This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It feels like we are trying to push a square peg through a round hole, so long as scientists are people and not robots.
Having gone through a long journey of internet atheism, towards 'Skepticism' as a sort of general outlook to fill in the void that a lack of coherent belief system creates, I was left, like many, very unimpressed by my fellow atheists, skeptics and scientists in general insofar as they were represented by science popularizers. I did not find anything similar to Less Wrong during this time, but was left to trudge through the mud of Skeptic drama, power tripping feminist moderators and such. Atheism+ came along with a bang and every foot soldier of internet atheism and skepticism turned from making mountains out of molehills, where the actions of some pastor in the middle of nowhere did or said something silly, towards tearing each other apart over small ideological differences. These were the same people who scoffed at the silly religious people who start wars over inconsequential differences in scripture...
Now, that's just the rabble beneath the 'Science'. It included a lot of professors and scientists, sure, but it also included a lot of nobodies. But this was the population group that had, for at least a decade, labored under the delusion that they were in some way different from the rest. With science, reason and rationality as their shield. Turns out they very much weren't any of that to any extent that mattered.
But, again, this is the rabble. The scientists themselves, surely, are better. Right? Well, as you say yourself, they kind of aren't. And better men than me or you have long made that observation. Turns out they are very much human like everyone else.
To that end I'd argue the kind of 'scientist' you seem to pine for would probably make for a terrible person in any other aspect of life. Good people don't constantly have to evaluate base truths. Wallowing in self doubt over whatever facet of their life they happen to re-evaluate today, to not fall prey to bias or whatever, whilst potentially destroying key aspects of their life in the process.
Further than that, I'd say that if you ever want to colonize Mars, the last thing you need is science. As you can't hope to achieve such a lofty goal without true believers who hold not doubt in their heart towards their task but unshakeable faith and enthusiasm. Lest you end up with another 'Whitey on the Moon' paradigm.
As far as my mind can see, if we were to form any sort of realistic framework that could facilitate this goal of veneration and exploration for science, physics and space, we are working towards a chauvinistic European and/or East Asian supremacism. Any other population groups and any other concerns that don't functionally establish such authority are doomed to fall prey to everything we've seen trip up science so far. Though I welcome any thoughts to the contrary.
In conclusion, it seems that if one loves science, one should learn to love politics first.
More options
Context Copy link