4 ms·

Oh I’m most certainly a stupid person on the Internet. I have no problem accepting that whatsoever. To your point though, I don’t think it’s accurate to sugges

Oh I’m most certainly a stupid person on the Internet. I have no problem accepting that whatsoever. To your point though, I don’t think it’s accurate to suggest everyone is as consistently wrong as everyone else when there are groups of people suggesting that the entire concept of science itself is propaganda. I will read what you’ve linked though, as it seems genuinely really interesting.

dang 5y ago
It doesn't follow that everyone is as consistently wrong as everyone else, and I'm not saying it does. One needs to be extra careful about deriving consequences from this phenomenon too quickly, because it's so hard to see it in the first place. More precisely, it's hard to see in oneself—but to only see it in others is not to see it at all. I think we should all practice simply seeing it for a while (I'm tempted to say 20 years might be a good minimum), and then maybe we'll be in a position to accurately derive consequences in a way that doesn't just re-establish the original self-deception. p.s. I took out this bit of my comment above: "Or, if you prefer, we're all crazy/stupid in this way." because after reading your comment I realized it was too baity. Mentioning it that here because I don't want to deprive your post of that context.
- cutemonster 5y ago
  > It doesn't follow that everyone is as consistently wrong as everyone else When you wrote: > If you think you don't do it, or (an easier self-deception) you don't do it as much, this is because you are lacking in self-awareness. It sounded to me as if you said everyone was equally wrong as everyone else. Thanks for clarifying that that wasn't what you meant I think this is incorrect: "[or if] you don't do it as much" -- some people indeed does it less (you'd be one of them I think) > it was too baity I agree (I think the section I quoted still is :-))
skissane 5y ago
> there are groups of people suggesting that the entire concept of science itself is propaganda I think there are groups of people claiming that the scientific consensus on particular topics (climate change, COVID-19, etc) is based on ideological bias, vested interests, conspiracies, etc, rather than on good quality scientific evidence. However, most of those people have no problem with accepting the scientific consensus on unrelated topics. Few people are going to deny the scientific consensus on the citric acid cycle, for instance. I think if you bet against the current scientific consensus, most of the time you are going to lose – but maybe not always. If we look back over the history of science, we can see areas in which what was once considered the evidence-based scientific consensus was later decided to be actually based on ideological bias. For example, a lot of 19th and early 20th century science on biological differences between different human descent groups was believed at the time to be based on good scientific evidence but is now in hindsight viewed as corrupted by racial prejudice. How can we be sure that a century from now, people might not look back on some elements of today's scientific consensus as also corrupted by bias/prejudice/ideology/etc? But we don't know whether that will happen, and if it happens we don't know which parts of the contemporary consensus will be viewed as corrupted, nor what will be seen as having corrupted it.
- flukus 5y ago
  > However, most of those people have no problem with accepting the scientific consensus on unrelated topics. A venn diagram would show a significant overlap between these groups, there's a lot of overlap between young earth creationists and climate change "skeptics", the same is true for flat earthers and other conspiracy groups. It's rare for people to believe in just one conspiracy and the other conspiracies they believe throw out just about every branch of science we have. When you add the two party system super groups to the venn diagram you'll see most of these grouped to a specific side, which indicates a strong degree of ideological bias is at play.
  - skissane 5y ago
    > there's a lot of overlap between young earth creationists and climate change "skeptics" Most YECs are "climate change skeptics", but only a minority of "climate change skeptics" are YECs. Indeed, many of the leaders of the "climate change sceptic" movement, even if they might be occasionally willing to share a stage with YECs, do not endorse YECism themselves – for example, Lord Monckton or Bjørn Lomborg. I think that's especially true outside of the US – European conservatives are far more likely to take "climate change scepticism" seriously than to take YECism seriously. YECism is much more popular in the US than elsewhere because of the distinctive US religious history which produced an emphasis on hyper-literal interpretations of the Bible. Catholics, Orthodox, and the more traditional Protestants (Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed) never had the same emphasis, because they had the historical memory to know that YECism had been considered in the first few centuries of Christianity and judged to be optional (see St Augustine's 5th century book The Literal Meaning of Genesis). Many Americans forgot that history, Europeans remembered it, which is why some European conservatives will believe in "climate change scepticism" but very few of them have time for YECism. > the same is true for flat earthers and other conspiracy groups The vast majority of conspiracy theorists don't want to have anything to do with "flat earthism". People who seriously believe in "flat earthism" are a minuscule (and irrelevant) minority. > When you add the two party system super groups to the venn diagram you'll see most of these grouped to a specific side, which indicates a strong degree of ideological bias is at play. I'm not an American, I come from a country (Australia) with a two-party system but a weaker one than America's. But I don't think any one side of politics has a monopoly on conspiracy theories. Historically, certain kinds of conspiracy theories have been popular on the left as well – such as conspiracy theories about the CIA or Mossad. (Some CIA or Mossad conspiracy theories are probably true, but a lot of them surely aren't.) Here in Australia, traditional left-wing conspiracy theories include that the 1954 Petrov affair was a setup by Australian intelligence agencies, and that Australia's 1975 constitutional crisis was secretly engineered by London and Washington. My anecdotal experience is that the majority of people who believe in UFO conspiracy theories are left-leaning. And people who believe in UFO conspiracy theories are often inclined to believe lots of other conspiracy theories too.

