4 ms·

What has happened to people that even on HN a good number of the comments here are sympathetic towards harassing academics because they say something you don't

What has happened to people that even on HN a good number of the comments here are sympathetic towards harassing academics because they say something you don't agree with? Even in cases where scientists might be making a controversial (to some) statement with a bit too much assuredness (scientists are not beyond the occasional hubris now and then), my experience, having worked with many of them, is that the are rarely if ever acting in bad faith. There's comments here actively accusing these people of non-nonchalantly and intentionally lying to the public. I'm sorry but this is simply paranoid thinking no matter your view point. There are plenty of academics and scientists whose beliefs I loath, but I have never seriously entertained the thought that these opinions originating from a position of malice. I only comment about this because it's a bit concerning to me how wide spread this type of irrational paranoia has become. And, to be clear, I'm not attacking people's beliefs to be too "far out there". History has shown enough that strange beliefs can often turn out more correct then not. It's the rage towards people who have dedicated their lives to studying a subject holding a different view that I find concerning.

matthewdgreen 2y ago
We live on a planet with eight billion people who won’t be able to feed, clothe, or provide energy for themselves without continual investment in scientific progress. And our society is absolutely thrilled to toss away that capability. I guess this must be what the citizens of Rome felt like when their civilization was collapsing.
- fragmede 2y ago
  Or the Cultural Revolution.
- briantakita 2y ago
  Rome polluted the water in Roman cities with lead. Modern civilization pollutes the water all over the world with lead then PFaS. Good job!
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
    Also with lead.
Joel_Mckay 2y ago
Why people give up being objective is a well known phenomena: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control#By_proxy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control#By_proxy When you work in the backrooms of a faculty for awhile, the illusion is shattered fairly rapidly. =3
linearrust 2y ago
> What has happened to people that even on HN a good number of the comments here are sympathetic towards harassing academics because they say something you don't agree with? Where is your paranoia coming from? I'm not seeing any comments supporting harrassment of academics. > I only comment about this because it's a bit concerning to me how wide spread this type of irrational paranoia has become. So you are paranoid about the irrational paranoia you are seeing everywhere? > It's the rage towards people who have dedicated their lives to studying a subject holding a different view that I find concerning. Nobody is upset about people studying. The article is almost entirely about 'scientists' and 'academics' who are involved in politically sensitive issues ( climate change, gun control, covid, etc ) getting some pushback.
- jemmyw 2y ago
  Studying a politically sensitive issue should not expose a person to harassment. Politicians, governments and organisations need these issues analysed. Of course, too often politicians, governments and organisations don't like the outcome of said analysis and then somehow manage to blame those doing the analysis. You can see why scientists end up in this ridiculous situation. "My analysis of the data shows this outcome" "We don't like that outcome so you must be incorrect" "But you're paying me to study this, and this seems like an important topic."
musicale 2y ago
> rarely if ever acting in bad faith It is rare, but scientific and academic misconduct does happen.
bun_terminator 2y ago
This is not about science at all. It's about "science". No one attacks mathematicians. People defend themselves against people who have insane control over their lives and made it much worse. The reaction is not only understandable, but also to a degree correct and the right thing to do.
- defrost 2y ago
  I hate to break it to you but epidemiology and fluid dynamics are primarily mathematical fields. As the article states: It’s not just scientists with a public profile in the crosshairs; those targeted include mathematical disease modellers, pharmacologists, physicists and fluid-dynamics researchers, who have never previously had any media attention.
  - bun_terminator 2y ago
    eh, they might hide behind that label. But they're all the same: People who used the term "science" to destroy peoples lives, and now cry because of (very minor) consequences
  - RhysU 2y ago
    I can't wait for Strouhal numbers to enter the political sphere. I can't find information about the fluid-dynamics researchers in the article. My hunch is they published on masks and sneezing but it's only a hunch. Anyone have a source?
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
      > I can't wait for Strouhal numbers to enter the political sphere. Vortex shedding is a constitutional right! Breaking news: SCOTUS overturns precedent making vortex shedding a federal right thereby allowing each state to pass laws for or against vortex shedding. Some say that vortex-based decisions should be rooted in Judeo-Christian values, while others believe that fluids should be free to express themselves at any Reynolds number.
    - defrost 2y ago
torstenvl 2y ago
The article talks about scientists involved in COVID-19 policy specifically, so it's very hard to imagine how you can say "the[y] are rarely if ever acting in bad faith." Can you explain for us a set of circumstances that would justify, in good faith, writing EcoHealth as "Ec~Health" and specifically taking steps to avoid FOIA? Can you explain for us a set of circumstances that would justify, in good faith, recruiting other scientists to lie to the American people and the world about the possibility of a leak from WIV, and then rewarding those scientists with grant money, as in the case of "Anders$n"? Can you explain for us a set of circumstances that would justify, in good faith, doing the above with the explicit goal of giving aid and comfort to a nation who is not only an opposing belligerent in an ongoing frozen war but is actively engaged in espionage, cyberattacks, and low grade kinetic armed conflict against the United States? https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024.05.28-BRW-Letter-to-NIH-Re.-FOIA_Redacted.pdf https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024....
briantakita 2y ago
It wasnt too long ago when the scientific institutions whipped up hysteria & paranoia against the public & dissenting scientists. Where dissenting scientists & researchers where fired, blacklisted, & harrassed. Protecting one's own interests in keeping rights protected is not paranoid thinking. The problem is "science" has turned into a religion. Where the faithful use their faith to justify locking down & taking away the rights of others. And transforming the economy in their favor. The integrity of the scientific institutions has turned cynical & beholden to capital interests. It's obvious. Hypocrisy in how the Covid policies were enforced don't help. BLM rallys & the political elite should not be exempt from Covid rules when the rest of the public is locked down. There comes a point where oopsies need to be harshly condemned. Even if the oopsies are not cynical. We don't let our children get away with oopsies. Why should the "experts" get a free pass? The "experts" are not supposed to make oopsies. I can see the logic of seppuku in stopping misconduct. Not saying that should be policy. But real consequences to incompetence or cynicism by "experts" is needed. If the corporations & government cannot deliver these real consequences, then the public must pick up the slack. Or incompetence & cynicism are rewarded & grow more prevalent.

