6 ms·

It is 100% allowed, I just don't think it's really helpful or beneficial for them or society Especially when they try to lean on their status as scientists in

It is 100% allowed, I just don't think it's really helpful or beneficial for them or society Especially when they try to lean on their status as scientists in order to try and have their opinions be more influential. The cdc for example saying it's ok to disregard their previous guidance in order to protest for black lives matter is one of these credibility damaging moments that is hard to undo.

Braxton1980 1y ago
>Especially when they try to lean on their status as scientists in order to try and have their opinions be more influential. How do they do that?
- kelipso 1y ago
  The “I am an expert, so listen to me drone about some political topic that’s vaguely related to my expertise” has been a thing for years now. And it’s usually some controversial thing that doesn’t have to do with science anyway. In general, it makes scientists look really naive and makes them lose credibility when they talk about actual science.
  - wat10000 1y ago
    Do they have any real influence? I’m about a million times more concerned about politicians who act like they have worthwhile opinions about science.
  - jonathanstrange 1y ago
    Jordan Peterson comes to my mind. Although I have no respect for his opinions at all, I still think that, in the end, scientists have their political views and should be allowed to talk about them. What they shouldn't be allowed is to insinuate that these views are anything other than their personal views. Hate speech and political extremism should also not be allowed because these damage the reputation of their university. Other than that, I don't think it's right to tell them not to use their status to influence politics and society towards what they perceive as making the world better. On the contrary, they might have some duty to do just that.
  - DonHopkins 1y ago
    So it's "political" to disagree about Tylenol causing autism, or injecting disinfectant curing Covid?
    - kelipso 1y ago
      You are making a classic motte and bailey argument.
      - Braxton1980 1y ago
        What makes something "political"?
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    If a person is an expert on a topic then it makes sense for them to have a higher probability of being correct. >And it’s usually some controversial thing that doesn’t have to do with science anyway. What evidence do you have that most scientists are giving opinions about things unrelated to their expertise and then stating you should trust them more due to their expertise or position?
    - kelipso 1y ago
      Yes, that’s the typical argument but the problem is that they veer way out of their lane. And their lane is in reality very narrow and academically focused. When these experts go into politics and activism, their biases show and consequently the credibility of them and their unfortunate colleagues who don’t go into politics get lowered. > What evidence do you have that most scientists are giving opinions about things unrelated to their expertise and then stating you should trust them more due to their expertise or position? I don’t live under a rock.
      - Braxton1980 1y ago
        > When these experts go into politics and activism What if the issue is related to their expertise? Veering out of the lane implies they start offering their opinion about a topic that has nothing to do with their field after discussing one that does without making a clear disclaimer >credibility of them and their unfortunate colleague It's wrong to judge all due to the actions of some. This is a huge flaw of people in general but I wanted to mention it.
        snickerbockers 1y ago
        >What if the issue is related to their expertise? NTA but I think one example which deserves far more scrutiny than it gets is all the public health experts[1] in the early months of COVID who were telling people to stay inside, don't gather in groups even if you're outside, don't go to church etc only to suddenly change their minds and say that gathering in large groups is actually very safe as soon as the protests surrounding the murder of george floyd happened. This is a topic they have expertise on (or at least they claim to) so it's certainly within their lane, but the abrupt change in policy was obviously motivated by their political leanings and it did *a lot* to hurt their personal credibility as well as perceptions of the pandemic in general. [1] IDK how many of them should actually be considered 'experts' as this is not a field I follow, but they were presented as such in the media and so that is how they are perceived.
felixgallo 1y ago
you are lying; this did not happen.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
selectodude 1y ago
> The cdc for example saying it's ok to disregard their previous guidance in order to protest for black lives matter is one of these credibility damaging moments that is hard to undo. Yep, there it is. You’re just upset that they don’t have your opinions.
- hdlothia 1y ago
  https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-health-protests-301534 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea... I supported blm and still do. The CDC should have stayed out of it.
  - miltonlost 1y ago
    The one mention of the CDC in that article doesn't mention anything about it changing guidlines for BLM. So you're lying.
    - DonHopkins 1y ago
      [flagged]
    - hdlothia 1y ago
      You are right, public health officials instead of cdc would be the better way to phrase it.
miltonlost 1y ago
> The cdc for example saying it's ok to disregard their previous guidance in order to protest for black lives matter is one of these credibility damaging moments that is hard to undo. When did this happen?
- MontyCarloHall 1y ago
  AFAIK, the CDC itself made no such official statement, but many prominent figures in public health, including a former CDC director [0], said just that. [0] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-health-protests-301534 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea...
  - renlo 1y ago
    [flagged]
- misiti3780 1y ago
  CDC never said it, a lot of prominent heath officials did though.
wat10000 1y ago
So why is it beneficial for you to have and express political opinions but not them? Or are you deliberately doing something harmful here?
randyhaute 1y ago
[flagged]
archagon 1y ago
> The cdc for example saying it's ok to disregard their previous guidance in order to protest for black lives matter That’s… not what they said? They said it was probably relatively safe to attend a protest because it was happening outdoors and Covid spread mostly through accumulated aerosols. It turned out to be good guidance: practically no one gets Covid that way unless a sick person is actively coughing on them.
3eb7988a1663 1y ago
So nobody is allowed to use their notoriety to amplify their posts? No more athletes, musicians, artists, whatever. Everyone must be anonymous. Or is it strictly scientists who are not allowed to post if their profession is known?
didntknowyou 1y ago
so you would prefer to hear opinions from marketers and influencers?

