem here is that people aren't doing what they're told by authorities? Because I can confidently say that this is not an accurate reading of the fine article. Or, you know, reality.
- zazen 8y ago
  I think it's valuable to ask some questions about the costs and unforseen second-order effects of throwing out all our traditional ideas of respect and status. It's pretty reductive to characterise this as saying people should "do what they're told". I can confidently say that's not an accurate reading of GP's comment.
  - unknownkadath 8y ago
    You can call it a fourth-order bundle of holomorphic consequences if you like. The difference is fine enough to slice a silk scarf in two.
sideshowb 8y ago
None of your points 1,2,3 highlight a loss of authority so much as its transfer between different institutions: religion, state, teacher, parent. Ok, maybe transferring authority to individuals as in (1) could be counted as a loss, but in a topic so personal that it would be ridiculous for somebody to claim authority over others in it anyway.
- jimbokun 8y ago
  "religion, state, teacher, parent" Nope, all of these are in simultaneous rapid decline in esteem and status.
  - sideshowb 8y ago
    Maybe but example 2 above was a case of state increasing in authority, and 3 might be for an I know but the post doesn't make it clear.
JamesBarney 8y ago
I don't think a belief in religious authority is necessary for a belief in scientific authority. The scientific community is especially atheist. And I don't think a belief in religious authority is especially likely to cause one to believe in scientific authority. A lot of times one can actually undermine the other because they have two conflicting views of the world.
matt4077 8y ago
It's not so much "authority" but "trust" that has gone down. There used to be institutions that were regarded as the gold standard for truth: the FDA, top science journals, the CDC, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and so on. These weren't necessarily regarded as infallible. But it was widely recognized that they undertook a best effort to get at the truth, and would tend to err on the side of caution. That trust is falling apart. Many people, including in the HN community, cheer this decline. They see it, not entirely unreasonable, as the downfall of despised "elites" and opening the discourse to other voices, making it more democratic. But while the tearing down of institutions is well ahead, there is little indication that the envisioned surge of bottom-up publishing is anywhere as successful: almost no structures have appeared, for example, that provide the nitty-gritty coverage of local politics. Nor can I think of any actual corruption by these organisations exposed by amateur sleuths. Even Snowden relied on traditional media to get his message out. Just today, the Seattle Times (old media) revealed their investigation of the broken process of Boeing's certification of the 737 Max. "Critical thinking" is what's usually recommended in these times of information overload and bad actors. But the term just seems to give license to everyone to make up their own facts as needed. The result is a discourse devoid of agreed-upon facts. If you cite inflation data in economic discussions, the most likely reply is a conspiracy theory about the data being corruptly influenced. "Think critically", they say, "who profits from <X>, I bet they get a big fat payoff from <Y> for telling this lie".
- sintaxi 8y ago
  > Nor can I think of any actual corruption by these organisations exposed by amateur sleuths. Wouldn't the simple fact that the CDC now owns patents on vaccines qualify at least as a conflict of interest that would justifiably erode trust? Trust is power and power corrupts. Its part of a natural cycle that occurs. This is why we develop organizations with strict constraints and methods of accountability such as the separate branches of government.
- jimmy1 8y ago
  I believe it s neither "authority" nor "trust" that has fallen, but rather nihilism that has taken a sharp rise. Who cares about your authority, or trusting you outside of my purposes? It's all meaningless in the end. How many times have you seen this statement on this board alone: "Given the passage of enough time after your death, anything you did won't matter." or some form or fashion.
asdffdsa 8y ago
Is this unexpected? Unvetted authority took a big hit when it created totalitarian states and initiated some of the biggest atrocities and genocides ever witnessed in human history.
adrianratnapala 8y ago
Point #3 is actually a sign of increasing authoritarianism. You can make an argument that as older forms of authority (family, church) have weakened, we have been placed at the mercy of the remaining forms (governments, employers). But in this mixed picture how do we know whether science goes in the winners or losers column?

savingthrow 8y ago

> 2. a parent spanks their child because their child misbehaved, and the parent is then investigated by the authorities They should be investigated if their parenting is so poor that they resort to physical violence against the child. It's absurd to suggest that hitting children is acceptable - as absurd as saying a boss can slap an employee, or that a husband can slap his spouse. You can be an authoritative parent without abusing your child.

