4 ms·

The main problem these days is that people will say anything they want in the name of science and if you even dare to express the slightest doubt you will be ca

The main problem these days is that people will say anything they want in the name of science and if you even dare to express the slightest doubt you will be called a science denier. It's like science has become a religion and you aren't allowed to express doubt, no matter how contradictory some of those positions may be. Scientific discussion is tolerated, but only if they agree with these viewpoints. If they don't they get "fact-checked" and removed from the internet as soon as possible. Also, it is pretty ironic how Scientific American is crying about science getting less evidence based and more politically motivated. I don't remember them staying out of politics in the last American election.

ImaCake 6y ago
It's hard to fault a scientist first publication for coming out against a firmly anti-scientist political party. As someone who does science day to day, I have had no issue discussing contentious scientific ideas with other scientists. I also know plenty of scientists that hold views that others would think go again science; religious fundamentalism not the least of these. I have found scientists to be very tolerant of people holding ideas that are not gained from evidence.
- makomk 6y ago
  As I recall, their anti-Trump article relied on claims about Covid and the global response to it that were both very obviously untrue and being pushed by the mainstream media as indisputable scientifc fact that was beyond debate for, in part at least, partisan political reasons. It was an example of almost exactly what this article decries.
- nromiun 6y ago
  I have also found scientists to be very tolerant. But I was not talking about the scientists, I was talking about the platforms where scientists talk. Science magazines (like this one), social media and (more broadly) the internet. More often than not the ones doing the censorship are not scientists. They are usually employees and these so called fact checkers. It doesn't matter how good your argument is when a fact checker can declare your argument false based on a pedantic mistake. The rest will see the fact check and just accept it. Or in some cases they will simply delete it. Also, how does one become anti-science in your opinion? Does questioning contradictory orders now means anti-science? Like how masks didn't work at the start of the pandemic but now even a kerchief will work? Millions of people protesting in the streets don't spread coronavirus but ten people indoors is a hotspot? I don't know about you but my teachers taught me questioning everything is an integral part of science.
  - verall 6y ago
    You can answer these questions yourself, though, can't you? Masks worked the same at the beginning of the pandemic as they do now, but the government did have terrible messaging about masks being (potentially) more likely to infect you, and encouraging people not to wear masks. There was minor pushback on this. Clearly a kerchief is a shitty mask, there is public guidance that you should not be able to blow out a birthday candle with your mask on. The dude at the front of the Target isn't going to argue with you about it, but I think it's antisocial to not wear a mask or to wear a faux mask. Large protests did spread the virus, but as it was summer, covid is UV-sensitive, and participants mostly young/healthy, the effect was muted. This also occurred with many outdoor "going-to-be-a-superspreader" events like political rallys. Indoors is the worst case for coronavirus as home A/C systems will recirculate the virus throughout the house. Some hospitals had to rush to overhaul ventilation and filtration systems for COVID.
    - nromiun 6y ago
      > Masks worked the same at the beginning of the pandemic as they do now, but the government did have terrible messaging about masks being (potentially) more likely to infect you, and encouraging people not to wear masks. That is my point. Masks (the same type) always work the same way. It doesn't matter if they are in the beginning or ending of a pandemic. My problem is with people who put science on a pedestal and suppress anyone who disagree. They did the same thing at the beginning of the pandemic. Masks have been used for decades but apparently they were now reserved only for the govt. After the pandemic started taking off this position was flipped. Now you have to use anything you have to cover your mouth. Some of the early infected might have died just because they heard in the TV that masks are not safe. My frustration is with people who abandon their common sense just because some "experts" on TV told them to. (There were plenty of others who said that masks will work, but they were also attacked by fact checkers who cited these experts on TV.)
      - verall 6y ago
        Can you give an example of people saying masks will work and fact-checkers or experts attacking them? I have looked and cannot find a single example. I can find news anchors repeating the crappy CDC guidance, but they clearly cite the CDC as their source, not "science" or "experts".
rimliu 6y ago
and one prominent topic where it is obvious is mask usage.
chillacy 6y ago
I'm sympathetic to that as an issue, but most people aren't rigorously combing over all evidence, they're making snap decisions with the availability heuristic. So in practice the 1% of evidence against something really obvious ends up being enough ammo for people who have an agenda to form a convincing case. This happens a lot with conspiracy theories like <insert your favorite example here>

