6 ms·

This article is interpreting events in a way that casts a revealing shadow. There is a subtle and difficult concept - it is a terrible idea to force people to b

by roenxi 3y ago

This article is interpreting events in a way that casts a revealing shadow. There is a subtle and difficult concept - it is a terrible idea to force people to behave in line with the best available evidence. In this era, it is hard to point that out without mentioning COVID so, y'know. COVID. But it has been true for long before that and it'll be true after the COVID response is forgotten. People should be allowed to behave in ways that are inconsistent with the best available scientific knowledge. Otherwise, ironically, misconceptions will persist more readily.

avloss11 3y ago
What about those who deny "HIV causing AIDS", and don't take their medications? I guess it's really about people. And if the people in charge have your best interests at heart. With COVID, I feel like it was a bunch of technocrats, that had no "human touch". As for "heliocentric / geocentric" - didn't that all become irrelevant once we've learned there's no "ether"? All models are equally valid/invalid. Or perhaps I'm missing something.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  The problem with communicable diseases is that "the people in charge" are both people at various levels trying to impose or convince people to act in certain ways, as well as the individuals who are literally walking around infectious, or with disregard to whether or not they and those they interact with are infectious. > With COVID, I feel like it was a bunch of technocrats, that had no "human touch". No one speaking ex cathedra to a populous has a human touch that will speak to everyone they're speaking to. I once went to a personality theory conference and enjoyed myself, but the endnote speaker gave a talk where he mentioned the need for love (or something in that vein using the word "love"), and I immediately felt alienated from the entire event.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    crap, "populace".
- analog31 3y ago
  It became irrelevant when experiments were able to detect a rotating reference frame through precise tests of Newton's laws. I'm thinking of the Coriolis force and Foucault's pendulum as examples.
- smsm42 3y ago
  > What about those who deny "HIV causing AIDS", and don't take their medications? You may consider that for the argument "current consensus is not always true and should not be enforced as if it were always true" the argument "but what about this one case where it was true" is not a counter-argument.
ajross 3y ago
I don't see how that follows at all. Academic arguments about the structure of the heavens are irrelevancies except to the people in the argument (and those threatened by it). Sure, absolutely: you don't censor opinions about astronomy just because they seem "probably wrong" or demand blind adherence to the best available theory. You do the science, because sometimes scientists are wrong. But pandemic advice isn't about doing good science, it's about risk management. If your goal is to keep as many people alive as possible, you bet on the consensus science because it's probably right. And it was.
- mayd 3y ago
  The scientific method is the only method of enquiry that is valid if you are doing science. In science, skepticism of every theory, new or old, is expected, encouraged and valued, because, according to the scientific method, every theory is potentially falsifiable. Skepticism and consensus are conflicting concepts. Consensus has no place in science as method of determining truth. You cannot form a scientific conclusion based on socially or politically manufactured consent. Never has this been more clearly demonstrated than during and after the recent Coronavirus panic. Facts were ignored, or even suppressed, "settled science" and "scientific consensus" were used as weapons to silence dissenters, by trashing their reputations, or threatening their jobs. We are living in an age of Cargo Cult Science. Richard Feynman must be rolling in his grave.
  - ajross 3y ago
    Meh. Distancing works. Masks work. Vaccines work. Hydroxychloroquine doesn't work. Herd immunity never happened. Seems from my perspective that "science" did its job pretty well. Were individuals wrong about stuff? Yup, happens all the time. But I don't see any lack of understanding in hindsight. You seem to be making an argument about public policy, not science. And I refer to the comment to which you replied: different things, with different goals.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  > , you bet on the consensus science because it's probably right. And it was. Which consensus exactly?
ncallaway 3y ago
> force people to behave in line with the best available evidence. I think this… really depends on the behavior. I think, pretty much universally we should never force someone to pretend their beliefs conform to such evidence. But, in certain circumstances, I think it’s absolutely appropriate to force people to conform to our understanding of the world. Consider exaggerating this principle to an extreme degree (to demonstrate that, at least there exists a line where we should force people to conform). Let’s suppose we say it’s illegal to stab a person, because according to our understanding of biology, stabbings make it much more likely that the victim is seriously injured or dies. Suppose there is a person that does not believe stabbing causes injuries. We *should not* force them to change their beliefs. We should not force them to hide their beliefs, or to lie about their beliefs. They should be allowed to openly expesss their views—contrary as they are to our current knowledge. But we should force them not to stab people. We absolutely should force their actions to match our understanding of the world. To take it to a more plausible scenario, imagine someone has an extremely communicable and terminal disease. All our scientific understanding says that, if they deliberately cough in someone’s face, the victim is likely to be harmed or killed. This infected person does not believe in this science. It’s okay that they don’t believe in the science. It’s fine for them to argue that the science is wrong. It should still be illegal for them to deliberately cough in someone’s face if they know they are currently infected.
- elpocko 3y ago
  > I think this… really depends on the behavior. > I think it’s absolutely appropriate to force people to conform to our understanding of the world. And I think... it's... appropriate to... use extreme violence to resist anyone who attempts to force me to conform to anything. Ellipsis.
  - ncallaway 3y ago
    Well, I hope you never get pulled over for speeding.
    - elpocko 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
smsm42 3y ago
That implies that best scientific knowledge may be faulty or even wrong. And in terms of scientism, this is heresy, or "science denial". In the era of Rationalism (TM), if something is not done in the best current knowledge of this moment, in the most efficient way, allocating all available resources for it, you will inevitably be accused of literally murdering people. Even if the next moment it turns out that knowledge was wrong and following it actually led to the actual deaths of people. The ones that followed the BASK are absolved, since they were pure of heart, but those who dissented from BASK, even if post-factum they were proven right objectively, are condemned, since they did it Without Evidence, impurely, and that's the capital sin. I think this is a consequence of mythologizing the scientific process as being purely following empirical evidence and being moved just by gathering evidence and explaining it in the most convincing form, and whatever the current best one is, must be followed as if it were the truth.
transportguy 3y ago
The trial was more to do with precedence and academics though. Galileo was only punished in the 2nd trial because he had broken an order given to him in the first trial. The corrections and withdrawals of work were the right of the Roman Inquisition which had oversight over the Vatican's academic publishing process. They were a publisher in their own right, and if they granted an Imprimatur for a book, it would be treated as if they had supported it as truth. Hence, Copernicus had to be corrected to be "hypothetical" in 1615, so that it would accurately represent the truth known at the time. Galileo had managed to get his Imprimatur on his Dialogue without the proper oversight it should have had. He arranged it so it was checked page by page by his Nuncio who didn't have the right competencies. When the Inquisition asked the Sacred Master of the Palace if they had indeed granted their Imprimatur, they hadn't, and it was an embarrassment for them.
quixoticaxolotl 3y ago
I don't think this is the right conclusion. It's more: people with no expertise and hidden agendas should be forced to behave in line with the best available evidence unless there are no other recourses for them. People with expertise, using the standards of high-quality data gathering and analysis, should be exploring alternative hypotheses. Galileo, Kepler, Newton et. al. all fell in the latter camp. COVID denial and flat earthism is an example of the former. This really just boils down to saying: there is a rigorous evidence-based standard for updating our best available knowledge, and people who don't know how to adhere to that standard should be disqualified from recommending deviation (they are of course welcome to believe and do unto themselves as they wish, they just shouldn't be allowed from promoting it unless they have solid evidence for their claims).

