5 ms·

Sure, but: 1. Lots of correct scientific ideas were considered outright heretical (not just merely fringe), prior to mainstream acceptance. If you exclude 'fri

by nomilk 5y ago

Sure, but: 1. Lots of correct scientific ideas were considered outright heretical (not just merely fringe), prior to mainstream acceptance. If you exclude 'fringe' ideas, you exclude the bad ones and the good ones. 2. People who get duped will simply stop listening. Example: This week I was duped by a youtuber, and will never rely on that source again [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30137025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30137025

paulryanrogers 5y ago
Science and consensus being wrong sometimes doesn't mean we have to actively promote widely debunked crap. Or that we cannot boycott and complain about it. I'd say we can even call for it to no longer be published. And if it can be shown to actively cause significant harm the legal system can respond.
- fastball 5y ago
  Yes exactly! Censorship is how we move science forward!
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    You jest but elevating reproducible evidence and refuting sloppy 'evidence'/analysis is how science advances.
    - NateEag 5y ago
      And neither of those are censorship. To refute sloppy analysis, the sloppy analysis must be published and available.
      - Sirened 5y ago
        Science journals do not publish bunk papers because there is no value in publishing facially wrong things
        fastball 5y ago
        Right but JRE isn't a science journal, and neither is Spotify?
  - willis936 5y ago
    Shutting down psuedoscience prevents science from moving backward.
    - fastball 5y ago
      Citation? I assume you have some scientific evidence to support such an assertion.
      - willis936 5y ago
        I must assume you're being serious in my response, but this really does not feel like a genuine effort was put in when forming this take. Science follows the scientific method. Pseudoscience, definitionally, is anything that identifies as science but does not follow the scientific method. A study is not needed to demonstrate that not following the scientific method lessens the usage of the scientific method. No one would bother peer reviewing or publishing trivial work. It is a waste of time.
        fastball 5y ago
        > A study is not needed to demonstrate that not following the scientific method lessens the usage of the scientific method Again, you're treating this as a given when it is anything but. Sure, pseudoscience means you're not doing science, but people promoting pseudoscience weren't necessarily going to being doing science instead / the people listening to them wouldn't necessarily be listening to science instead. In other words, science and pseudoscience are not a zero-sum game. In fact, the existence / publication of pseudoscience could actually galvanize "real" scientists to do more work than they otherwise would've to prove things scientifically. Not saying this is the case, but again, your assertion is far from a given. Also, although we like to pretend that "science" is some concrete ideal, it is really not. For example, I mainly consider things to be scientific in line with Karl Popper's thinking re: falsifiability, which would cause me to lump a lot of "science" done today in the "not super sciency" category alongside some of the more clearly bunk pseudoscience.
- choward 5y ago
  > doesn't mean we have to actively promote widely debunked crap If it's so widely debunked then why do you care? Should be easy to shoot down on a debate. Oh and you don't have to listen.
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    Nor most I support publishers profiting from such crap. Or even stay silent when it is given credence by popular hosts.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
yes but 99.99% of antivaxxer logic is easy to disprove with known science. I'm going with statistics on something as trivial as a podcast. Also I think people that don't like JR experience have two really good options, unsubscribe or simply don't listen to him. Why is everyone so negative? Lots of -good- people are on spotify, why concentrate on the negative? I just don't get why to the cancel culture types everything has to be cancelled or their world is completely out of balance and existence is awful.
- donmcronald 5y ago
  > I just don't get why to the cancel culture types everything has to be cancelled or their world is completely out of balance and existence is awful. I don't think I'd put this situation in the same bucket as cancel culture. The spread of Covid misinformation, especially anti-vaccination stuff, has a provable impact on the healthcare system which forces our governments to ask us to endure more restrictions than would be necessary if vaccine hesitancy wasn't a thing. People like Rogan are sitting there complaining about government overreach while exacerbating the problem by spreading misinformation. As the distributor I think Spotify has an obligation to put a stop to it. I'm not saying he should be cancelled, but they need to tell him to get back to entertaining and to leave the medical advice to the experts in that field.
  - choward 5y ago
    > has a provable impact on the healthcare system which forces our governments to ask us to endure more restrictions than would be necessary if vaccine hesitancy wasn't a thing It's exactly this kind of misinformation that leads to people calling for censorship. You honestly think if there was MORE censorship there would be LESS vaccine hesitancy and the government would be implementing LESS mandates? That's dillusional and you have no evidence of it. Censorship has a provable impact on people's trust. If you censor competing viewpoints then guess what? I'm less likely to believe yours. The only way I believe anything is if competing viewpoints are allowed. If they aren't then I don't believe you can defend your viewpoint. I don't just blindly trust anybody. You have to show evidence and prove yourself.
philistine 5y ago
Regarding 1, science makes zero progress on an entertainment show. The correct way to scientific redress is through publication of peer-reviewed literature. That's how you get mainstream acceptance in science. Science is not the consensus of opinions in the general public. Quite the contrary. Come back to me when Nature censors something for ideological reasons.
- throwaway_r211 5y ago
  > science makes zero progress on an entertainment show Someone better tell Bill Nye and Niel.
  - NateEag 5y ago
    I watched a little Bill Nye as a kid but it didn't teach me anything at all about the scientific method or falsification. That may have been my own fault - I don't remember enough to know. Just saying.
- fastball 5y ago
  > Come back to me when Nature censors something for ideological reasons. I would be genuinely surprised to find this hasn't already happened.

