3 ms·

There’s a clear distinction between calling for violent actions and discussing a scientific theory : one is condemned by laws, the other should be fine. Try ce

by bsaul 7y ago

There’s a clear distinction between calling for violent actions and discussing a scientific theory : one is condemned by laws, the other should be fine. Try censoring every ideas that conduct people to commit physical violences and you’ll end up with being allowed to talk about absolutely nothing. religion, politics, science, philosophy, all have implications in our lives, and so some people will always take it personally and act violently.

speedplane 7y ago
> Try censoring every ideas that conduct people to commit physical violences and you’ll end up with being allowed to talk about absolutely nothing. religion, politics, science, philosophy, all have implications in our lives, and so some people will always take it personally and act violently. Freedom of speech should absolutely be protected. But censorship is not really the problem. Today, more people have more outlets to speak and express themselves than at any time in history. The problem today is that institutions of trust are being eroded. Every individual cannot be expected to become an expert on every single issue, they need to delegate that research to institutions they trust, and then trust that institutions recommendations. The problem today, is that trust is lacking these institutions (whether that's government, academic, religious, etc.). Without proper authorities of trust, there is a power vacuum that charlatans are eager to take.
- bsaul 7y ago
  I see it pretty differently : people are trying to get educated. they don’t rely on official channels to tell them what to think, they try to understand the phenomenons. If you take climate chnage, most « official source of information » today don’t discuss the theory of climate change itself, simply because it’s a complex theory and that it doesn’t want to take the time to do it. Climate sceptics will make hours long video giving « scientific » explanations for why this can’t be true. To me it’s a all in all a good thing. in the long term, this will force everyone to take the time to educate the audience before feeding them with a conclusion. As a personal exemple, i tried to understand what were deniers saying, and in the process i learned a lot about co2, temperature networks, ice melting process, forest fires cycles, thermal conduction models, and the fact that medias outlets have been calling for an « upcoming climate disaster » for at least a century without interruption. This made me extemely careful not to call anyone a fool too hastly on this particular topic.
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > people are trying to get educated. they don’t rely on official channels to tell them what to think, they try to understand the phenomenons ... in the long term, this will force everyone to take the time to educate the audience before feeding them with a conclusion Everyone learns everything through some sort of channel, whether that's your parents, your school, the news, some academic papers, or social media. No one has the time or ability to study everything from first principles. For example, measuring something as basic as the force of gravity is a pretty time-consuming experiment. People learn by ingesting a source, performing a credibility determination of that source, and then using critical reasoning to evaluate those conclusions. When YouTube (or anyone) promotes every crazy wacko with their own crazy idea as equally trustworthy, it eliminates an important component to learning.
    - bsaul 7y ago
      The basic scientific method and logic need to be taught indeed, but all the rest relies on experimental validation. The problem with climate change is that experimental validation for the theory of human origin is extremely hard to get. The timescales for validation is on decades, measurements networks are sparse and faulty, all kinds of data twisting and extrapolation need to be done, and in the end we still don’t see anything in our day to day lives. Bush fires have always happened, there’s still polar bears and ice on the arctic, the maldives islands still aren’t underwater, and people still go skiing in winter holidays. But this is also a reason to be careful with climate change proponents : their model are really just model at the moment, and the experimental validation of them is still mostly pending (although there’s a debate on that as well). Time will sort this out and will make it obvious who was right.
      - fzeroracer 7y ago
        >Time will sort this out and will make it obvious who was right. Is this something you really want to hedge your bet on? Because the end result of climate change being real is essentially massive worldwide damage to human society as we know it. So while you're right that time will sort this out, if you're on the side of the climate skeptics while the world is burning you won't find many friends.

by bsaul 7y ago

speedplane 7y ago

> Try censoring every ideas that conduct people to commit physical violences and you’ll end up with being allowed to talk about absolutely nothing. religion, politics, science, philosophy, all have implications in our lives, and so some people will always take it personally and act violently. Freedom of speech should absolutely be protected. But censorship is not really the problem. Today, more people have more outlets to speak and express themselves than at any time in history. The problem today is that institutions of trust are being eroded. Every individual cannot be expected to become an expert on every single issue, they need to delegate that research to institutions they trust, and then trust that institutions recommendations. The problem today, is that trust is lacking these institutions (whether that's government, academic, religious, etc.). Without proper authorities of trust, there is a power vacuum that charlatans are eager to take.

bsaul 7y ago
I see it pretty differently : people are trying to get educated. they don’t rely on official channels to tell them what to think, they try to understand the phenomenons. If you take climate chnage, most « official source of information » today don’t discuss the theory of climate change itself, simply because it’s a complex theory and that it doesn’t want to take the time to do it. Climate sceptics will make hours long video giving « scientific » explanations for why this can’t be true. To me it’s a all in all a good thing. in the long term, this will force everyone to take the time to educate the audience before feeding them with a conclusion. As a personal exemple, i tried to understand what were deniers saying, and in the process i learned a lot about co2, temperature networks, ice melting process, forest fires cycles, thermal conduction models, and the fact that medias outlets have been calling for an « upcoming climate disaster » for at least a century without interruption. This made me extemely careful not to call anyone a fool too hastly on this particular topic.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > people are trying to get educated. they don’t rely on official channels to tell them what to think, they try to understand the phenomenons ... in the long term, this will force everyone to take the time to educate the audience before feeding them with a conclusion Everyone learns everything through some sort of channel, whether that's your parents, your school, the news, some academic papers, or social media. No one has the time or ability to study everything from first principles. For example, measuring something as basic as the force of gravity is a pretty time-consuming experiment. People learn by ingesting a source, performing a credibility determination of that source, and then using critical reasoning to evaluate those conclusions. When YouTube (or anyone) promotes every crazy wacko with their own crazy idea as equally trustworthy, it eliminates an important component to learning.
  - bsaul 7y ago
    The basic scientific method and logic need to be taught indeed, but all the rest relies on experimental validation. The problem with climate change is that experimental validation for the theory of human origin is extremely hard to get. The timescales for validation is on decades, measurements networks are sparse and faulty, all kinds of data twisting and extrapolation need to be done, and in the end we still don’t see anything in our day to day lives. Bush fires have always happened, there’s still polar bears and ice on the arctic, the maldives islands still aren’t underwater, and people still go skiing in winter holidays. But this is also a reason to be careful with climate change proponents : their model are really just model at the moment, and the experimental validation of them is still mostly pending (although there’s a debate on that as well). Time will sort this out and will make it obvious who was right.
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      >Time will sort this out and will make it obvious who was right. Is this something you really want to hedge your bet on? Because the end result of climate change being real is essentially massive worldwide damage to human society as we know it. So while you're right that time will sort this out, if you're on the side of the climate skeptics while the world is burning you won't find many friends.