Thank you to those who read the article. I appreciate it. And kudos to @Klax for knowing Strangelove! Somehow I knew he would and I don’t even know him…
Interesting replies. I am closely aligned with @jammycakes list. I would have picked a different example for point three. I would have said: climate catastrophism has been badly wrong for 50+ years, but admitting that poses a trillion dollar threat to the green energy industry, politicians, and activists if people were to take that idea seriously.
@SkovandOfMitaze. I apologize. I guess the article pushed some buttons and that was not my intent.
I really appreciate the detailed response of @knor, and I think that was the main thrust of the article.
@Klax has a very different view of liberals than I, but I agree that both sides need to cut each other slack and listen to each other vs immediately reacting in accordance with our respective meme-wrapped bubbles. As to the categories, I had to pick something and is almost always the case with me, what I want to do doesn’t usually fit with a pre-programmed category.
I find the response of @beaglelady interesting. Objectively, both Fauci and Climate Science (as presented by the media and activists) deserve much criticism. Of course conservatives are going to ridicule both, just as liberals ridicule conservatives for questioning experts and the orthodoxy. Again, the correct approach would be to listen to each other, and perhaps out of that would come better solutions.
I appreciate the response of @jpm. Science shouldn’t be either conservative or liberal, just evidenced based. However, it does appear to be heavily influenced by politics and culture, at least in how it’s reported.
Now I personally have a low opinion of almost all news reporting, and it’s lowest with mainstream sources. My reason is simple. Every time I am part of an event or have detailed knowledge of an event, the reporting is in error. So when I see some “science” claim in the news, my first thought is “I wonder what the scientists really said or found.” I dig deeper if I can. Those who don’t take my approach usually just decide based on confirmation bias.
As a conservative, I am certainly NOT content with the status quo and am not hesitant to accept change. The core of conservatism is individual accountability, personal freedom, and creating a society where all are encouraged to seek excellence. I think that idea that conservatives are resistant to change and want to preserve the status quo is based on the original view of conservatives and liberals, but many years ago that changed.
Now if we treat each other as individuals instead of groups, the labels don’t matter so much anymore.
@marta. People use hyperbole all the time. It wasn’t a big deal before it become fashionable to be easily offended. I think Mr Hayward’s point on dissenting research is that nowadays, certain questions just aren’t allowed for fear of being cancelled.
Possible discussion points (for and against) are:
- Disruptive science is dwindling
- Dissent against the scientific orthodoxy is strongly discouraged
- The media works to squelch dissent from scientific orthodoxy
- The political leaning of academia is hurting science by lack of diversity in thought, leading to group-think
I disagree that the hostility is only toward pseudo-science, unless you decide that any view dissenting from orthodoxy is pseudo-science and misinformation.
Let’s take the vaccine example. Most anti-vax people I have come across truly are on the fringe. However, there is a massive gulf between being anti-vax and questioning the covid vaccines.
I am very pro-vaccine. I keep up to date on what my Dr recommends. I even made sure to get the first and second covid shots. At that time there was reasonable evidence that they would help against the original strain of covid.
However, the vaccine was a very bad choice for my wife. A short time after the second shot her severe eczema flared. She had previously had it under control–she was one of the very first Dupixent patients. Whenever we would move, her new dermatologists would always comment that my wife had the worse case of eczema they’d ever seen. If you don’t know, severe eczema isn’t just being a little itchy. It’s such severe discomfort that you can’t sleep.
Our MD even told us that they made mistakes with the initial rollout of the covid vax, that it should have never been given to people like my wife. Meaning he was fairly certain the covid vax is what flared my wife’s severe eczema. Why? Because the risk of serious disease even with the original strain of covid for a reasonably healthy woman in her late 50s was low, but the risk of flaring severe eczema was high.
As time has gone on, the variants of covid have produced less and less severe illness, as viruses are often do. Killing the host isn’t a good way to survive. Yet many are still pushing for repeated booster shots, even though the best new studies now seems to suggest that the boosters aren’t effective anymore. Add to that the the newness of mRNA vaccine and the under reported vaccines injuries, the billions of dollars the vaccine companies have made, and the way and dissenting opinion has been censored (as the Twitter file releases show us). Thus it is not a psuedo-science or misinformed view to question covid vaccinations. Its actually smart to be informed and discuss risks/benefit with your doc.
In answer to your last point, the solution is simple. People need to recognize their own biases. The very words you picked show bias. I already covered anti-vax. Climate denier is a reference to Holocaust denier and is inflammatory–you probably just thought it was cute hyperbole. It leaves no room for those like me who accept climate change but reject climate catastrophism. The catastrophists have been wrong for 50 years, as those who pick worse case scenarios usually are.
A good example of an effective approach to dealing with bad science was Kenneth Miller’s take down of Intelligent Design. He took them seriously, didn’t ridicule anyone, and showed them to be wrong–at least to the open-minded. If reasoned debate doesn’t take down the bad science, the answer isn’t to start censoring and cancelling people. I know that is how those in power (from the church to academia) have historically responded, but that really needs to change. We need to be patient in explaining our position and showing evidence–using logic, not emotion–for as long as needed.
Yeah I know, I am fighting a lost cause…