9 ms·
> despite no proof that it isn't a possibility Because you don’t get to come up with a “theory” and dump the burden of the proof on someone else. That’s incred
by f6v 3y ago
> despite no proof that it isn't a possibility
Because you don’t get to come up with a “theory” and dump the burden of the proof on someone else. That’s incredibly stupid. Not how how science and common sense work.
- STM32F030R8 3y agoSince when? It may not be a good argument but should we be deplatforming people over it? Go to Reddit front page right now and try to find something that isn’t a poorly argued political post. What’s the difference? Just because you may disagree with someone it doesn’t mean they NEED to be silenced.
- stonogo 3y agoPolitics is about how you think things should be run. Science is about what we have evidence for. They are not the same thing.
- ipaddr 3y agoScience is about coming up with a hypnosis or theory and testing it. The evidence comes at the end not before the theory
- muti 3y agoWe don't give any credence to untested hypotheses
- stonogo 3y agoWe generally don't employ hypnosis. Sometimes we even skip the hypothesis step, because "what the hell is that" is enough to start generating data. Don't confuse all of scientific research with the scientific method; it's just one method of investigation.
- f6v 3y agoA theory is usually based on some prior knowledge or observations. But let’s forget that for a second. In the anti-vax case, their argument is: “All your research in favor of vaccinating the population is wrong. We don’t have any evidence for it, but you should turn your public health policy 180 degrees!”. I don’t why it’s so hard to grasp the issue.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- josephcsible 3y agoAre you saying that people shouldn't get to publicly say anything that they don't have proof of?
- f6v 3y agoI think in practice free speech should be limited if it’s clearly damaging. In case of anti-vax movement, it’s just crystal clear that allowing them to spread the word was detrimental to public health. So I’m in favor banning those who use their rights to free speech to undermine the policies and efforts that are put forward to save lives. Like, I don’t care about flat earth wackos. And I see how the concept of “misinformation” can be used very broadly to silence political opponents. But I do wish there was a perfect solution.
- josephcsible 3y ago> I think in practice free speech should be limited if it’s clearly damaging. The problem with that position is, who decides what counts as "clearly damaging"? What if the government and media were extremely anti-vaccine and chose to censor pro-vaccine speech instead, calling it "clearly damaging"?