by roenxi 3y ago

avloss11 3y ago

What about those who deny "HIV causing AIDS", and don't take their medications? I guess it's really about people. And if the people in charge have your best interests at heart. With COVID, I feel like it was a bunch of technocrats, that had no "human touch". As for "heliocentric / geocentric" - didn't that all become irrelevant once we've learned there's no "ether"? All models are equally valid/invalid. Or perhaps I'm missing something.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
The problem with communicable diseases is that "the people in charge" are both people at various levels trying to impose or convince people to act in certain ways, as well as the individuals who are literally walking around infectious, or with disregard to whether or not they and those they interact with are infectious. > With COVID, I feel like it was a bunch of technocrats, that had no "human touch". No one speaking ex cathedra to a populous has a human touch that will speak to everyone they're speaking to. I once went to a personality theory conference and enjoyed myself, but the endnote speaker gave a talk where he mentioned the need for love (or something in that vein using the word "love"), and I immediately felt alienated from the entire event.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  crap, "populace".
analog31 3y ago
It became irrelevant when experiments were able to detect a rotating reference frame through precise tests of Newton's laws. I'm thinking of the Coriolis force and Foucault's pendulum as examples.
smsm42 3y ago
> What about those who deny "HIV causing AIDS", and don't take their medications? You may consider that for the argument "current consensus is not always true and should not be enforced as if it were always true" the argument "but what about this one case where it was true" is not a counter-argument.

ajross 3y ago

I don't see how that follows at all. Academic arguments about the structure of the heavens are irrelevancies except to the people in the argument (and those threatened by it). Sure, absolutely: you don't censor opinions about astronomy just because they seem "probably wrong" or demand blind adherence to the best available theory. You do the science, because sometimes scientists are wrong. But pandemic advice isn't about doing good science, it's about risk management. If your goal is to keep as many people alive as possible, you bet on the consensus science because it's probably right. And it was.

