Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 368 posts

Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?

#21

Post by reaperducer »

euroPoor wrote: post #16
sandoooo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wsj article is actually fairly accurate, since it has basically listed all the same arguments. The question is the last point: assuming everything else here is true, is this sufficient grounds for deplatforming? Do you want to live in a world where it is? Edit: apparently the HN answer is: yes, we totes do.

Do you want your children to live in a world with +4 degrees because some purely financially motivated people stopped progress on the environmental protection front?

I want my children to live in a world where they are free to think and to read and to listen to a wide variety of opinions, and not just parrot those that come from the loudest voices.

Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?

#22

Post by scythe »

sandoooo wrote: post #9
alevskaya wrote: post #4

Some relevant context here contesting this view: https://twitter.com/lteytelman/status/1216770668475252738

Since twitter is horrible on mobile, here's a summary: # Nasorg sounds like NAS and could be mistaken for it. # Nasorg is conservative and have published material with conservative slant. # 7 out of 21 speakers are climate denialists. # Therefore it is righteous to deplatform them.

># Therefore it is righteous to deplatform them.

It's not "deplatforming" when your objection to someone speaking is about what they're saying. An organization pushing climate change denial should not be treated as credible because climate denial is not science.

Anyone who has even the faintest experience with physicists -- anyone who has sat in a room full of them -- knows that there are thousands upon thousands of physicists in the world, any of whom are perfectly capable of interpreting the detailed technical reports from climatologists. If the theory of global warming was carious, there are a lot of people who would know. Physicists are known to complain about theories they don't like, and they do -- usually about string theory or fusion power, never about climatology.

And that's just it. Anyone who understands enough physics to read a paper knows that the "climate change debate" is a media ploy to trick people into voting for something stupid.

The people running the ploy have made their beliefs known as well -- they realize that climate change is going to happen, but they think that the world, or at least the West, will be OK. Ronald Bailey delivers the exegesis of this viewpoint, and his readers are largely the educated right, who go on to encourage this nonsense among the gullible.

Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?

#23

Post by triceratops »

sandoooo wrote: post #13
sandoooo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since twitter is horrible on mobile, here's a summary: # Nasorg sounds like NAS and could be mistaken for it. # Nasorg is conservative and have published material with conservative slant. # 7 out of 21 speakers are climate denialists. # Therefore it is righteous to deplatform them.

The wsj article is actually fairly accurate, since it has basically listed all the same arguments. The question is the last point: assuming everything else here is true, is this sufficient grounds for deplatforming? Do you want to live in a world where it is? Edit: apparently the HN answer is: yes, we totes do.

Yes, denial of man-made climate change is sufficient grounds for deplatforming in my book. Not that that's happening here. A scientific conference calling for freedom of speech is upset that a scientist is using their freedom of speech in a way the conference doesn't approve of.

Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?

#24

Post by triceratops »

beaner wrote: post #14
alevskaya wrote: post #4

Some relevant context here contesting this view: https://twitter.com/lteytelman/status/1216770668475252738

This guy's Twitter thread doesn't seem like a great defense, because he doesn't make any specific scientific claims. It's all just ad-hominem that this org are "climate deniers." More troubling is his claim that they are "weaponizing" reproducibility against climate change. Doesn't that raise a red flag? If you're worried that reproducibility poses a problem for something, doesn't that mean you might just a little bi…

> Who are these people who feel that simply listening to someone speak is equivalent to endorsing them?

There are certain topics that are so settled, that to engage with anyone with a contrary view is tantamount to giving them credibility and a platform to reach the uninformed. Some topics simply don't have "both sides" in any meaningful sense. Flat eartherism, Holocaust denial, and antivaxxerism are ones that immediately come to mind. Anyone who denies the mainstream consensus on those subjects is either a moron, a dishonest person with selfish or malicious motives, or both.

Denial of human-caused climate change is close to being in that bucket by this point (the next 2 decades will determine the truth of it). From the perspective of those advocating for action against climate change, deniers have blocked any sort of meaningful action for nearly 30 years. Their actions have led to unprecedented, potential economic, humanitarian, and ecological crises.

Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?

#25

Post by camjohnson26 »

wayoutthere wrote: post #12
euroPoor wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wanted to post exactly this. WSJ doing some terrific propaganda here.

It's been sad to watch such a storied institution reduced to another Murdoch mouthpiece over the last 10 years. The WSJ never had much of an ideological bent other than "capitalism" until News Corp took over.

Murdoch could’ve spiked the Theranos story that led to its collapse and cost him millions, but he didn’t.

Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?

#26

Post by sandoooo »

allovernow wrote: post #19

While this explicit cancel culture has been slow to arrive, this is exactly the kind of traditionally left leaning activism which has gradually come to infest almost all of academia (and to a lesser but growing extent, industry). The result is an extremely strong, emergent cultural pressure against certain results and certain questions, which has been holding back a wide range of fields and ensuring pursuit of severe…

On the other hand, this suggests there are low-hanging fruit in those areas.

The trick is to find one that will produce money for you as a researcher/investor even if it's an unpopular opinion (i.e. not reliant on investment / cooperation from mainstream players).

Suggestions?

Related, what's the best way to short cancel-culture-heavy endeavors? Seems like it predicts a much higher chance of failure in the long term.

Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?

#28

Post by CalChris »

sandoooo wrote: post #18
euroPoor wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you want your children to live in a world with +4 degrees because some purely financially motivated people stopped progress on the environmental protection front?

Is the chance of this higher or lower in a world where scientists with opposing views are allowed to deplatform one another instead of applying the scientific method?

The scientific method deplatforms. It is skeptical. It is observational. It is experimental. It refines and eliminates failed hypotheses. It is not fair to all viewpoints.

For example, the scientific method deplatformed geocentrism.

Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?

#29

Post by beaner »

triceratops wrote: post #24
beaner wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guy's Twitter thread doesn't seem like a great defense, because he doesn't make any specific scientific claims. It's all just ad-hominem that this org are "climate deniers." More troubling is his claim that they are "weaponizing" reproducibility against climate change. Doesn't that raise a red flag? If you're worried that reproducibility poses a problem for something, doesn't that mean you might just a little bi…

> Who are these people who feel that simply listening to someone speak is equivalent to endorsing them? There are certain topics that are so settled, that to engage with anyone with a contrary view is tantamount to giving them credibility and a platform to reach the uninformed. Some topics simply don't have "both sides" in any meaningful sense. Flat eartherism, Holocaust denial, and antivaxxerism are ones that immedi…

Yeah but climate science is complicated by the fact that it is overwhelmingly political.

You could say the same thing about geocentrism, germs [1], fat vs sugars, etc. - which all turned out to be false, given time and scrutiny.

Scientists have to learn the science to understand it, and that means encountering it from all perspectives. As new generations of people learn, they all have to go through it all again.

To not do so is to promote faith, not science.

Plus if denialism is wrong, then there should be nothing to worry about anyway. Assuming scientists are scientific, they will consider it, consider other evidence, and come to the correct conclusion.

[1] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/532074/how-promoting-han...

Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?

#30

Post by downerending »

One of my guilty pleasures is finding someone on the web saying something foolish and engaging them in debate. Rather than cancel these guys, wouldn't it be better to have a few well-prepared opponents attend and do the same? (Isn't that how science is supposed to work?)
Post reply on HN