4 ms·
> I don’t see how any society could function if it didn’t have a strict anti-bullshit filter I don't see how science can ultimately function if you aren't allo
by cronix 5y ago
> I don’t see how any society could function if it didn’t have a strict anti-bullshit filter
I don't see how science can ultimately function if you aren't allowed to push back and legitimately question things. All things. How many times have we, years or hundreds or thousands of years later, come back and disproved something that was a "scientifically proven" thing in the past? How would you accomplish that if you aren't allowed to talk about it? Relatively few things in science are actually indisputable, and I question even that. Some things that we think are indisputable today we might laugh at a thousand years from now, just like we laugh at some of the primitive thoughts our ancestors had, but were cutting edge for the day. Science is the pursuit of truth through rigorous testing and pushback. Eventually, if proven enough times, we call it a law. You have to be open to being completely wrong to actually obtain that level. Free speech is paramount to science, as well as society.
Society, as a whole, has worked fairly well without "bullshit filters." It's when you start putting them on that you start having issues, and often in areas that you didn't anticipate, because at that point you're acting on a belief and not a fact.
I highly recommend reading Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Here's an interview to give a preview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JpQFVXGzUI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JpQFVXGzUI
- plokiju 5y ago> Society, as a whole, has worked fairly well without "bullshit filters." It's when you start putting them on that you start having issues When has society ever not had bullshit filters? Intellectual debate goes both ways. The more your ideas go outside of the mainstream understanding of your peers, the more push back, ridiculing, and “cancelation” you will likely be subjected to by the scientific community Very few geniuses are appreciated until after their death. scientific consensus takes time
- cronix 5y ago> When has society ever not had bullshit filters? I absolutely accept "I don't have to listen to you" as a bs filter. "That guy's nuts, I don't believe a thing he's saying." I don't accept "we won't allow others to listen to you question things" as a filter.
- mcguire 5y ago"I don't see how science can ultimately function if you aren't allowed to push back and legitimately question things." Can you demonstrate an understanding of the things you are questioning? Do you have reasonable arguments to support your questions? And most importantly, are you doing your questioning in good faith?
- dolni 5y ago> And most importantly, are you doing your questioning in good faith? Worrying about "good faith" is a pointless waste of time. You don't know, and can't know with certainty, whether a question is in good faith. Your assessment of good faith is based on feelings and those don't have a scientific basis. If you reject or criticize a question on the basis of an actor's "good faith", then that actually makes you the one who is unscientific. But the great thing about this is that this doesn't even matter. Bullshit questions will be easily refutable. And if they're not, it's because those doing the science haven't done a thorough enough job yet.
- mcguire 5y ago"[Tobacco smoking] has been a major health problem for many decades. For the entire 20th century it is estimated that around 100 million people died prematurely because of smoking, most of them in rich countries." (https://ourworldindata.org/smoking https://ourworldindata.org/smoking)