mayd 3y ago
The scientific method is the only method of enquiry that is valid if you are doing science. In science, skepticism of every theory, new or old, is expected, encouraged and valued, because, according to the scientific method, every theory is potentially falsifiable. Skepticism and consensus are conflicting concepts. Consensus has no place in science as method of determining truth. You cannot form a scientific conclusion based on socially or politically manufactured consent. Never has this been more clearly demonstrated than during and after the recent Coronavirus panic. Facts were ignored, or even suppressed, "settled science" and "scientific consensus" were used as weapons to silence dissenters, by trashing their reputations, or threatening their jobs. We are living in an age of Cargo Cult Science. Richard Feynman must be rolling in his grave.
- ajross 3y ago
  Meh. Distancing works. Masks work. Vaccines work. Hydroxychloroquine doesn't work. Herd immunity never happened. Seems from my perspective that "science" did its job pretty well. Were individuals wrong about stuff? Yup, happens all the time. But I don't see any lack of understanding in hindsight. You seem to be making an argument about public policy, not science. And I refer to the comment to which you replied: different things, with different goals.
ekianjo 3y ago
> , you bet on the consensus science because it's probably right. And it was. Which consensus exactly?

ncallaway 3y ago

> force people to behave in line with the best available evidence. I think this… really depends on the behavior. I think, pretty much universally we should never force someone to pretend their beliefs conform to such evidence. But, in certain circumstances, I think it’s absolutely appropriate to force people to conform to our understanding of the world. Consider exaggerating this principle to an extreme degree (to demonstrate that, at least there exists a line where we should force people to conform). Let’s suppose we say it’s illegal to stab a person, because according to our understanding of biology, stabbings make it much more likely that the victim is seriously injured or dies. Suppose there is a person that does not believe stabbing causes injuries. We *should not* force them to change their beliefs. We should not force them to hide their beliefs, or to lie about their beliefs. They should be allowed to openly expesss their views—contrary as they are to our current knowledge. But we should force them not to stab people. We absolutely should force their actions to match our understanding of the world. To take it to a more plausible scenario, imagine someone has an extremely communicable and terminal disease. All our scientific understanding says that, if they deliberately cough in someone’s face, the victim is likely to be harmed or killed. This infected person does not believe in this science. It’s okay that they don’t believe in the science. It’s fine for them to argue that the science is wrong. It should still be illegal for them to deliberately cough in someone’s face if they know they are currently infected.

elpocko 3y ago
> I think this… really depends on the behavior. > I think it’s absolutely appropriate to force people to conform to our understanding of the world. And I think... it's... appropriate to... use extreme violence to resist anyone who attempts to force me to conform to anything. Ellipsis.
- ncallaway 3y ago
  Well, I hope you never get pulled over for speeding.
  - elpocko 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

smsm42 3y ago

That implies that best scientific knowledge may be faulty or even wrong. And in terms of scientism, this is heresy, or "science denial". In the era of Rationalism (TM), if something is not done in the best current knowledge of this moment, in the most efficient way, allocating all available resources for it, you will inevitably be accused of literally murdering people. Even if the next moment it turns out that knowledge was wrong and following it actually led to the actual deaths of people. The ones that followed the BASK are absolved, since they were pure of heart, but those who dissented from BASK, even if post-factum they were proven right objectively, are condemned, since they did it Without Evidence, impurely, and that's the capital sin. I think this is a consequence of mythologizing the scientific process as being purely following empirical evidence and being moved just by gathering evidence and explaining it in the most convincing form, and whatever the current best one is, must be followed as if it were the truth.

transportguy 3y ago

The trial was more to do with precedence and academics though. Galileo was only punished in the 2nd trial because he had broken an order given to him in the first trial. The corrections and withdrawals of work were the right of the Roman Inquisition which had oversight over the Vatican's academic publishing process. They were a publisher in their own right, and if they granted an Imprimatur for a book, it would be treated as if they had supported it as truth. Hence, Copernicus had to be corrected to be "hypothetical" in 1615, so that it would accurately represent the truth known at the time. Galileo had managed to get his Imprimatur on his Dialogue without the proper oversight it should have had. He arranged it so it was checked page by page by his Nuncio who didn't have the right competencies. When the Inquisition asked the Sacred Master of the Palace if they had indeed granted their Imprimatur, they hadn't, and it was an embarrassment for them.

quixoticaxolotl 3y ago

I don't think this is the right conclusion. It's more: people with no expertise and hidden agendas should be forced to behave in line with the best available evidence unless there are no other recourses for them. People with expertise, using the standards of high-quality data gathering and analysis, should be exploring alternative hypotheses. Galileo, Kepler, Newton et. al. all fell in the latter camp. COVID denial and flat earthism is an example of the former. This really just boils down to saying: there is a rigorous evidence-based standard for updating our best available knowledge, and people who don't know how to adhere to that standard should be disqualified from recommending deviation (they are of course welcome to believe and do unto themselves as they wish, they just shouldn't be allowed from promoting it unless they have solid evidence for their claims).