matthewdgreen 2y ago

We live on a planet with eight billion people who won’t be able to feed, clothe, or provide energy for themselves without continual investment in scientific progress. And our society is absolutely thrilled to toss away that capability. I guess this must be what the citizens of Rome felt like when their civilization was collapsing.

fragmede 2y ago
Or the Cultural Revolution.
briantakita 2y ago
Rome polluted the water in Roman cities with lead. Modern civilization pollutes the water all over the world with lead then PFaS. Good job!
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
  Also with lead.

Joel_Mckay 2y ago

Why people give up being objective is a well known phenomena: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control#By_proxy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control#By_proxy When you work in the backrooms of a faculty for awhile, the illusion is shattered fairly rapidly. =3

linearrust 2y ago

> What has happened to people that even on HN a good number of the comments here are sympathetic towards harassing academics because they say something you don't agree with? Where is your paranoia coming from? I'm not seeing any comments supporting harrassment of academics. > I only comment about this because it's a bit concerning to me how wide spread this type of irrational paranoia has become. So you are paranoid about the irrational paranoia you are seeing everywhere? > It's the rage towards people who have dedicated their lives to studying a subject holding a different view that I find concerning. Nobody is upset about people studying. The article is almost entirely about 'scientists' and 'academics' who are involved in politically sensitive issues ( climate change, gun control, covid, etc ) getting some pushback.

jemmyw 2y ago
Studying a politically sensitive issue should not expose a person to harassment. Politicians, governments and organisations need these issues analysed. Of course, too often politicians, governments and organisations don't like the outcome of said analysis and then somehow manage to blame those doing the analysis. You can see why scientists end up in this ridiculous situation. "My analysis of the data shows this outcome" "We don't like that outcome so you must be incorrect" "But you're paying me to study this, and this seems like an important topic."

musicale 2y ago

> rarely if ever acting in bad faith It is rare, but scientific and academic misconduct does happen.

bun_terminator 2y ago

This is not about science at all. It's about "science". No one attacks mathematicians. People defend themselves against people who have insane control over their lives and made it much worse. The reaction is not only understandable, but also to a degree correct and the right thing to do.

defrost 2y ago
I hate to break it to you but epidemiology and fluid dynamics are primarily mathematical fields. As the article states: It’s not just scientists with a public profile in the crosshairs; those targeted include mathematical disease modellers, pharmacologists, physicists and fluid-dynamics researchers, who have never previously had any media attention.
- bun_terminator 2y ago
  eh, they might hide behind that label. But they're all the same: People who used the term "science" to destroy peoples lives, and now cry because of (very minor) consequences
- RhysU 2y ago
  I can't wait for Strouhal numbers to enter the political sphere. I can't find information about the fluid-dynamics researchers in the article. My hunch is they published on masks and sneezing but it's only a hunch. Anyone have a source?
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
    > I can't wait for Strouhal numbers to enter the political sphere. Vortex shedding is a constitutional right! Breaking news: SCOTUS overturns precedent making vortex shedding a federal right thereby allowing each state to pass laws for or against vortex shedding. Some say that vortex-based decisions should be rooted in Judeo-Christian values, while others believe that fluids should be free to express themselves at any Reynolds number.
  - defrost 2y ago

torstenvl 2y ago

The article talks about scientists involved in COVID-19 policy specifically, so it's very hard to imagine how you can say "the[y] are rarely if ever acting in bad faith." Can you explain for us a set of circumstances that would justify, in good faith, writing EcoHealth as "Ec~Health" and specifically taking steps to avoid FOIA? Can you explain for us a set of circumstances that would justify, in good faith, recruiting other scientists to lie to the American people and the world about the possibility of a leak from WIV, and then rewarding those scientists with grant money, as in the case of "Anders$n"? Can you explain for us a set of circumstances that would justify, in good faith, doing the above with the explicit goal of giving aid and comfort to a nation who is not only an opposing belligerent in an ongoing frozen war but is actively engaged in espionage, cyberattacks, and low grade kinetic armed conflict against the United States? https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024.05.28-BRW-Letter-to-NIH-Re.-FOIA_Redacted.pdf https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024....

briantakita 2y ago

It wasnt too long ago when the scientific institutions whipped up hysteria & paranoia against the public & dissenting scientists. Where dissenting scientists & researchers where fired, blacklisted, & harrassed. Protecting one's own interests in keeping rights protected is not paranoid thinking. The problem is "science" has turned into a religion. Where the faithful use their faith to justify locking down & taking away the rights of others. And transforming the economy in their favor. The integrity of the scientific institutions has turned cynical & beholden to capital interests. It's obvious. Hypocrisy in how the Covid policies were enforced don't help. BLM rallys & the political elite should not be exempt from Covid rules when the rest of the public is locked down. There comes a point where oopsies need to be harshly condemned. Even if the oopsies are not cynical. We don't let our children get away with oopsies. Why should the "experts" get a free pass? The "experts" are not supposed to make oopsies. I can see the logic of seppuku in stopping misconduct. Not saying that should be policy. But real consequences to incompetence or cynicism by "experts" is needed. If the corporations & government cannot deliver these real consequences, then the public must pick up the slack. Or incompetence & cynicism are rewarded & grow more prevalent.