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

Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 112 posts

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#51

Post by r_smart »

Most of the comments here are focused on climate change denial and smattering of evolution denial. It often gets painted that science denial (and evolution denial) is something that conservatives do, that liberals are the tribe of science.

Here's a link to a talk from Jon Haidt that puts a different perspective on that [0]. I don't want to do his eloquence a disservice, but suffice to say, every group has their own flavors of science denial. The discourse just seems to mostly focus on calling out the conservative forms of it while ignoring the liberal forms.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9kJkuuedw0

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#52

Post by hx87 »

nsxwolf wrote: post #28
millettjon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a large portion of the population does not value or understand science, how can you have a rational debate on values?

Let's say that eventually it is the consensus of the scientific community that things like consciousness, pain and free will are just illusions, and therefore, human rights are an outdated concept, and future policy decisions should reflect that consensus. You'd resist those policy proposals, and I think most people would. You'd base that resistance on your values - values, which in this case at least, you did NOT de…

Your point is right, but your example is terribly flawed, because as whateveracct notes,

> and therefore, human rights are an outdated concept

is a value judgement that cannot be derived from scientific principles.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#53

Post by hackuser »

melling wrote: post #2

Funny, today on the Drudge Report, I read that we've had record cooling in the past 8 months. http://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/record-global-cooling-... There's a large online anti-global warming movement that needs to be addressed. Actually, there's an anti-everyhing movement (e.g vaccines). The general public is not going to know who to believe. Do more people read Drudge or Scientific American?

> There's a large online anti-global warming movement that needs to be addressed. Actually, there's an anti-everyhing movement (e.g vaccines). The general public is not going to know who to believe.

IMHO the problem is that the conservative leaders (political and otherwise) and media have made a norm, a social requirement, out of ideology uber alles - over facts, wisdom, respect, the welfare and lives of others, and even democracy.

It's not the first time that's happened in history, but the results often have been very bad. We can no longer stand by and let it pass politely and passively; that only further legitimizes it.

I don't object to conservative ideas, but ideological movements of any stripe are a danger to society, and the current one exists among conservatives.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#54

Post by hx87 »

veidr wrote: post #13
treehau5 wrote: post #4

Science needs another ally as well - we also need wholesome support of science. Not just pick and choosing to support a particular ideology, liberal or conservative. For some (my friends on the right, whom I understand and have empathy for more than your average HN reader), scientific thought unfortunately has been so closely tied to liberal ideologies that middle America sees as destructive to families and local eco…

> growing intolerance for scientists to hold opinions of faith or conservative ideals Conservative ideals and science don't have any inherent conflict, but uhm, that other thing...

The problem isn't faith, it's narrow-mindedness about how the divine interacts with the world. God is bigger than you and doesn't hew to your preconceptions of them.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#55

Post by woofyman »

touleier wrote: post #19
lordnacho wrote: post #6

I heard the incoming Vice President, Mike Pence, does not believe in evolution. In fact there's a video of him, admittedly a long while ago now, making a speech where he seems to not understand what the scientific meaning of "theory" is. Are people not concerned about this at all? People in high positions ought to know basic things about how science functions, yet as the article points out, barely a word was said abo…

By the same token, there are hordes of Americans who affect a belief that there are no races, and think any attempt to apply Darwinism to human nature is the quintessence of evil. Liberal Creationists.

Race is a social construct.

Edit: I'm 50% Ashkenazi, we are prone to Tay-Sachs disease, caused by a genetic mutation. Does that make me a member of a separate race.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#56

Post by Retric »

notdonspaulding wrote: post #49
tbskm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of Americans who would disqualify a candidate that doesn't believe in evolution, global warming, or some other widely known scientific fact. Unfortunately, there are just as many ill-informed Americans that share these views. It's sad and depressing, and is usually just the result of being in a conservative bubble. If you live in rural America, your friends and family all regurgitate the same things…

> They're ignorant, sure, but it's hard to see things > from another perspective if you've never really been > exposed to anything else. Are you sure they're ignorant? Could they not be intelligent, rational individuals with the personal agency to have looked at the same facts as you and come up with different conclusions?

> Could they not be intelligent, rational individuals with the personal agency to have looked at the same facts as you and come up with different conclusions?

No. Just as someone that says 2 + 2 = 457 is also wrong.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#57

Post by kstrauser »

notdonspaulding wrote: post #49
tbskm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of Americans who would disqualify a candidate that doesn't believe in evolution, global warming, or some other widely known scientific fact. Unfortunately, there are just as many ill-informed Americans that share these views. It's sad and depressing, and is usually just the result of being in a conservative bubble. If you live in rural America, your friends and family all regurgitate the same things…

> They're ignorant, sure, but it's hard to see things > from another perspective if you've never really been > exposed to anything else. Are you sure they're ignorant? Could they not be intelligent, rational individuals with the personal agency to have looked at the same facts as you and come up with different conclusions?

Not on that subject, no. It's not reasonably possible for a person to look at the known facts of modern biology and not believe in the process of evolution.

Things intelligent, well-read people can disagree on: fiscal policy; democracy versus republic; abortion rights; single-payer healthcare.

Things so overwhelmingly shown to be factually true that it's not a sign of reasonableness to debate them: Earth and life are old; vaccines don't cause autism.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#58

Post by intended »

nonbel wrote: post #38
intended wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that build/refute the position that dogma is required to deal with anti-science in public discourse. I ask because while I think its an awful conclusion, I've seen and experimented enough for more than 2 decades, to recognize this same appeal from the days people first started spreading climate FUD which has metastized to what we see today. The conclusion is that this is NOT a scientific communication proble…

>"dogma is required to deal with anti-science in public discourse." You want a ministry of science devoted to spreading dogma? Do people still know about the book 1984?

No I don't.

I am well aware of 1984, and I am also keenly aware that many people seem to be applying it like a manual as opposed to a warning.

Its easy to tell me, a random person who mentions that he thinks its a horrid solution, "remember 1984". I am already on this site, and already disposed to that vein of thought.

Its not that effective at countering, or dealing with people who are not here, some of whom are coders who have never read those books, or think the books are over hyped.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#59

Post by Retric »

touleier wrote: post #11

Taking Dan Rather's advice on a responsible attitude to science is like going to Bill Cosby for dating advice, or asking Rolf Harris to run your kindergarten. Booted from CBS in disgrace for confusing journalism with character assassination. Read the original CBS report. "This man is a truth teller". Indeed. Here is the full report. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report...

Please take your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem somewhere else, it only suggests ignorance on your part.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#60

Post by touleier »

woofyman wrote: post #55
touleier wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the same token, there are hordes of Americans who affect a belief that there are no races, and think any attempt to apply Darwinism to human nature is the quintessence of evil. Liberal Creationists.

Race is a social construct. Edit: I'm 50% Ashkenazi, we are prone to Tay-Sachs disease, caused by a genetic mutation. Does that make me a member of a separate race.

Science is a "social construct". As is anything else we talk about. Try telling someone with sickle-cell anemia that race is just a social construct.
Post reply on HN