5 ms·
Reading this I can't help but think about my mother, justifying all her shady pseudoscience beliefs by mentioning that brilliant and innovant scientists were tr
by hycaria 7y ago
Reading this I can't help but think about my mother, justifying all her shady pseudoscience beliefs by mentioning that brilliant and innovant scientists were treated with disdain during their own times, just as pseudoscience is. Heresies then turn into antivaxxers, electrosensitivity, homeopathy and so on.
This might work for business opportunities, but please leave science out of that.
- chmike 7y agoI beg to differ. This is exactly spot on for science too. You gave homeopathy as an example. Here is an article that explain water memory, the underlying principle of homeopathy: ["Water Memory Due to Chains of Nano-Pearls"](https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=89620 https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=...)
- hycaria 7y agoYes yes, sadly I'm well aware of water memory already.
- hackface 7y agoDefinitely an area not explored much. Any research into homeopathy is seen either with scoff or pity. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DNA_sequence_reconstituted_from_Water_Memory.php http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DNA_sequence_reconstituted_from_Wate...
- the_af 7y agoWater memory is pseudoscience.
- tonetheman 7y agoI am with you on this comment. I feel like mentioning famous scientist does not help the case at all. I mean PG is talking about coming up with ideas to sell to VC or private equity firms... There is nothing as grand as scientific progress here... just randos trying to get rich.
- philwelch 7y ago> I mean PG is talking about coming up with ideas to sell to VC or private equity firms... There is nothing as grand as scientific progress here... just randos trying to get rich. What on earth gives you that idea?
- dang 7y agoI'm afraid you've deeply misunderstood PG if you think that's what he cares about or is writing about here. What he cares about is great work: doing it, understanding what it is, looking at the history of it.
- noonespecial 7y agoCarl Sagan put it best: "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
- philwelch 7y agoMost of these ideas are scoffed at, but people will make honest attempts to debunk them and keep the argument in terms of true and false. With heresy, it’s different; ideas are more likely regarded as dangerous or evil, and people are silenced rather than debunked. Lysenkoists[1] don’t get into debates with geneticists; they just throw them into the gulag. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
- notahacker 7y agoAnti-vaxxers and promoters of quack therapy over efficacious medical treatment for serious conditions are frequently called out as dangerous and evil. And many attempt to convince themselves or others that this proves they are latter day heretics being silenced by a medical establishment intent on self preservation.
- philwelch 7y agoAnd I don’t actually think that’s a useful way of responding to them because it reinforces that feeling. But there are also debunkings. The most anti-creationist people in the world set up a website (talkorigins.org) that catalogues every creationist argument alongside point-by-point rebuttals. I’ve seen similar websites for moon landing denial. People aren’t always nice about it, but for a long time the dominant counternarrative was, “here is a point by point explanation of how everything you’re claiming is wrong” which sometimes escalated to “you are an idiot”. Actual dangerous heretics can’t be treated that way because their beliefs are reasonable enough to withstand scrutiny, so usually they just end up getting misrepresented and silenced instead. When we adopt the same strategy with kooks, we just make the kooks look more reasonable IMO. In fact I don’t think the example of anti-vaxxers goes far enough. The worst kooks in the world, who are almost universally terrible people, are Holocaust deniers. And yeah, I think it’s perfectly fine to rhetorically slap literal Holocaust deniers in the face and tell them they are horrible people. But it’s even better to rhetorically slap them in the face with reams of evidence proving that the Holocaust happened. And to some extent we do that. People aren’t covering up the vast amount of primary source material on the concentration camps, the SS, etc. There is no stigma on actual research on the subject. And, as awful as he may be, nobody is throwing David Irving into a gulag.
- mistermann 7y ago> Heresies then turn into antivaxxers I do not hold the belief that vaccines are not beneficial, or that they necessarily cause autism, but it isn't difficult to find examples of conversations where if you disagree with the narrative in the slightest, you are presumed to be a full on disbeliever and treated accordingly. The climate change debate is similar in this regard. People think they are speaking completely in accordance with science, but they are often mistaken. Please note that I'm not necessarily implying this behavior is terribly harmful, but I often wonder if there may be some hidden harm, but not in the way one might think. When the narrative that is derived from "the science" is partially untruthful, and this is pointed out in conspiracy circles, to what degree might this be motivating people to not believe, or at least be suspicious of, the overall story? To me, this seems like a very good question, especially considering our lack of success in completely persuading the masses. However, whenever I mention it, what little reaction it receives is negative (see: "you are presumed to be...."). As the saying goes, honestly is the best policy. I wonder how applicable that may be in these cases.