by nomilk 5y ago

paulryanrogers 5y ago

Science and consensus being wrong sometimes doesn't mean we have to actively promote widely debunked crap. Or that we cannot boycott and complain about it. I'd say we can even call for it to no longer be published. And if it can be shown to actively cause significant harm the legal system can respond.

fastball 5y ago
Yes exactly! Censorship is how we move science forward!
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  You jest but elevating reproducible evidence and refuting sloppy 'evidence'/analysis is how science advances.
  - NateEag 5y ago
    And neither of those are censorship. To refute sloppy analysis, the sloppy analysis must be published and available.
    - Sirened 5y ago
      Science journals do not publish bunk papers because there is no value in publishing facially wrong things
      - fastball 5y ago
        Right but JRE isn't a science journal, and neither is Spotify?
- willis936 5y ago
  Shutting down psuedoscience prevents science from moving backward.
  - fastball 5y ago
    Citation? I assume you have some scientific evidence to support such an assertion.
    - willis936 5y ago
      I must assume you're being serious in my response, but this really does not feel like a genuine effort was put in when forming this take. Science follows the scientific method. Pseudoscience, definitionally, is anything that identifies as science but does not follow the scientific method. A study is not needed to demonstrate that not following the scientific method lessens the usage of the scientific method. No one would bother peer reviewing or publishing trivial work. It is a waste of time.
      - fastball 5y ago
        > A study is not needed to demonstrate that not following the scientific method lessens the usage of the scientific method Again, you're treating this as a given when it is anything but. Sure, pseudoscience means you're not doing science, but people promoting pseudoscience weren't necessarily going to being doing science instead / the people listening to them wouldn't necessarily be listening to science instead. In other words, science and pseudoscience are not a zero-sum game. In fact, the existence / publication of pseudoscience could actually galvanize "real" scientists to do more work than they otherwise would've to prove things scientifically. Not saying this is the case, but again, your assertion is far from a given. Also, although we like to pretend that "science" is some concrete ideal, it is really not. For example, I mainly consider things to be scientific in line with Karl Popper's thinking re: falsifiability, which would cause me to lump a lot of "science" done today in the "not super sciency" category alongside some of the more clearly bunk pseudoscience.
choward 5y ago
> doesn't mean we have to actively promote widely debunked crap If it's so widely debunked then why do you care? Should be easy to shoot down on a debate. Oh and you don't have to listen.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  Nor most I support publishers profiting from such crap. Or even stay silent when it is given credence by popular hosts.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

yes but 99.99% of antivaxxer logic is easy to disprove with known science. I'm going with statistics on something as trivial as a podcast. Also I think people that don't like JR experience have two really good options, unsubscribe or simply don't listen to him. Why is everyone so negative? Lots of -good- people are on spotify, why concentrate on the negative? I just don't get why to the cancel culture types everything has to be cancelled or their world is completely out of balance and existence is awful.

donmcronald 5y ago
> I just don't get why to the cancel culture types everything has to be cancelled or their world is completely out of balance and existence is awful. I don't think I'd put this situation in the same bucket as cancel culture. The spread of Covid misinformation, especially anti-vaccination stuff, has a provable impact on the healthcare system which forces our governments to ask us to endure more restrictions than would be necessary if vaccine hesitancy wasn't a thing. People like Rogan are sitting there complaining about government overreach while exacerbating the problem by spreading misinformation. As the distributor I think Spotify has an obligation to put a stop to it. I'm not saying he should be cancelled, but they need to tell him to get back to entertaining and to leave the medical advice to the experts in that field.
- choward 5y ago
  > has a provable impact on the healthcare system which forces our governments to ask us to endure more restrictions than would be necessary if vaccine hesitancy wasn't a thing It's exactly this kind of misinformation that leads to people calling for censorship. You honestly think if there was MORE censorship there would be LESS vaccine hesitancy and the government would be implementing LESS mandates? That's dillusional and you have no evidence of it. Censorship has a provable impact on people's trust. If you censor competing viewpoints then guess what? I'm less likely to believe yours. The only way I believe anything is if competing viewpoints are allowed. If they aren't then I don't believe you can defend your viewpoint. I don't just blindly trust anybody. You have to show evidence and prove yourself.

philistine 5y ago

Regarding 1, science makes zero progress on an entertainment show. The correct way to scientific redress is through publication of peer-reviewed literature. That's how you get mainstream acceptance in science. Science is not the consensus of opinions in the general public. Quite the contrary. Come back to me when Nature censors something for ideological reasons.

throwaway_r211 5y ago
> science makes zero progress on an entertainment show Someone better tell Bill Nye and Niel.
- NateEag 5y ago
  I watched a little Bill Nye as a kid but it didn't teach me anything at all about the scientific method or falsification. That may have been my own fault - I don't remember enough to know. Just saying.
fastball 5y ago
> Come back to me when Nature censors something for ideological reasons. I would be genuinely surprised to find this hasn't already happened.