3 ms·

The answer is "no". If the system refuses to face truth, you will need to circumvent the system. The opposite of that gives us institutions that are continuall

The answer is "no". If the system refuses to face truth, you will need to circumvent the system. The opposite of that gives us institutions that are continually disseminating lies, in the process undermining trust in institutions. Truth doesn't get "invited to conversations". It is always part of it, and the choice is just spoken or unspoken.

anthony_d 4y ago
> If the system refuses to face truth, you will need to circumvent the system. That is a terrifying sentence. It can be used to justify anything while denying accountability. There's always the possibility (probability) that you are wrong about what is "the truth."
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- culi 4y ago
  I completely agree with you but I don't really think it's relevant to this situation. The situation is not a decision between 2 different possible truths. It's a decision to sweep something under the rug. Something that we know will have an effect, we just don't know the magnitude of it. When faced with ambiguity we should take a best guess (even if it's a "conservative" guess) not ignore everything because its more politically convenient The "best guess" was clearly not taken here
- carapace 4y ago
  Right, that's why empiricism and the scientific method are so important. This is in the context of scientists being "invited to participate in the conversation or not", eh?
- groby_b 4y ago
  "face truth" is not exactly "anything". The desired outcome is - which is pretty damn obvious from the context here - that the system will need to face up to truth. And I'm certainly not sure how any of this denies accountability. Maybe you're just projecting a little bit much into a single sentence?
- vkou 4y ago
  > That is a terrifying sentence It is. But so is the situation under discussion. When you have the choice between getting silenced for the truth, or keeping quiet about a disaster, the people putting you in this dilemma aren't doing so by using tools of reason or debate - but with tools of power and terror.

anthony_d 4y ago

> If the system refuses to face truth, you will need to circumvent the system. That is a terrifying sentence. It can be used to justify anything while denying accountability. There's always the possibility (probability) that you are wrong about what is "the truth."

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
culi 4y ago
I completely agree with you but I don't really think it's relevant to this situation. The situation is not a decision between 2 different possible truths. It's a decision to sweep something under the rug. Something that we know will have an effect, we just don't know the magnitude of it. When faced with ambiguity we should take a best guess (even if it's a "conservative" guess) not ignore everything because its more politically convenient The "best guess" was clearly not taken here
carapace 4y ago
Right, that's why empiricism and the scientific method are so important. This is in the context of scientists being "invited to participate in the conversation or not", eh?
groby_b 4y ago
"face truth" is not exactly "anything". The desired outcome is - which is pretty damn obvious from the context here - that the system will need to face up to truth. And I'm certainly not sure how any of this denies accountability. Maybe you're just projecting a little bit much into a single sentence?
vkou 4y ago
> That is a terrifying sentence It is. But so is the situation under discussion. When you have the choice between getting silenced for the truth, or keeping quiet about a disaster, the people putting you in this dilemma aren't doing so by using tools of reason or debate - but with tools of power and terror.