3 ms·

>It shouldn't. Truth can't be found by forcing others to believe in your version of it. The acceptance of any given fact will naturally follow a normal distribu

>It shouldn't. Truth can't be found by forcing others to believe in your version of it. The acceptance of any given fact will naturally follow a normal distribution, and those on one side or the other of that curve aren't defective. They're actually necessary for intelligent and critical discourse. I'm rather partial to imposing a tax on self-delusion and refusing to update beliefs in face of overwhelming evidence. Also, the normal distribution part is plainly unjustified. The scientific consensus on various climate change topics is widely accepted to a high confidence by many, and widely denied with even higher confidence by many others. Bayesian belief networks are better models for individuals, and if we were to put belief in a given generic climate-change-related claim on a curve with 1:1 confidence in the middle and "certain true/false" at the extremes, you'd have a valley, not a normal. An asymmetrical valley, to boot.

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
> Also, the normal distribution part is plainly unjustified. The scientific consensus That's a dumb thing to say. "Scientific consensus"? Really? I suppose the first time a person chants "scientific consensus" everyone down to the last person is supposed to instantaneously change their minds and accept it, right? The truth of the matter is that some people are slower to accept such truths than others. This doesn't mean that they're unwilling to accept them forever, but maybe it takes them a few weeks/months/years to arrive at the same conclusion as the rest. There's no reason to punish them or "tax" them for this. Even if you could somehow determine that they never will accept it (rather than just being slow), those people are still necessary to keep the consensus honest. Without them, there won't be any criticism left, and then it just becomes a game for jackasses to try to get people to chant "scientific consensus" enough that everyone else must accept it instantly or be punished for not doing so. What you're talking about isn't "consensus" at all, it's groupthink. And it's pretty fucking sad that you've confused one for the other.

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago

> Also, the normal distribution part is plainly unjustified. The scientific consensus That's a dumb thing to say. "Scientific consensus"? Really? I suppose the first time a person chants "scientific consensus" everyone down to the last person is supposed to instantaneously change their minds and accept it, right? The truth of the matter is that some people are slower to accept such truths than others. This doesn't mean that they're unwilling to accept them forever, but maybe it takes them a few weeks/months/years to arrive at the same conclusion as the rest. There's no reason to punish them or "tax" them for this. Even if you could somehow determine that they never will accept it (rather than just being slow), those people are still necessary to keep the consensus honest. Without them, there won't be any criticism left, and then it just becomes a game for jackasses to try to get people to chant "scientific consensus" enough that everyone else must accept it instantly or be punished for not doing so. What you're talking about isn't "consensus" at all, it's groupthink. And it's pretty fucking sad that you've confused one for the other.