3 ms·
To exemplify the difference between science and politics: - Nuclear is safer than coal: science (true or not, it's not the point) - We need to go all the way
by AshamedCaptain 4y ago
To exemplify the difference between science and politics:
- Nuclear is safer than coal: science (true or not, it's not the point)
- We need to go all the way nuclear: politics. There's a million other things to consider, many of them don't even each into the realm of what is falsifiable (e.g international relations, fuel availability, who knows). _Even_ if nuclear was literally the safest method ever, it is literally still politics whether to use nuclear or not; after all, we sacrifice safety for convenience _many_ times, and good luck defining "convenience" in a scientific way.
Another example:
- Vaccines are safe and effective (scientific; true or not is not the point)
- Vaccines are safe enough compared to the risk of catching the disease itself ("social" sciences; caveat emptor)
- We should force everyone to vaccinate (politics). It does not matter if vaccines are safe, or not. It is still a political topic, not scientific. There are things like ethics, social vs individual rights, etc. that are hardly quantifiable much less scientific.
- knorker 4y agoI don't think this is relevant to my point. Not wrong, just not relevant. Individuals who are anti nuclear have reasons, explicitly stated, that are misinformed. Being anti nuclear because Chernobyl is in fact like being anti airplane because Hindenburg. The criticism is actually (in this analogy) that they claim the hydrogen in a 747 will catch fire. "It's not hydrogen, it's just filled with oxygen and nitrogen" is met with "then what if that spontaneously combusts?!". But in a way you make a good point. "I don't want to have a rational discussion or learn anything" is indeed the anti nuclear stance. "I don't want the truth, i just want to be right" is political. The other things you mention are not really even known to anti nuclear people. Wanting to be right despite facts or ignorance is almost the definition of politics. People say they're anti nuclear because they want to spare us radiation and death, but when you tell them nuclear would reduce both then they just scream louder. You can be factually wrong in politics. When your stated and internal reasons don't align with what your actions will accomplish, then that's wrong.
- bawolff 4y agoThese are bad examples. "Vaccines are safe and effective" is not scientific because science can deal with comparisons, it cannot deal with absolutes. You can scientificly say something is safe compared to something else, or define safe in some way (less then 1 in X chance of something happening statistically). But there is no such thing as 100% absolute safety. Even an injection with saline is not safe in the absolute. E.g. if there is a 1 in a trillion chance of a side effect, you will never see it, because there arent a trillion people on earth.
- AshamedCaptain 4y agoYou are completely right. I actually wanted to write "vaccinates are this safe and effective".