MockObject 8y ago
The author's (or your, or my) personal opinion on spanking is very much not the issue here.
- savingthrow 8y ago
  Sure, but parent poster mentioned violence against the child and I'm always always going to say that it's wrong.
cossray 8y ago
I honestly don't get this. When did spanking your child amount to 'physical violence'? We became too liberal with even the basics.
- AndrewDucker 8y ago
  How is hitting a child not physical violence? What definition of violence are you using which doesn't include hitting children?
  - war1025 8y ago
    There is a huge difference between swatting someone to get their attention and hitting someone with enough force to cause injury.
    - lmm 8y ago
      If it's meant as a punishment it's not "to get their attention"; it's done to inflict pain. Again, it wouldn't be acceptable with an adult; just apply the same standard.
      - JamesBarney 8y ago
        I don't think how to deal with an adult is a good guide for what's an acceptable way to deal with children. For instance if someone were to put their wife in timeout or take away her allowance that would make them an abusive a-hole, but these are perfectly acceptable punishments for a child. Likewise leaving one's wife is an acceptable option for an adult but not for a child.
        ConceptJunkie 8y ago
        I would put my child in time-out if he left his wife.
      - war1025 8y ago
        Children are driven mainly by emotion. Particularly young children. Pain is an emotion that tends to override other emotions. A brief, sharp pain can snap them out of an emotional loop they found themselves caught in. Since the pain is very brief, they tend to revert back to a much more reasonable state afterwards. All that said, yes there is a difference between parenting and abuse. However, children are not tiny adults. They are tiny humans. You can often tell how they are feeling or why they are feeling that way, but it isn't by thinking the way a well-adjusted adult would. The whole point of parenting is to help them get to that point eventually.
thetrumanshow 8y ago
If you lead a child by the arm against their will, is this tantamount to physical violence or no? If we're busy redefining what is the acceptable behavior in parenting, we better discuss this all the way to the limits.
- happytoexplain 8y ago
  You sound like you're being sarcastic, but I can't be sure. It sounds like you think the premise is ridiculous, but your second sentence is totally reasonable - of course we should discuss all aspects of a topic. Again, I'm not sure if your first question was honest or not, but answering it is straightforward and I think you'll find only extreme minorities of opposing opinions: Leading forcibly by the arm may be objectionable in some contexts, but it is not physical violence in most cases where the person being lead doesn't have the strength to turn the struggle into violence, so for children it almost never is (if the parent isn't using unnecessary force).
  - ip26 8y ago
    I think your parent comment is alluding to the attempts by certain groups to massively expand the use/scope of the word "violence", e.g. the "speech as violence" idea.
    - happytoexplain 8y ago
      I think that would be a reasonable point if that was the topic, but I don't think you're right about their intention because the topic is very explicitly about physical violence. Steering over to the philosophical realm of non-physical "violence" as an abstract concept would be a pretty dramatic departure from the topic, especially since it's not even stated in the comment. They even use an act of physically overpowering a person as their example.
      - thetrumanshow 8y ago
        Correct: I do understand that the definition of violence has been expanded in some areas of public discourse, but it wasn't my point. My point was to find out where the poster believed to be the new demarcation line for physical violence that is acceptable (in parenting). I intended to suggest that leading by the arm might be considered violence by some, perhaps including myself.

unknownkadath 8y ago

Are you saying that the problem here is that people aren't doing what they're told by authorities? Because I can confidently say that this is not an accurate reading of the fine article. Or, you know, reality.

zazen 8y ago
I think it's valuable to ask some questions about the costs and unforseen second-order effects of throwing out all our traditional ideas of respect and status. It's pretty reductive to characterise this as saying people should "do what they're told". I can confidently say that's not an accurate reading of GP's comment.
- unknownkadath 8y ago
  You can call it a fourth-order bundle of holomorphic consequences if you like. The difference is fine enough to slice a silk scarf in two.

sideshowb 8y ago

None of your points 1,2,3 highlight a loss of authority so much as its transfer between different institutions: religion, state, teacher, parent. Ok, maybe transferring authority to individuals as in (1) could be counted as a loss, but in a topic so personal that it would be ridiculous for somebody to claim authority over others in it anyway.

jimbokun 8y ago
"religion, state, teacher, parent" Nope, all of these are in simultaneous rapid decline in esteem and status.
- sideshowb 8y ago
  Maybe but example 2 above was a case of state increasing in authority, and 3 might be for an I know but the post doesn't make it clear.

JamesBarney 8y ago

I don't think a belief in religious authority is necessary for a belief in scientific authority. The scientific community is especially atheist. And I don't think a belief in religious authority is especially likely to cause one to believe in scientific authority. A lot of times one can actually undermine the other because they have two conflicting views of the world.

matt4077 8y ago

It's not so much "authority" but "trust" that has gone down. There used to be institutions that were regarded as the gold standard for truth: the FDA, top science journals, the CDC, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and so on. These weren't necessarily regarded as infallible. But it was widely recognized that they undertook a best effort to get at the truth, and would tend to err on the side of caution. That trust is falling apart. Many people, including in the HN community, cheer this decline. They see it, not entirely unreasonable, as the downfall of despised "elites" and opening the discourse to other voices, making it more democratic. But while the tearing down of institutions is well ahead, there is little indication that the envisioned surge of bottom-up publishing is anywhere as successful: almost no structures have appeared, for example, that provide the nitty-gritty coverage of local politics. Nor can I think of any actual corruption by these organisations exposed by amateur sleuths. Even Snowden relied on traditional media to get his message out. Just today, the Seattle Times (old media) revealed their investigation of the broken process of Boeing's certification of the 737 Max. "Critical thinking" is what's usually recommended in these times of information overload and bad actors. But the term just seems to give license to everyone to make up their own facts as needed. The result is a discourse devoid of agreed-upon facts. If you cite inflation data in economic discussions, the most likely reply is a conspiracy theory about the data being corruptly influenced. "Think critically", they say, "who profits from <X>, I bet they get a big fat payoff from <Y> for telling this lie".

sintaxi 8y ago
> Nor can I think of any actual corruption by these organisations exposed by amateur sleuths. Wouldn't the simple fact that the CDC now owns patents on vaccines qualify at least as a conflict of interest that would justifiably erode trust? Trust is power and power corrupts. Its part of a natural cycle that occurs. This is why we develop organizations with strict constraints and methods of accountability such as the separate branches of government.
jimmy1 8y ago
I believe it s neither "authority" nor "trust" that has fallen, but rather nihilism that has taken a sharp rise. Who cares about your authority, or trusting you outside of my purposes? It's all meaningless in the end. How many times have you seen this statement on this board alone: "Given the passage of enough time after your death, anything you did won't matter." or some form or fashion.

asdffdsa 8y ago

Is this unexpected? Unvetted authority took a big hit when it created totalitarian states and initiated some of the biggest atrocities and genocides ever witnessed in human history.

adrianratnapala 8y ago

Point #3 is actually a sign of increasing authoritarianism. You can make an argument that as older forms of authority (family, church) have weakened, we have been placed at the mercy of the remaining forms (governments, employers). But in this mixed picture how do we know whether science goes in the winners or losers column?