7 ms·

> That means not publishing papers, articles or comments to the effect that "women can't do science" or bell curve arguments about some races being less intelle

> That means not publishing papers, articles or comments to the effect that "women can't do science" or bell curve arguments about some races being less intellectually capable than others. That is also hounding people out of science. Science is better served when such papers are published, and then are debunked using scientific standards of inquiry. Proving those views wrong is much more powerful than censoring them -- anytime someone puts forward those views we can now say "nope, that's been debunked, here is an article that proves it wrong." Censorship creates a chilling effect on science in general. People will be afraid to do gender or IQ studies. Some of those studies might end up with results that are true, but not politically popular at the time. We should not forget that scientific orthodoxy was racist not that long ago. If scientific journals had been censored in the early 1900s, for example, anti-racist papers would have been suppressed. Today is no different -- many of our current scientific views are likely to be disproved 100 years from now, but only if we allow contrary views to be published.

eesmith 6y ago
> Science is better served when such papers are published Your argument is so broad that you will insist that flat-earth, young-earth creationists ("YEC"s), and other crack-pot pseudosciences be accepted as if they were serious and reasonable. Where should a YEC get to publish their papers? If the paper isn't accepted (because it's contrary to all evidence and has no strong evidence to support it), do you call that decision "censorship"? In 100 years do you expect that we might discover the YECs are right? And yes, people are "afraid" now to do YEC studies because of the effects of being laughed at for crackpot science and denied funding. Thing is, when YECs manage to get something published (sometimes by subterfuge), yes, there are articles debunking them. But that doesn't matter because YECs use the publication itself as evidence that their ideas are accepted as scientific. Their goal is to be treated as an equal ("teach the controversy"), not do good science, and their real audience isn't the scientific readership. We see that as well with "bell curve arguments about some races being less intellectually capable than others", where the goal is not to be intellectually honest (See Shaun's video essay at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo which goes deep into some of the dishonesty) but to provide a veneer of scientific-ness to justify racist policy decisions. Thing is, we do allow contrary views to be published. But they have to be supported by evidence. And the evidence that (for example) "women can't do science" isn't there.
- yters 6y ago
  If the view is easy to persuasively debunk, why not? Will use a smidgeon of an expert's time and help a lot of people. If the view is not easy to debunk, maybe it is worth an extended discussion? Seems win win either way.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    This argument has been had many times. It's easy to pervasively debunk flat eartherism, or anti-vax conspiracies. Yet those ideas continue to be pervasive in particular subpopulations. When people want to hold a view, out-sciencing them won't work. Ultimately > Will use a smidgeon of an expert's time and help a lot of people. Yes, if you have to spend all your time responding to cranks, you'll have no time to be productive, and you'll embolden the cranks. Bullshit is produce to spew than to refute, so trying to counter bullshit with intellectual honesty is a loosing proposition. At some point you have to set a bar for bullshit, and ignore anything below the bar. The bullshit-artists call that "censorship", because at that point they've lost and the only way they can continue to spew bullshit is to find popular support with contrarians or free-speech absolutists who don't actually have a deep knowledge or care about scientific discourse.
    - yters 6y ago
      What if the cranks gain power because you censor them?
  - ben_w 6y ago
    Have you ever tried arguing with someone who is not only incorrect about literally every claim they’ve made, but whose grasp is so bad that their claims are mostly incoherent if you know what the words mean? I once made the mistake of “debating” with a fundamentalist young-Earth Baptist Creationist who set up a microphone and speaker in the middle of Cambridge some time around 2008. He said too many wrong things too quickly for me to actually counter them all. One that still sticks in my mind was him saying “Ladies and Gentlemen, I have found the kernel of this man’s beliefs. Either you believe in eternal energy or eternal God.” - literally every part of that sentence is false, but the dumb was too shocking for me to respond to. Given what I know now, I think he technically blasphemed against his own faith multiple times… but I don’t think I convinced anyone who was on the fence.

eesmith 6y ago

> Science is better served when such papers are published Your argument is so broad that you will insist that flat-earth, young-earth creationists ("YEC"s), and other crack-pot pseudosciences be accepted as if they were serious and reasonable. Where should a YEC get to publish their papers? If the paper isn't accepted (because it's contrary to all evidence and has no strong evidence to support it), do you call that decision "censorship"? In 100 years do you expect that we might discover the YECs are right? And yes, people are "afraid" now to do YEC studies because of the effects of being laughed at for crackpot science and denied funding. Thing is, when YECs manage to get something published (sometimes by subterfuge), yes, there are articles debunking them. But that doesn't matter because YECs use the publication itself as evidence that their ideas are accepted as scientific. Their goal is to be treated as an equal ("teach the controversy"), not do good science, and their real audience isn't the scientific readership. We see that as well with "bell curve arguments about some races being less intellectually capable than others", where the goal is not to be intellectually honest (See Shaun's video essay at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo which goes deep into some of the dishonesty) but to provide a veneer of scientific-ness to justify racist policy decisions. Thing is, we do allow contrary views to be published. But they have to be supported by evidence. And the evidence that (for example) "women can't do science" isn't there.

yters 6y ago
If the view is easy to persuasively debunk, why not? Will use a smidgeon of an expert's time and help a lot of people. If the view is not easy to debunk, maybe it is worth an extended discussion? Seems win win either way.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  This argument has been had many times. It's easy to pervasively debunk flat eartherism, or anti-vax conspiracies. Yet those ideas continue to be pervasive in particular subpopulations. When people want to hold a view, out-sciencing them won't work. Ultimately > Will use a smidgeon of an expert's time and help a lot of people. Yes, if you have to spend all your time responding to cranks, you'll have no time to be productive, and you'll embolden the cranks. Bullshit is produce to spew than to refute, so trying to counter bullshit with intellectual honesty is a loosing proposition. At some point you have to set a bar for bullshit, and ignore anything below the bar. The bullshit-artists call that "censorship", because at that point they've lost and the only way they can continue to spew bullshit is to find popular support with contrarians or free-speech absolutists who don't actually have a deep knowledge or care about scientific discourse.
  - yters 6y ago
    What if the cranks gain power because you censor them?
- ben_w 6y ago
  Have you ever tried arguing with someone who is not only incorrect about literally every claim they’ve made, but whose grasp is so bad that their claims are mostly incoherent if you know what the words mean? I once made the mistake of “debating” with a fundamentalist young-Earth Baptist Creationist who set up a microphone and speaker in the middle of Cambridge some time around 2008. He said too many wrong things too quickly for me to actually counter them all. One that still sticks in my mind was him saying “Ladies and Gentlemen, I have found the kernel of this man’s beliefs. Either you believe in eternal energy or eternal God.” - literally every part of that sentence is false, but the dumb was too shocking for me to respond to. Given what I know now, I think he technically blasphemed against his own faith multiple times… but I don’t think I convinced anyone who was on the fence.