Atychiphobia

[Arctangent]

"Believe in free speech? YOU'RE A NAZI!" (no joke)

Actually, you've got this reversed; this is saying that they avoided using the phrase as to not attract the people who would spew slurs in a McDonald's and then themselves complain about about Nazi politics when the manager escorts them out for being a twat.

The fact that "nazis" somehow own the word "free speech" is kind of sad in it of itself.

Nah, at least these guys are aware that Nazis are anti-free speech. They just lack any sense of what free speech and censorship and such actually are, so they use 'em as an excuse to act like utter assholes while being able to claim that anyone who tries to stop them as "unamerican."

[scalliano]

What I find particularly disturbing is the growing trend of disregarding demonstrable facts in lieu of personal opinions and/or emotions. Now, I realize that emotion does play a significant part in the decisions we make and the opinions we form, but when I read about, for example, people setting the fire alarm off during a seminar because the lecturer dared to explain the biological differences between the sexes, or articles with such headlines as "it's time to stop equating science with truth", I fear for our future as a society. These kinds of people clearly cannot be reasoned with, for if they are willing to dispute the undisputable, what hope is there?

I heard a statement recently, I can't remember who said it, but it was, "'Hate speech' is now the secular term for 'blasphemy'". And I find myself compelled to agree. Almost anything can and will be branded as such. Dissenting opinion is no longer tolerated - websites now have algorithms in place for the express purpose of silencing criticism, we're hearing about shadowbans, manipulation of discoverability and even the recent Google video leak, "The Selfish Ledger", showing that they are actually trying to modify the way we think. I can't speak for anyone else, but I find this terrifying. The Party is indeed coming for us all.

For the record, I did the political compass test a few weeks ago and came out as centre-left libertarian. And yet, it has become apparent in recent years that I am everything that outlets like The Guardian hates.

[Arctangent]

or articles with such headlines as "it's time to stop equating science with truth", I fear for our future as a society. These kinds of people clearly cannot be reasoned with, for if they are willing to dispute the undisputable, what hope is there?

But it's not indisputable. Science is just as subjective as everything else human, because humans tested it and wrote it down, and humans are in no way objective creatures.

The most direct way to put this is that science also includes all the things that would get you laughed at today if you believed in it. Stuff like geocentric astronomy or flat Earth or certain races being mentally inferior - this was all science, and the thing is?

Even if we know now that this stuff is wrong, we don't know that our current knowledge isn't just as incorrect. Because here's the thing: those things were believed to be true before they were disproven, and they were treated as such because they were tested and proven to the best of the people of the times' abilities. At least, they were when the results weren't heavily scribbled over by politics or economic pressure or the like - which despite all insistence otherwise, our research is still far from escaping.

And y'know, even if you test something a thousand times and come up with the same results every single time, that could still be far from the full picture and a single unthought variable could flip the whole thing on its head. Sometimes, that variable is something we just don't know of yet - but sometimes, it's just that the researchers didn't consider it, even when it wouldn't be a stretch to.

So no, science isn't the truth. The most recent discoveries are perhaps the closest thing to the truth, but we've yet to remove the human element from science that contaminates it with perceptual flaws, social-economic pressure, inadequate tools and processes, and so on. Especially when commonly touted science is actually outdated or misunderstood - that completely removes the kindness that it's the closest thing we've got to the truth, because then you might as well join the Flat Earth Society for all that your "proof" towards a subject matters.

[scalliano]

I can't say that I disagree. True, scientific theories are disproven all of the time. Hell, CERN even managed FTL travel with a proton a couple of years ago. If someone produces evidence which challenges my knowledge on a subject, I will spin on a dime. Bring me evidence of God's existence, and I will get on my knees and pray. Science is the acquisition of knowledge, after all. We are constantly learning new things about ourselves, the planet, the universe, everything. But some things as general rules are set in stone and can by visibly observed by anyone, such as anatomical differences. This does not mean that there are not exceptions, but that is what they are - exceptions. Observing and acknowledging general rules does not by default make someone evil or alt-right or Marxist. But that is the climate we are currently in - one of extremes, not of nuance.

We do not know everything there is to know, and indeed, that is ultimately impossible. What I find jarring is scientific research that is primarily driven by an agenda, or when evidence is cherry-picked to push a particular narrative. You know, stuff like papers that attempt to disprove climate change that are funded by petrochemical companies, that sort of thing. There may be merit in the research (I personally doubt it), but the weight behind such research will always be difficult to ignore. But, you know, don't you dare try and have a discussion because we will destroy you using whatever means at our disposal.

"But, scall, everything is agenda-driven!" To an extent, yes. The earliest scientists actually believed that they were doing God's work, for example. But while true objectivity may be impossible, it must always be the primary goal. If it isn't, be prepared for people to notice, because they will call you out on it. If they do, listen to their concerns, don't shout them down and bash them on Twitter.

"Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not." - Stephen Hawking

[dpJudas]

or articles with such headlines as "it's time to stop equating science with truth", I fear for our future as a society. These kinds of people clearly cannot be reasoned with, for if they are willing to dispute the undisputable, what hope is there?

But it's not indisputable. Science is just as subjective as everything else human, because humans tested it and wrote it down, and humans are in no way objective creatures.

The entire point of the scientific method is to try describe things using indisputable facts. It relies on a systematic way of building up a testable theory and then apply tests to try disprove it and use that as a feedback mechanism to get increasingly closer to the correct answer.

The tests may sometimes be incomplete or lead to the wrong conclusions, but that in no way makes science subjective - over time the subjective nature of humans doesn't matter as the evidence against a theory continue to increase it will eventually fail. Or rather typically generate new theories that factor in the gained knowledge.

However, the way you describe science is one of the worst trends in recent history: that science is just another opinion and if you don't like the current theories and tests you can just ignore them (*). Even worse, you claim flat Earth was ever science when it in fact what religious dogma. Even the old Greek mathematicians had collected enough evidence to disprove "flat earth".

We do not know everything there is to know, and indeed, that is ultimately impossible. What I find jarring is scientific research that is primarily driven by an agenda, or when evidence is cherry-picked to push a particular narrative. You know, stuff like papers that attempt to disprove climate change that are funded by petrochemical companies, that sort of thing. There may be merit in the research (I personally doubt it), but the weight behind such research will always be difficult to ignore.

The problem isn't so much that someone conducts scientific research trying to disprove some theory. It is that the public lacks the insight to analyze and weight the papers accordingly. So typically they may manage to disprove or show a problem in one of the tests or models, but they still have 50 major tests/studies to go before it actually means anything.


*) Yes, I know you didn't technically say they could ignored. But that's more or less the logical conclusion average Joe reaches when "science is subjective".

[scalliano]

IMO you're pretty much on the money here. We can only form opinions based on what we know to be correct. If everything is entirely subjective, then knowledge itself is a myth, and at that point it's pretty much a free-for-all, and the line between knowledge and faith begin to blur. Which IMO is dangerous, because it brings me back to the whole concept of blasphemy, how it is no longer bound to religion and is being applied to all forms of dissenting opinion and being used as justification for ruining people's lives over the most innocuous of infractions.

Also, if everything is subjective, then it automatically reinforces the concept that offence is taken, rather than given, so even if that is true, we still all need to chill out.

[Arctangent]

But some things as general rules are set in stone and can by visibly observed by anyone, such as anatomical differences.

That's actually a great example of ignoring the latest ( or, should I say, "latest," since it isn't all that new ) research - you're taking a lot of stuff related to the effects of hormones and to applying it to sex, when those're only related by the fact that sexual organs have a part in the person's hormonal balance. But diet, genetics, medical conditions, heck, even the environment are all important factors in a person's hormonal balance, and this is why you see so many men with breasts despite those being thought of as woman-only - and yes, those are actual breasts, they're formed by having a high amount of estrogen.

This isn't even some niche technicality, either: if this wasn't the case, then women couldn't make use of steroids, but they clearly can. And they've clearly shown exactly how malleable the human body is - just about the only thing that isn't is the stuff you'd have to pull down peoples' pants to observe, and even then, intersex people are a thing.

"But, scall, everything is agenda-driven!" To an extent, yes. The earliest scientists actually believed that they were doing God's work, for example. But while true objectivity may be impossible, it must always be the primary goal. If it isn't, be prepared for people to notice, because they will call you out on it. If they do, listen to their concerns, don't shout them down and bash them on Twitter.

We aren't really all that much better nowadays, y'know. Sure, being able to pick apart blatantly agenda-driven research might make you feel smarter than people of the past, but that doesn't actually mean all the other research isn't also heavily agenda-driven.

I mean, granted, it's a lot harder to fault someone with an agenda as straightforward and resonant with their research as "strawberries and milk make an amazing fertilizer" than someone who's doing research for the sake of demonizing the lower class, but that doesn't actually mean that they aren't going to let it affect their research through ways they might not even be fully conscious of.

The entire point of the scientific method is to try describe things using indisputable facts. It relies on a systematic way of building up a testable theory and then apply tests to try disprove it and use that as a feedback mechanism to get increasingly closer to the correct answer.

You say this as a human, speaking of a system created by a human, which relies entirely on human perception to observe the results of certain actions which only test a theory at certain locations, in a certain time frame, with specific conditions that may be, unwittingly or not, those that produce an exceptional result.

Oh, and this is just what the researchers observe. There's a helluva lot more layers to actually writing down and recording all of this.

The tests may sometimes be incomplete or lead to the wrong conclusions, but that in no way makes science subjective - over time the subjective nature of humans doesn't matter as the evidence against a theory continue to increase it will eventually fail. Or rather typically generate new theories that factor in the gained knowledge.

