7 ms·

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

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".
      - nromiun 6y ago
        This is the first time I am hearing that CDC doesn't mean science or experts. Maybe they lost their reputation in this pandemic but before that I remember them being pretty reputable. And perhaps you missed it but I said: > they were also attacked by fact checkers who cited these experts on TV. I never said experts themselves attacked anyone. I said fact checkers attacked people using these experts. The most famous one is of course Dr. Fauci. His famous video was used by news anchors, fact checkers and most people on social media. And most of the fact checking was going on platforms like Twitter and reddit. And searching for months old comments on those platforms is very difficult. Update: It is impossible. Reddit search results won't even sort by time. Most search results are cluttered by recent posts.

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".
    - nromiun 6y ago
      This is the first time I am hearing that CDC doesn't mean science or experts. Maybe they lost their reputation in this pandemic but before that I remember them being pretty reputable. And perhaps you missed it but I said: > they were also attacked by fact checkers who cited these experts on TV. I never said experts themselves attacked anyone. I said fact checkers attacked people using these experts. The most famous one is of course Dr. Fauci. His famous video was used by news anchors, fact checkers and most people on social media. And most of the fact checking was going on platforms like Twitter and reddit. And searching for months old comments on those platforms is very difficult. Update: It is impossible. Reddit search results won't even sort by time. Most search results are cluttered by recent posts.