4 ms·
Is self-censorship a bad thing? Suppose you had a finding that infidelity leads to "better" genes for the kids. I imagine most scientists wouldn't want to publ
by zug_zug 2y ago
Is self-censorship a bad thing?
Suppose you had a finding that infidelity leads to "better" genes for the kids. I imagine most scientists wouldn't want to publish that paper because it's unpleasant to think about and seems to challenge a core tenant of our society (fidelity).
Or for example suppose one found out a huge correlation between IQ and a political party. No matter which direction they found it, most researchers would probably rightly self-censor that on the basis that it's not really a productive thing to try to put out there.
A few of the examples in the paper really are important questions in my opinion (understanding gender identity on as scientific a level as we can), but most of them aren't. For example I don't think question 6 is important -- what's important is research on reducing crime rates.
I think claiming a certain race commits disproportionate violent crime is like pointing out one gender commits disproportionate crime. True or not, it kinda doesn't matter, and when somebody brings it up you have to ask if their motivation is to reduce crime or grind an axe.
- riehwvfbk 2y agoTo answer your question: yes. Yes it is a bad thing. Things that are untrue but you can't question for the sake of societal cohesion are called "religion", not "science".
- zug_zug 2y agoI'm just not convinced it really is a problem that 1% of topics are taboo. I think taboos exist for a reason, and it's mostly good for us as a species to collectively wall-off certain categories of behavior/thought/speech.
- riehwvfbk 2y agoCorrection: you think taboos you happen to agree with exist for a reason. For example, say you lived in modern-day Russia where it is taboo to say that Putin can make a mistake and that the West is not all-evil. Still a good taboo? Even if it is accepted by the majority?
- lazide 2y agoOr if we go back pre-Putin in Russia, Lysenkoism [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism], a truly bizarre ideology where it was taboo to discuss natural selection - getting 3000+ academics sent to the gulag, many outright executed, and leading to large scale declines in crop output contributing to famines. Including contributing to the Great Famine in China which killed 10’s of millions [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine]. Or, as the wiki article quotes - “Lysenko claimed that the concept of a gene was a "bourgeois invention", and he denied the presence of any "immortal substance of heredity" or "clearly defined species", which he claimed belong to Platonic metaphysics rather than strictly materialist Marxist science. ”
- kelseyfrog 2y agoWhose taboos? Whose society?
- krispyfi 2y agoAnatomy (and medicine in general) would have stagnated if not for people willing to violate the taboo against desecrating corpses.
- variadix 2y agoYes it’s a bad thing, both scientifically and societally. For science, having taboo subjects limits our ability to understand the world. For society, it obfuscates what an effective solution to societal problems looks like.