4 ms·

You keep repeating yourself and don't respond to what I'm saying (even though I do address your arguments). I didn't talk about whether I thought anti-vaxxers w

by atleta 5y ago

You keep repeating yourself and don't respond to what I'm saying (even though I do address your arguments). I didn't talk about whether I thought anti-vaxxers were brain washed, so it's a strawman. And I've already explained in detail what's the problem with bringing up individual examples especially from the far past where some scientists were right against the majority. So I see 0 point in you coming up with more and more examples. > Joseph Lister discovered antiseptic theory during routine medical practice and was mocked at > first by other doctors who didn't want to switch instruments between surgurys. Just to mention an earlier, related case: there was a Hungarian guy called Ignaz Semmelweis [1] who figured out the importance of antiseptics before Lister. He had very tragic fate. He published his results then he was mocked by fellow doctors, he basically went crazy for not being able to make a change (though he may have had a condition too), put into an insane asylum, where he died after a short time at the age of 47. He gets little credit outside of Hungary (where I'm from) because he didn't figure out the exact biological causes for the infections (he didn't connect these to bacteria) so some science historians think he was just right by accident. But that's not true. He used observations and statistics to identify that the cause of the relatively common death due to childbed fever of women after giving birth was infection by the doctors who also did autopsy. He had a wrong theory about how "cadaverous matter" would cause illness through decomposition which would make both dead bodies and doctors hand smell. And he found that chlorinated lime solution would remove the smell and thus he though the "cadaverous material" so he started using it to wash his hands and convinced colleagues in the hospital to do the same which resulted in a rapid and sharp improvements in the death statistics. (So again, while his theory was wrong, his method and results were right.) But as I said above, science has built in these experiences and this knowledge, so science to day is built on much better foundations and better methods than in Semmelweis' or Lister's time. And it's not that just we know more because we accepted their discoveries. We know how to do science better, how to be right more often and wrong less frequently. And again: what's your alternative suggestion? Where's your proof that discussing all these "alternate opinions", which completely ignore the scientific method, on social media gives any better results (and, indeed not worse results)? The "you need better ideas" assumption is not only unfounded it's also naive and wrong. We have experiments to show that people believe stupid things even if/when they do have access to the scientific truth. Because the former can be formulated in more attractive, easier to digest ways than the reality. (After all, they don't have to match reality so they are way more malleable.) Unfortunately it's not about having access to better information or "better" ideas. You can't have better ideas than what matches the reality (or, in other words, your best current knowledge) but considerable fraction people get attracted to ideas based on not how "good" (meaningful, accurate) they are. > Galileo was excommunicated for going against mainstream science. Again, you already said that and I responded to that, which you 100% ignored, but I forgot to mention that: a) Gallileo wasn't excommunicated, he was forced to retract his theories by the catholic church, not fellow scientists. b) he was actually wrong. He thought the Sun was the center of the universe, which is clearly wrong. (But of course, less wrong and way more useful than the previous ideas. But that's the point: science evolves by getting things less wrong over time.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis#Breakdown_and_death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis#Breakdown_and...

