5 ms·

I know this was only posted here an hour ago, but yikes… the comments here just add even more credibility to the assertion that anti-science sentiment has reall

by chabes 4y ago

I know this was only posted here an hour ago, but yikes… the comments here just add even more credibility to the assertion that anti-science sentiment has really spread like a disease. Even here, where I expect at least a semblance of thoughtful discussion on topics that are based on data and evidence, the comments are littered with Twitter-level reactionary nonsense.

miguelazo 4y ago
Here’s some data that might explain why some people are so upset. And since most people are unaware of these things and the media ignored/suppressed them, they dismiss such sentiments as “anti-science.” https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/timeline-the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2/ https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/timeline-the-proximal-ori...
pjc50 4y ago
[flagged]
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  [flagged]
brookst 4y ago
[flagged]
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - brookst 4y ago
    [flagged]
- petodo 4y ago
  > I’m constantly surprised at how much of an anti-science, anti-technology undercurrent there is on HN. I doubt anyone here is anti-science, you can't just cherrypick science results which suit your agenda and call other side anti-science because they see also different results. As for anti-technology, it's perfectle understandable people who are more familiar with technology than majority of the society are also more aware of potential risks, so they have problems with some new technology which brings new problems.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    There are people on this forum that refuse to accept climate change is a real thing that really happens that we really cause. That's anti-science
    - petodo 4y ago
      Again, I really doubt there is anyone denying there is climate change, which is natural phenomenon going continously for millions of years. The difference between people is some claim it's caused by us, while others claim it's natural and we are actually in cooler period now, so it's no big deal if planet will get warmer to levels seen before which are beneficial for development of life. I would be somewhere in between, of course going by butterfly effect we are contributing to it and maybe accelerating it, but I don't really see it as a bad thing.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    I'm anti-science in that I strongly believe that focusing most of our attention and funding on hard science (to the detriment of things like psychology, philosophy, metaphysics, etc) has contributed to the production of the substantial percentage of comments in threads like this that are excessively reductive and heuristic in origin, but not realized as such. If we had invested more of our resources into understanding people, perhaps we wouldn't be having so many problems (many of which are substantially imaginary) with people. On the brighter side, there's a popular proverb that says: “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.”
SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
People here are infected with some dumbness because you disagree? Here is how I look at it… If you went through the last three years, and have not come out a least a little more skeptical skeptical of government and our institutions, regardless of intentions; you will want to set the screen down.
- dfxm12 4y ago
  If you don't trust the government, what's that got to do with being anti-science?
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  The CDC and the WHO being stupid and having more than just public health on the mind when they made decisions changes nothing about the immunology community being fairly consistent and correct in their claims
epups 4y ago
I'm quite shocked as well. Faced with a criticism of anti-vaxx movements (unequivocably wrong), people are trying to bring up "other side" mistakes as if this is a political debate.
acdha 4y ago
This shows up in a number of areas and I think a major contributing factor is the loss of shared media: 40 years ago you had strong anti-science tendencies (e.g. that's when Exxon started funding climate change-denial, the tobacco companies were at the height of their power, etc.) but there was a limit to how effectively you could promote those narratives without alienating readers / viewers because there wasn't a cost-effective way to produce radically different broadcast programs or newspaper versions and get major advertisers on-board. That certainly wasn't perfect but it feels like we went from the flintlock musket era of propaganda to automatic weapons around the turn of the century when an increasing fraction of people started getting their news largely from hyper-partisan sources, especially ramping up after 9/11 when things like the warblogs started getting significant traffic numbers and zero editorial restraint. The biggest reason for concern I have here is that this isn't evenly distributed: it's basically the same people denying climate change, COVID, vaccination, etc. and that means that there isn't a great way for them to come back to a more objective reality without admitting that they were wrong on many issues and, in most cases, rather vicious to people who they used to consider friends. That's a hard pill to swallow and I don't imagine many of them will do it.
- pjc50 4y ago
  > flintlock musket era of propaganda to automatic weapons Can't wait for the AI propaganda era. The other day on Twitter someone was calling out a protest photo in which a cop's globe had the characteristic six fingers of an AI-hallucinated photo. We can now manufacture "proof" with photos and audio - and soon video - of anything we want! Isn't this great?
  - acdha 4y ago
    Yeah, I’m really not looking forward to the period where we’re basically just hoping the entire planet learns the importance of validating provenance.
fwungy 4y ago
Rape is a (reprehensible) form of sex. I am anti-rape, but I am not anti-sex.