ImaCake 6y ago

It's hard to fault a scientist first publication for coming out against a firmly anti-scientist political party. As someone who does science day to day, I have had no issue discussing contentious scientific ideas with other scientists. I also know plenty of scientists that hold views that others would think go again science; religious fundamentalism not the least of these. I have found scientists to be very tolerant of people holding ideas that are not gained from evidence.

makomk 6y ago
As I recall, their anti-Trump article relied on claims about Covid and the global response to it that were both very obviously untrue and being pushed by the mainstream media as indisputable scientifc fact that was beyond debate for, in part at least, partisan political reasons. It was an example of almost exactly what this article decries.
nromiun 6y ago
I have also found scientists to be very tolerant. But I was not talking about the scientists, I was talking about the platforms where scientists talk. Science magazines (like this one), social media and (more broadly) the internet. More often than not the ones doing the censorship are not scientists. They are usually employees and these so called fact checkers. It doesn't matter how good your argument is when a fact checker can declare your argument false based on a pedantic mistake. The rest will see the fact check and just accept it. Or in some cases they will simply delete it. Also, how does one become anti-science in your opinion? Does questioning contradictory orders now means anti-science? Like how masks didn't work at the start of the pandemic but now even a kerchief will work? Millions of people protesting in the streets don't spread coronavirus but ten people indoors is a hotspot? I don't know about you but my teachers taught me questioning everything is an integral part of science.
- verall 6y ago
  You can answer these questions yourself, though, can't you? Masks worked the same at the beginning of the pandemic as they do now, but the government did have terrible messaging about masks being (potentially) more likely to infect you, and encouraging people not to wear masks. There was minor pushback on this. Clearly a kerchief is a shitty mask, there is public guidance that you should not be able to blow out a birthday candle with your mask on. The dude at the front of the Target isn't going to argue with you about it, but I think it's antisocial to not wear a mask or to wear a faux mask. Large protests did spread the virus, but as it was summer, covid is UV-sensitive, and participants mostly young/healthy, the effect was muted. This also occurred with many outdoor "going-to-be-a-superspreader" events like political rallys. Indoors is the worst case for coronavirus as home A/C systems will recirculate the virus throughout the house. Some hospitals had to rush to overhaul ventilation and filtration systems for COVID.
  - nromiun 6y ago
    > Masks worked the same at the beginning of the pandemic as they do now, but the government did have terrible messaging about masks being (potentially) more likely to infect you, and encouraging people not to wear masks. That is my point. Masks (the same type) always work the same way. It doesn't matter if they are in the beginning or ending of a pandemic. My problem is with people who put science on a pedestal and suppress anyone who disagree. They did the same thing at the beginning of the pandemic. Masks have been used for decades but apparently they were now reserved only for the govt. After the pandemic started taking off this position was flipped. Now you have to use anything you have to cover your mouth. Some of the early infected might have died just because they heard in the TV that masks are not safe. My frustration is with people who abandon their common sense just because some "experts" on TV told them to. (There were plenty of others who said that masks will work, but they were also attacked by fact checkers who cited these experts on TV.)
    - verall 6y ago
      Can you give an example of people saying masks will work and fact-checkers or experts attacking them? I have looked and cannot find a single example. I can find news anchors repeating the crappy CDC guidance, but they clearly cite the CDC as their source, not "science" or "experts".

rimliu 6y ago

and one prominent topic where it is obvious is mask usage.

chillacy 6y ago

I'm sympathetic to that as an issue, but most people aren't rigorously combing over all evidence, they're making snap decisions with the availability heuristic. So in practice the 1% of evidence against something really obvious ends up being enough ammo for people who have an agenda to form a convincing case. This happens a lot with conspiracy theories like <insert your favorite example here>