nickthemagicman 5y ago
Do you think Google and Facebook are putting every item that they ban through some sort of a scientific review were they carefully weigh the pros and cons of all the data of every side of a debate? Like there's a bunch of older gentlemen with beards and pipes and philosophy phds sitting around a room discussing the cultural merits of the song wet ass pussy. My best guess at how the censorship process works is there's a bunch of really low paid people that censor things based on a narrative page provided to them.
- atleta 5y ago
  > Do you think Google and Facebook are putting every item that they ban through some sort of a scientific > review were they carefully weigh the pros and cons of all the data of every side of a debate? You're right, of course, they don't. OTOH, as I said earlier, there is very little scientific value (if any) in posting on social media, so this kind of censorship cannot hinder scientific advance/getting to know the reality better. Also, they actually only seem to block pretty blatant cases (like if someone says that there is no pandemic or vaccines don't work) and most of the content is pretty primitive and low value anyway. I see a lot of this shit, either because the censorship is not too strict or because they put a lot less effort into the non-English corners of their networks. Actually, most things that FB marks with a warning that you should only trust official sources are scientifically correct posts (e.g. from research labs or experts posting valid research papers). And the stupidity, the "alternate view" seems to go undetected. I've reported quite a few blatantly stupid posts out of curiosity and none of them were taken down. Not even the "5G activates the vaccines" types. > My best guess at how the censorship process works is there's a bunch of really low > paid people that censor things based on a narrative page provided to them. This seems pretty likely. That must be one of the reasons they don't act on most actual misinformation. Though they should be able to use technology, because a lot of the misinformation I see is either some post (or video) being shared a large number of times (they could give those special attention) or reposting of the same content (could be a video, but mostly copy&pasted text). Of course, there are stupid comments too, but those would be very hard to censor efficiently (without actually harming the discourse - even if not the scientific discourse). There are also well known profiles that are dedicated to spreading misinformation that don't get censored at all. Again, here in Hungary there is a(n ex-)pharmacist who has been cranking out nonsense since the very beginning. He very likely is building his profile for the general elections next year (he did participate 4 and 8 years ago). But he might be simply just an idiot. He would be very easy to take down, given he's relatively high profile (as a denier by all means), FB could afford to have one of their more expensive collegaues to spend a few days on him. But they don't care. Actually, they are even motivated to keep him on the site because he generates a lot of interactions... So to me it seems that if anything, then we need more censorship, not less. (But it doesn't have to mean banning the discussion, even if they would just cut the obvious and blatant misinformation, that would help a lot.)

by atleta 5y ago

nickthemagicman 5y ago

Do you think Google and Facebook are putting every item that they ban through some sort of a scientific review were they carefully weigh the pros and cons of all the data of every side of a debate? Like there's a bunch of older gentlemen with beards and pipes and philosophy phds sitting around a room discussing the cultural merits of the song wet ass pussy. My best guess at how the censorship process works is there's a bunch of really low paid people that censor things based on a narrative page provided to them.

atleta 5y ago
> Do you think Google and Facebook are putting every item that they ban through some sort of a scientific > review were they carefully weigh the pros and cons of all the data of every side of a debate? You're right, of course, they don't. OTOH, as I said earlier, there is very little scientific value (if any) in posting on social media, so this kind of censorship cannot hinder scientific advance/getting to know the reality better. Also, they actually only seem to block pretty blatant cases (like if someone says that there is no pandemic or vaccines don't work) and most of the content is pretty primitive and low value anyway. I see a lot of this shit, either because the censorship is not too strict or because they put a lot less effort into the non-English corners of their networks. Actually, most things that FB marks with a warning that you should only trust official sources are scientifically correct posts (e.g. from research labs or experts posting valid research papers). And the stupidity, the "alternate view" seems to go undetected. I've reported quite a few blatantly stupid posts out of curiosity and none of them were taken down. Not even the "5G activates the vaccines" types. > My best guess at how the censorship process works is there's a bunch of really low > paid people that censor things based on a narrative page provided to them. This seems pretty likely. That must be one of the reasons they don't act on most actual misinformation. Though they should be able to use technology, because a lot of the misinformation I see is either some post (or video) being shared a large number of times (they could give those special attention) or reposting of the same content (could be a video, but mostly copy&pasted text). Of course, there are stupid comments too, but those would be very hard to censor efficiently (without actually harming the discourse - even if not the scientific discourse). There are also well known profiles that are dedicated to spreading misinformation that don't get censored at all. Again, here in Hungary there is a(n ex-)pharmacist who has been cranking out nonsense since the very beginning. He very likely is building his profile for the general elections next year (he did participate 4 and 8 years ago). But he might be simply just an idiot. He would be very easy to take down, given he's relatively high profile (as a denier by all means), FB could afford to have one of their more expensive collegaues to spend a few days on him. But they don't care. Actually, they are even motivated to keep him on the site because he generates a lot of interactions... So to me it seems that if anything, then we need more censorship, not less. (But it doesn't have to mean banning the discussion, even if they would just cut the obvious and blatant misinformation, that would help a lot.)