Braxton1980 1y ago

>Especially when they try to lean on their status as scientists in order to try and have their opinions be more influential. How do they do that?

kelipso 1y ago
The “I am an expert, so listen to me drone about some political topic that’s vaguely related to my expertise” has been a thing for years now. And it’s usually some controversial thing that doesn’t have to do with science anyway. In general, it makes scientists look really naive and makes them lose credibility when they talk about actual science.
- wat10000 1y ago
  Do they have any real influence? I’m about a million times more concerned about politicians who act like they have worthwhile opinions about science.
- jonathanstrange 1y ago
  Jordan Peterson comes to my mind. Although I have no respect for his opinions at all, I still think that, in the end, scientists have their political views and should be allowed to talk about them. What they shouldn't be allowed is to insinuate that these views are anything other than their personal views. Hate speech and political extremism should also not be allowed because these damage the reputation of their university. Other than that, I don't think it's right to tell them not to use their status to influence politics and society towards what they perceive as making the world better. On the contrary, they might have some duty to do just that.
- DonHopkins 1y ago
  So it's "political" to disagree about Tylenol causing autism, or injecting disinfectant curing Covid?
  - kelipso 1y ago
    You are making a classic motte and bailey argument.
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      What makes something "political"?
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  If a person is an expert on a topic then it makes sense for them to have a higher probability of being correct. >And it’s usually some controversial thing that doesn’t have to do with science anyway. What evidence do you have that most scientists are giving opinions about things unrelated to their expertise and then stating you should trust them more due to their expertise or position?
  - kelipso 1y ago
    Yes, that’s the typical argument but the problem is that they veer way out of their lane. And their lane is in reality very narrow and academically focused. When these experts go into politics and activism, their biases show and consequently the credibility of them and their unfortunate colleagues who don’t go into politics get lowered. > What evidence do you have that most scientists are giving opinions about things unrelated to their expertise and then stating you should trust them more due to their expertise or position? I don’t live under a rock.
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      > When these experts go into politics and activism What if the issue is related to their expertise? Veering out of the lane implies they start offering their opinion about a topic that has nothing to do with their field after discussing one that does without making a clear disclaimer >credibility of them and their unfortunate colleague It's wrong to judge all due to the actions of some. This is a huge flaw of people in general but I wanted to mention it.
      - snickerbockers 1y ago
        >What if the issue is related to their expertise? NTA but I think one example which deserves far more scrutiny than it gets is all the public health experts[1] in the early months of COVID who were telling people to stay inside, don't gather in groups even if you're outside, don't go to church etc only to suddenly change their minds and say that gathering in large groups is actually very safe as soon as the protests surrounding the murder of george floyd happened. This is a topic they have expertise on (or at least they claim to) so it's certainly within their lane, but the abrupt change in policy was obviously motivated by their political leanings and it did *a lot* to hurt their personal credibility as well as perceptions of the pandemic in general. [1] IDK how many of them should actually be considered 'experts' as this is not a field I follow, but they were presented as such in the media and so that is how they are perceived.

felixgallo 1y ago

you are lying; this did not happen.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

selectodude 1y ago

> The cdc for example saying it's ok to disregard their previous guidance in order to protest for black lives matter is one of these credibility damaging moments that is hard to undo. Yep, there it is. You’re just upset that they don’t have your opinions.

hdlothia 1y ago
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-health-protests-301534 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea... I supported blm and still do. The CDC should have stayed out of it.
- miltonlost 1y ago
  The one mention of the CDC in that article doesn't mention anything about it changing guidlines for BLM. So you're lying.
  - DonHopkins 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - hdlothia 1y ago
    You are right, public health officials instead of cdc would be the better way to phrase it.

miltonlost 1y ago

MontyCarloHall 1y ago
AFAIK, the CDC itself made no such official statement, but many prominent figures in public health, including a former CDC director [0], said just that. [0] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-health-protests-301534 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea...
- renlo 1y ago
  [flagged]
misiti3780 1y ago
CDC never said it, a lot of prominent heath officials did though.

wat10000 1y ago

So why is it beneficial for you to have and express political opinions but not them? Or are you deliberately doing something harmful here?

randyhaute 1y ago

[flagged]

archagon 1y ago

> The cdc for example saying it's ok to disregard their previous guidance in order to protest for black lives matter That’s… not what they said? They said it was probably relatively safe to attend a protest because it was happening outdoors and Covid spread mostly through accumulated aerosols. It turned out to be good guidance: practically no one gets Covid that way unless a sick person is actively coughing on them.

3eb7988a1663 1y ago

So nobody is allowed to use their notoriety to amplify their posts? No more athletes, musicians, artists, whatever. Everyone must be anonymous. Or is it strictly scientists who are not allowed to post if their profession is known?

didntknowyou 1y ago

so you would prefer to hear opinions from marketers and influencers?