5 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoI 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 agoRight, 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.