This doesn't so much point towards sciences being objective so much as the "ultimate" science being objective, which I can't deny. What I can deny, though, is that we're anywhere close to that point, nor do I doubt we're even physically capable of reaching it. I'm not even sure if our artificial intelligences would be able to reach it - after all, once we manage to pull them to stage where they could actually take the role of a researcher, chances are we'll calibrate them to perceive the world and think similarly to us just from the sheer fact that doing otherwise would result in us mistrusting their results. And, well, because to a lot of people, we're the best we've got in terms of what an intelligent being is, even as we get more and more reason to believe that our intelligence has a lot less unique qualities than the humancentric thoughts of the past.

EDIT:

We can only form opinions based on what we know to be correct.

what

[insightguy]

As much as I want to reply to Arctangent and give my opinion, I think this is going to get out of control the more we stay on this topic and I can see the shitstorm brewing already. This is veering into debating about science rather than the original topic, either way, I think this thread may have run it's course.

[Trance]

Doesn't take long for that to happen around here, does it?

[insightguy]

@Trance I've seen threads derail faster than this when it comes to politics, at least we have not started calling each other British cigarettes yet.

Come to think of it, the argument above us is close to proving the entire point of this post. I just hope no fires start

[scalliano]

@Arctanget: Like I said, there are exceptions to every rule. Differences in a person's junk are still observable differences and dictated by chromosomes.

Anyway, I'm going to leave it there, as I too see where this is headed.

[Arctangent]

@Arctanget: Like I said, there are exceptions to every rule. Differences in a person's junk are still observable differences and dictated by chromosomes.

Well, yeah, but with so much of what is considered sex-specific actually being not, doesn't that make the junk the exception to the rule of how humans aren't highly sexual dimorphic?

Heck, I'm pretty sure chromosomes and sexual organs aren't really considered enough for sexual dimorphism since ... I mean, that's kinda implied by an organism having sexes in the first place, so that pretty much just leaves the resulting typical hormone balance as the main difference, and it's possible to manipulate that anyway.

[Chris]

You say this as a human, speaking of a system created by a human, which relies entirely on human perception to observe the results of certain actions which only test a theory at certain locations, in a certain time frame, with specific conditions that may be, unwittingly or not, those that produce an exceptional result.

It's not as if we test once, write down the results, and claim that as The Truth. A single test means nothing. If it's not repeatable, if others can't scrutinize your methods and attempt to disprove your results, it's not science. Science doesn't prove anything, it disproves claims. A "proven" claim is really just something that no one has managed to disprove yet despite trying.

I mean, this system is what led us from drawing lines in the sand to using the abacus, and from the abacus to the latest CPUs. The amount of research, observations, and testing that went into video and audio capturing and reproduction is ludicrous. We can see these things work and people know, understand, and can teach others to see how they work; the probability of it being a mere coincidence is not worth the energy thinking about, you'd be just as well considering the probability of an invisible pink unicorn in the moon.

This of course does not mean our understanding and knowledge is perfect and complete. There have been and are mistakes in research, but that doesn't necessarily mean everything related to that research is wrong. It just means more research and testing is needed to find and correct those mistakes, and see what the corrections imply. Similarly, having gaps in our knowledge and understanding doesn't invalidate what has been previously observed and recorded. It simply means there's more to it than we previously knew. "I don't know" is a completely valid statement.

If you (anyone, not you specifically) think something is wrong in our understanding of a particular thing, you're free to test it yourself and get your own empirical data. If you happen to come up with different results, your tests will be scrutinized just as all the previous tests have been. If no one manages to wholly disprove your results, you'll have made a scientific discovery and scientists* will be interested in learning why it's different and what we had wrong before. Similarly, if there's something science doesn't currently understand, you're free to study it, make one or more hypothesis, and make various tests for those hypothesis. Others will then scrutinize those tests, to see if they hold up or fail.

Also, don't confuse fallacies people make with mistakes in the science. It's a logical fallacy to think correlation is causation, but a lot of misinformation comes from people who have a habit of implying causation from correlating (often cherry-picked) data.

* By "scientists", I don't mean an elite cadre of people who control all the science. I mean people who are scientifically minded, who enjoy learning and discovering new information even if it goes against previously-known knowledge (or even their own previous discoveries).

[Arctangent]

stuff

That's pretty fair, and "science isn't what we've proven, it's what we've yet to disprove" also probably a better way to put what I'm getting at for the typical person. Not that I'm sure if someone waving around our sciences as The Immutable Truth would respond any better to it than pointing out the we're in no position to claim that our sciences are anything more than how a bunch of humans have observed and interpreted the world around them, but hey.

[Major Cooke]

"ZOMG dis game iz teh shit!!!!1!!1!!11ONEONEONEELEVEN!"

Aaah, the good ol days of having Undertale jammed down my throat, and the subsequent removal of 100+ people from my friends list on steam...

They were some pretty damn heavy atychiphobes too.