81–90 of 421 posts
So arguably there is no "CFS/ME". Arguably, there are many conditions that can be diagnosed as "CFS/ME". And so it's not surprising that some patients benefit from talk therapy. And that other patients won't, and will be insulted by the very idea.
About being "silenced" by online activists, that's just the Internet working as expected. Or at least, expected if you really thought it through.
Another field where science is on a collision course with online (and offline) activists is genetics. As we decode and understand more of the genome, it is possible that our genes affect more of our behavior than what the partisans of tabula rasa hold for truth. And unless the political climate evolves, in a power struggle between activists and science, I wouldn't bet on the scientists.
> As we decode and understand more of the genome, it is possible that our genes affect more of our behavior than what the partisans of the tabula rasa hold for truth What “partisans of the tabula rasa”? Activists of both the left and right seem more likely to be partisans of genetic determinism, though of which aspects of intellect, identity, and behavior varies between them.
For example, if stereotypical male/female attitudes and behaviors were found to have a substantial genetic component to them, I think a lot of socially progressive people would hate that. There's a lot of emotional investment for many in the idea that stereotypically gendered behaviors are entirely or almost entirely caused by culture/social pressure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they can and want to. Why are you on HN?
Because I want to comment. But if someone replies to my comments with the equivalent of hate mail, I won't say that they are "silencing" me. If I go to that scientist's profile I can read his tweets just fine. Someone quoting him and saying he's an idiot is not "silencing" him.
I wish we could not do this because CFS sucks and research into it has the potential to make a lot of people feel better. In a perfect world we would just let that research happen and ignore it until it proves something useful about treating CFS.
I guess what people might worry about is doctors saying "I heard about XX research" and then ignoring symptoms even if the diagnosis doesn't really fit or the treatment isn't helping, but that seems like a problem with doctors. The whole "it's all in your head" thing seems to come up often and it's not restricted to CFS, though CFS might be used as a lazy catch-all diagnosis when in fact there is something going on that is well-understood and treatable. Speculation, of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately we have some people who put their beliefs and politics above science and will actively act against investigation only because a line of inquiry could result in evidence against their view. You say that's people putting beliefs and politics above science, but while that's a rational thing to suggest there are two problems with it. Firstly, a lot of issues don't and can't have any scientific rationale beh…
In a capitalist society, I will see in a negative light any statement or action that negatively impacts my livelihood. I don’t care if the most vocal activists think that it’s “right” in an absolute sense to enact a policy of reverse discrimination. Anything that detracts from my ability to provide for my family is bullshit.
Capitalism has nothing to do with it. Whether it's social security recipients or public school teachers, people whose income is determined by the government are as defensive of their livelihoods as people whose pay is set by market forces, perhaps even more so.
This is not scientific research, it's chronic fatigue researchers getting hate mail. Also, it's not activists, it's random crackpots. Edit: look, read the article, and then downvote me if you must. I am sure that online activists in many areas are reducing public discussion. I'm not addressing the subject in general; just this article. Specifically, the article talks about a very particular narrow, topic (chronic fat…
You can be an activist and crackpot. These things are orthogonal.
*(badly paraphrased) Before the internet, people (including grrm) sometime wrote fan letters. There was always an occasional hater, but mostly, people wrote letter to authors they liked. They generally didn't write to say they hated a book, or that they liked the first three but the last two were shite.
This is sad. Unfortunately we have some people who put their beliefs and politics above science and will actively act against investigation only because a line of inquiry could result in evidence against their view. It comes from both the left and right depending on the topic. It’s not simply dissent it also is about pressuring institutions to not fund certain areas of investigation which is a very detrimental conseq…
Unfortunately we have some people who put their beliefs and politics above science and will actively act against investigation only because a line of inquiry could result in evidence against their view. You say that's people putting beliefs and politics above science, but while that's a rational thing to suggest there are two problems with it. Firstly, a lot of issues don't and can't have any scientific rationale beh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience, sane people volunteer for a cause they believe in. "Activists" grab a megaphone and disrupt any gathering of people who disagree with them on said cause, because they've convinced themselves that they are morally superior for their beliefs.
I think you are confusing 'activists' with 'agitators'.
I'm not sure you realise how fucking hateful you sound when you dismiss mental illness as "just in the mind".
Your quoted selection isn’t even in their post. It wasn’t a generalization in the way you think.
Basic reading comprehension skills work might be in order. Plainly your aggressive mind has rendered you prone to misreading and flaming out incorrectly.