3 ms·

You can cherry pick any religion for good that it has achieved

ggm 4y ago
Your key point is that scientism, rei-ification of science is borderline belief-system behaviour, at the very least. Your pejorative language says you think its pushed well into the space. Fair enough. What I am doing is saying "baby/bathwater" time. Public communications depends on not legitimating anti-vaxx (for example) but if it depends on belief system behaviour rather than being able to apply objective science outcomes to demonstrate the "why" -it's got problems.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
  What you are arguing for is a pro-establishment stance, it is not a pro-science stance. By conflating the two you devalue science, you are muddying the bath water and poisoning the baby, making science politics and destroying its credibility. If you remove nuance from public communications to avoid legitimizing "anti-vaxx" rhetoric, a proposition that I find anti-democratic and self-defeating given that it assumes the public is too dumb to hear nuance, then you cannot use science as a shield because science is nuanced.
  - ggm 4y ago
    I would absolutely prefer what you want. I am unsure in a post truth world how to make it work. Perhaps my view is the other side of the blatant anti scientific posture of the Koch funded right: no amount of reasoned nuance about AGW will stop a coal mine owner claiming its nasa funded lies and no amount of reasoned nuanced argument will make the coal mine worker want to believe science, over his paymasters lies. Not that leftists haven't promulgated antiscienfific crap before now, lysenkoism comes to mind. It's just not the current problem.
  - savingsPossible 4y ago
    > that it assumes the public is too dumb to hear nuance It is! It empirically is! Don't assume it, test it!
    - mistermann 4y ago
      While composing this comment, did you consider that the dimension of time is implicit (and hidden from perception) in the version of "is" that you are using here? Also hidden: sub-perceptual heuristics. And culture. And surely many other things beyond my knowledge. The hard problem of consciousness is so poorly understood by science, I wonder if that is why it is simply ~ignored in conversations like this, where it is so fundamentally important.

ggm 4y ago

Your key point is that scientism, rei-ification of science is borderline belief-system behaviour, at the very least. Your pejorative language says you think its pushed well into the space. Fair enough. What I am doing is saying "baby/bathwater" time. Public communications depends on not legitimating anti-vaxx (for example) but if it depends on belief system behaviour rather than being able to apply objective science outcomes to demonstrate the "why" -it's got problems.

ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
What you are arguing for is a pro-establishment stance, it is not a pro-science stance. By conflating the two you devalue science, you are muddying the bath water and poisoning the baby, making science politics and destroying its credibility. If you remove nuance from public communications to avoid legitimizing "anti-vaxx" rhetoric, a proposition that I find anti-democratic and self-defeating given that it assumes the public is too dumb to hear nuance, then you cannot use science as a shield because science is nuanced.
- ggm 4y ago
  I would absolutely prefer what you want. I am unsure in a post truth world how to make it work. Perhaps my view is the other side of the blatant anti scientific posture of the Koch funded right: no amount of reasoned nuance about AGW will stop a coal mine owner claiming its nasa funded lies and no amount of reasoned nuanced argument will make the coal mine worker want to believe science, over his paymasters lies. Not that leftists haven't promulgated antiscienfific crap before now, lysenkoism comes to mind. It's just not the current problem.
- savingsPossible 4y ago
  > that it assumes the public is too dumb to hear nuance It is! It empirically is! Don't assume it, test it!
  - mistermann 4y ago
    While composing this comment, did you consider that the dimension of time is implicit (and hidden from perception) in the version of "is" that you are using here? Also hidden: sub-perceptual heuristics. And culture. And surely many other things beyond my knowledge. The hard problem of consciousness is so poorly understood by science, I wonder if that is why it is simply ~ignored in conversations like this, where it is so fundamentally important.