dang 5y ago

It doesn't follow that everyone is as consistently wrong as everyone else, and I'm not saying it does. One needs to be extra careful about deriving consequences from this phenomenon too quickly, because it's so hard to see it in the first place. More precisely, it's hard to see in oneself—but to only see it in others is not to see it at all. I think we should all practice simply seeing it for a while (I'm tempted to say 20 years might be a good minimum), and then maybe we'll be in a position to accurately derive consequences in a way that doesn't just re-establish the original self-deception. p.s. I took out this bit of my comment above: "Or, if you prefer, we're all crazy/stupid in this way." because after reading your comment I realized it was too baity. Mentioning it that here because I don't want to deprive your post of that context.

cutemonster 5y ago
> It doesn't follow that everyone is as consistently wrong as everyone else When you wrote: > If you think you don't do it, or (an easier self-deception) you don't do it as much, this is because you are lacking in self-awareness. It sounded to me as if you said everyone was equally wrong as everyone else. Thanks for clarifying that that wasn't what you meant I think this is incorrect: "[or if] you don't do it as much" -- some people indeed does it less (you'd be one of them I think) > it was too baity I agree (I think the section I quoted still is :-))

skissane 5y ago

> there are groups of people suggesting that the entire concept of science itself is propaganda I think there are groups of people claiming that the scientific consensus on particular topics (climate change, COVID-19, etc) is based on ideological bias, vested interests, conspiracies, etc, rather than on good quality scientific evidence. However, most of those people have no problem with accepting the scientific consensus on unrelated topics. Few people are going to deny the scientific consensus on the citric acid cycle, for instance. I think if you bet against the current scientific consensus, most of the time you are going to lose – but maybe not always. If we look back over the history of science, we can see areas in which what was once considered the evidence-based scientific consensus was later decided to be actually based on ideological bias. For example, a lot of 19th and early 20th century science on biological differences between different human descent groups was believed at the time to be based on good scientific evidence but is now in hindsight viewed as corrupted by racial prejudice. How can we be sure that a century from now, people might not look back on some elements of today's scientific consensus as also corrupted by bias/prejudice/ideology/etc? But we don't know whether that will happen, and if it happens we don't know which parts of the contemporary consensus will be viewed as corrupted, nor what will be seen as having corrupted it.

flukus 5y ago
> However, most of those people have no problem with accepting the scientific consensus on unrelated topics. A venn diagram would show a significant overlap between these groups, there's a lot of overlap between young earth creationists and climate change "skeptics", the same is true for flat earthers and other conspiracy groups. It's rare for people to believe in just one conspiracy and the other conspiracies they believe throw out just about every branch of science we have. When you add the two party system super groups to the venn diagram you'll see most of these grouped to a specific side, which indicates a strong degree of ideological bias is at play.
- skissane 5y ago
  > there's a lot of overlap between young earth creationists and climate change "skeptics" Most YECs are "climate change skeptics", but only a minority of "climate change skeptics" are YECs. Indeed, many of the leaders of the "climate change sceptic" movement, even if they might be occasionally willing to share a stage with YECs, do not endorse YECism themselves – for example, Lord Monckton or Bjørn Lomborg. I think that's especially true outside of the US – European conservatives are far more likely to take "climate change scepticism" seriously than to take YECism seriously. YECism is much more popular in the US than elsewhere because of the distinctive US religious history which produced an emphasis on hyper-literal interpretations of the Bible. Catholics, Orthodox, and the more traditional Protestants (Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed) never had the same emphasis, because they had the historical memory to know that YECism had been considered in the first few centuries of Christianity and judged to be optional (see St Augustine's 5th century book The Literal Meaning of Genesis). Many Americans forgot that history, Europeans remembered it, which is why some European conservatives will believe in "climate change scepticism" but very few of them have time for YECism. > the same is true for flat earthers and other conspiracy groups The vast majority of conspiracy theorists don't want to have anything to do with "flat earthism". People who seriously believe in "flat earthism" are a minuscule (and irrelevant) minority. > When you add the two party system super groups to the venn diagram you'll see most of these grouped to a specific side, which indicates a strong degree of ideological bias is at play. I'm not an American, I come from a country (Australia) with a two-party system but a weaker one than America's. But I don't think any one side of politics has a monopoly on conspiracy theories. Historically, certain kinds of conspiracy theories have been popular on the left as well – such as conspiracy theories about the CIA or Mossad. (Some CIA or Mossad conspiracy theories are probably true, but a lot of them surely aren't.) Here in Australia, traditional left-wing conspiracy theories include that the 1954 Petrov affair was a setup by Australian intelligence agencies, and that Australia's 1975 constitutional crisis was secretly engineered by London and Washington. My anecdotal experience is that the majority of people who believe in UFO conspiracy theories are left-leaning. And people who believe in UFO conspiracy theories are often inclined to believe lots of other conspiracy theories too.