3 ms·

I agree that censorship of science is bad. Giving powerful people a free megaphone for their opinions and anecdotal bs is also bad. Nobody believes there is o

I agree that censorship of science is bad. Giving powerful people a free megaphone for their opinions and anecdotal bs is also bad. Nobody believes there is one right answer, but amplifying stupid is a recipe for disaster.

chmod600 6y ago
It's not a megaphone. A megaphone forces people to hear whether they want to or not, and drowns out others trying to speak. A facebook page does neither.
russellendicott 6y ago
Science is merely a tool. It's conclusions still must be interpreted and translated to fit in to a human shaped system. There are almost as many interpretations of the conclusions of science as there are interpretations of religious texts. Science shows us that eating too much leads to heart disease and shortens your lifespan. What conclusions do we draw from this? An extra 15 years of life is worth 90 years of a bland diet? Different people draw different conclusions. My point is that science alone is not a comprehensive guide to how a life should be lived. It requires some extra interpretation. In this Maduro COVID miracle cure situation it's obviously a ridiculous claim and could mislead thousands of people into taking a placebo pill and pulling their masks off and endangering the lives of other people. Facebook truly believes that they are right in their conclusion that Maduro's interpretation of "science" will lead to people getting hurt. They have a moral obligation to stop it lest someone accuse them of having blood on their hands. However, Maduro being in power has surely caused many thousands of people to die from political violence and starvation. What if stopping him from exposing himself as a fool and a liar has extended his position of power for another year? Psychology is also a science. The psychology behind why people would rally harder around a censored dictator. Which interpretation of science would kill more people? The answers aren't always clear.
totony 6y ago
I would argue it's not amplifying if everyone else has a megaphone.

chmod600 6y ago

It's not a megaphone. A megaphone forces people to hear whether they want to or not, and drowns out others trying to speak. A facebook page does neither.

russellendicott 6y ago

Science is merely a tool. It's conclusions still must be interpreted and translated to fit in to a human shaped system. There are almost as many interpretations of the conclusions of science as there are interpretations of religious texts. Science shows us that eating too much leads to heart disease and shortens your lifespan. What conclusions do we draw from this? An extra 15 years of life is worth 90 years of a bland diet? Different people draw different conclusions. My point is that science alone is not a comprehensive guide to how a life should be lived. It requires some extra interpretation. In this Maduro COVID miracle cure situation it's obviously a ridiculous claim and could mislead thousands of people into taking a placebo pill and pulling their masks off and endangering the lives of other people. Facebook truly believes that they are right in their conclusion that Maduro's interpretation of "science" will lead to people getting hurt. They have a moral obligation to stop it lest someone accuse them of having blood on their hands. However, Maduro being in power has surely caused many thousands of people to die from political violence and starvation. What if stopping him from exposing himself as a fool and a liar has extended his position of power for another year? Psychology is also a science. The psychology behind why people would rally harder around a censored dictator. Which interpretation of science would kill more people? The answers aren't always clear.

totony 6y ago

I would argue it's not amplifying if everyone else has a megaphone.