5 ms·

What if the evidence is deemed offensive by a mob because they don’t like the scientific findings? Or what if the scientist has personal beliefs or opinions th

What if the evidence is deemed offensive by a mob because they don’t like the scientific findings? Or what if the scientist has personal beliefs or opinions that are disagreeable to some? And what if the evidence is politically toxic?

bitwize 7y ago
> What if the evidence is deemed offensive by a mob because they don’t like the scientific findings? That depends on who the mob is voting for.
chousuke 7y ago
Assuming "evidence" in this context is something that has been sufficiently scrutinized and no alternative hypotheses pass muster, why would any of those three things matter? And if you're leaving open the possibility that the evidence in your hypothetical situation is wrong, then what is the point of your question? The universe is what it is regardless of what we think of it. When we attain better understanding of the truth of things, we need to adapt to the truth. It is literally insane to do otherwise. Fortunately, we are also part of the universe, so better understanding also grants us tools to change things more to our liking.
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  > why would any of those three things matter? Because the public is not scientific, and scientists generally rely on explicit or at least tacit approval of the public to do their work.
  - stochastic_monk 7y ago
    Most basic science is funded by the government, at least in the US, whose money in turn comes from taxes.
zarkov99 7y ago
Then, these days, you bury the evidence and move on to less controversial areas, unless you are a very unreasonable person. Of course if you lack intellectual integrity, as well as unreasonableness you have more options.
jmcqk6 7y ago
>What if the evidence is deemed offensive by a mob because they don’t like the scientific findings? This is pretty much the history of science. It is full of instances where new findings were rejected by society at large. I get the impression that you're trying to make some point about the environment today, but pushing against societal inertia is pretty much built into the idea of doing science. it's always been that way, and will continue to be that way until people are basically willing to put their ego on hold and consider something without judgement.

bitwize 7y ago

> What if the evidence is deemed offensive by a mob because they don’t like the scientific findings? That depends on who the mob is voting for.

chousuke 7y ago

Assuming "evidence" in this context is something that has been sufficiently scrutinized and no alternative hypotheses pass muster, why would any of those three things matter? And if you're leaving open the possibility that the evidence in your hypothetical situation is wrong, then what is the point of your question? The universe is what it is regardless of what we think of it. When we attain better understanding of the truth of things, we need to adapt to the truth. It is literally insane to do otherwise. Fortunately, we are also part of the universe, so better understanding also grants us tools to change things more to our liking.

oh_sigh 7y ago
> why would any of those three things matter? Because the public is not scientific, and scientists generally rely on explicit or at least tacit approval of the public to do their work.
- stochastic_monk 7y ago
  Most basic science is funded by the government, at least in the US, whose money in turn comes from taxes.

zarkov99 7y ago

Then, these days, you bury the evidence and move on to less controversial areas, unless you are a very unreasonable person. Of course if you lack intellectual integrity, as well as unreasonableness you have more options.

jmcqk6 7y ago

>What if the evidence is deemed offensive by a mob because they don’t like the scientific findings? This is pretty much the history of science. It is full of instances where new findings were rejected by society at large. I get the impression that you're trying to make some point about the environment today, but pushing against societal inertia is pretty much built into the idea of doing science. it's always been that way, and will continue to be that way until people are basically willing to put their ego on hold and consider something without judgement.