3 ms·

At what time do we decide we have reached the "TRUTH" and decide to stop giving ideas a chance? If we were to take your argument back in time and apply it, wha

At what time do we decide we have reached the "TRUTH" and decide to stop giving ideas a chance? If we were to take your argument back in time and apply it, what would we see? "I mean...heliocentricism, really? Do we have to give Copernicus slosh any thought, we all know that God created the earth and then the heavens so it is only natural that they orbit the earth." On the front page at the same time is a story about psilocybin and "What if a Pill Can Change Your Politics or Religious Beliefs?". Right now we accept that sexual orientation is not a choice. What if in the future we find that exposure to chemical/compounds can cause people to become more gender norm conforming? What about less conforming to historical norms? How would you propose we handle those possible futures? A drug that turns you gay is straight out of Alex Jones. A drug that turns men straight is straight out of conversion therapy.

krapp 6y ago
> At what time do we decide we have reached the "TRUTH" and decide to stop giving ideas a chance? OK, so I see you've decided to ignore the context of my comment, pretend I was referring to some absolute "TRUTH" then strawman it. Yet everything you've listed, being scientific and therefore part of a framework in which those ideas could be proven or disproven, are part of what I mentioned at the end of my article, which I will quote verbatim for you: cases where legitimate scientific or political ideas which run afoul of the status quo and public acceptance need protection in a free market of ideas and thus explicitly not germane to my point. How do I suppose we handle science? Science. But then nothing I listed was actually science, nor is there any valid controversy around any of them, as science has invalidated practically all of it already. There is no universe in which it turns out Hitler was right all along if only we'd listened. So let me flip the script on you - how long do you believe we should let ideas like white supremacy, anti-semitism, lunatic conspiracy theories like QAnon, anti-vaxx etc remain in the marketplace? Or even keeping it within the bounds of science - do you believe we should still be arguing the merits of the luminiferous aether and miasma theory, or "teaching the controversy" around creationism?

krapp 6y ago

> At what time do we decide we have reached the "TRUTH" and decide to stop giving ideas a chance? OK, so I see you've decided to ignore the context of my comment, pretend I was referring to some absolute "TRUTH" then strawman it. Yet everything you've listed, being scientific and therefore part of a framework in which those ideas could be proven or disproven, are part of what I mentioned at the end of my article, which I will quote verbatim for you: cases where legitimate scientific or political ideas which run afoul of the status quo and public acceptance need protection in a free market of ideas and thus explicitly not germane to my point. How do I suppose we handle science? Science. But then nothing I listed was actually science, nor is there any valid controversy around any of them, as science has invalidated practically all of it already. There is no universe in which it turns out Hitler was right all along if only we'd listened. So let me flip the script on you - how long do you believe we should let ideas like white supremacy, anti-semitism, lunatic conspiracy theories like QAnon, anti-vaxx etc remain in the marketplace? Or even keeping it within the bounds of science - do you believe we should still be arguing the merits of the luminiferous aether and miasma theory, or "teaching the controversy" around creationism?