by chabes 4y ago

miguelazo 4y ago

Here’s some data that might explain why some people are so upset. And since most people are unaware of these things and the media ignored/suppressed them, they dismiss such sentiments as “anti-science.” https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/timeline-the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2/ https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/timeline-the-proximal-ori...

pjc50 4y ago

[flagged]

mrguyorama 4y ago
[flagged]

brookst 4y ago

[flagged]

actually_a_dog 4y ago
[flagged]
- brookst 4y ago
  [flagged]
petodo 4y ago
> I’m constantly surprised at how much of an anti-science, anti-technology undercurrent there is on HN. I doubt anyone here is anti-science, you can't just cherrypick science results which suit your agenda and call other side anti-science because they see also different results. As for anti-technology, it's perfectle understandable people who are more familiar with technology than majority of the society are also more aware of potential risks, so they have problems with some new technology which brings new problems.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  There are people on this forum that refuse to accept climate change is a real thing that really happens that we really cause. That's anti-science
  - petodo 4y ago
    Again, I really doubt there is anyone denying there is climate change, which is natural phenomenon going continously for millions of years. The difference between people is some claim it's caused by us, while others claim it's natural and we are actually in cooler period now, so it's no big deal if planet will get warmer to levels seen before which are beneficial for development of life. I would be somewhere in between, of course going by butterfly effect we are contributing to it and maybe accelerating it, but I don't really see it as a bad thing.
- mistermann 4y ago
  I'm anti-science in that I strongly believe that focusing most of our attention and funding on hard science (to the detriment of things like psychology, philosophy, metaphysics, etc) has contributed to the production of the substantial percentage of comments in threads like this that are excessively reductive and heuristic in origin, but not realized as such. If we had invested more of our resources into understanding people, perhaps we wouldn't be having so many problems (many of which are substantially imaginary) with people. On the brighter side, there's a popular proverb that says: “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.”

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

People here are infected with some dumbness because you disagree? Here is how I look at it… If you went through the last three years, and have not come out a least a little more skeptical skeptical of government and our institutions, regardless of intentions; you will want to set the screen down.

dfxm12 4y ago
If you don't trust the government, what's that got to do with being anti-science?
mrguyorama 4y ago
The CDC and the WHO being stupid and having more than just public health on the mind when they made decisions changes nothing about the immunology community being fairly consistent and correct in their claims

epups 4y ago

I'm quite shocked as well. Faced with a criticism of anti-vaxx movements (unequivocably wrong), people are trying to bring up "other side" mistakes as if this is a political debate.

acdha 4y ago

This shows up in a number of areas and I think a major contributing factor is the loss of shared media: 40 years ago you had strong anti-science tendencies (e.g. that's when Exxon started funding climate change-denial, the tobacco companies were at the height of their power, etc.) but there was a limit to how effectively you could promote those narratives without alienating readers / viewers because there wasn't a cost-effective way to produce radically different broadcast programs or newspaper versions and get major advertisers on-board. That certainly wasn't perfect but it feels like we went from the flintlock musket era of propaganda to automatic weapons around the turn of the century when an increasing fraction of people started getting their news largely from hyper-partisan sources, especially ramping up after 9/11 when things like the warblogs started getting significant traffic numbers and zero editorial restraint. The biggest reason for concern I have here is that this isn't evenly distributed: it's basically the same people denying climate change, COVID, vaccination, etc. and that means that there isn't a great way for them to come back to a more objective reality without admitting that they were wrong on many issues and, in most cases, rather vicious to people who they used to consider friends. That's a hard pill to swallow and I don't imagine many of them will do it.

pjc50 4y ago
> flintlock musket era of propaganda to automatic weapons Can't wait for the AI propaganda era. The other day on Twitter someone was calling out a protest photo in which a cop's globe had the characteristic six fingers of an AI-hallucinated photo. We can now manufacture "proof" with photos and audio - and soon video - of anything we want! Isn't this great?
- acdha 4y ago
  Yeah, I’m really not looking forward to the period where we’re basically just hoping the entire planet learns the importance of validating provenance.

fwungy 4y ago

Rape is a (reprehensible) form of sex. I am anti-rape, but I am not anti-sex.