= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on The Cold War divided Science - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (53)
More questions along a similar line:
Are there any other currently/recently-existing scientific communities?
Is there anything the Soviets got right that we don't know about yet? There was a SSC comment thread a while back about the Soviet belief in magnetic storms influencing behavior, which is something the Americans are apparently only now looking into.
Viliam_Bur says: "In Soviet Union many scientists knew that e.g. Lysenkoism was a fraud, they were just afraid to speak openly, because they would be fired or put in prison." What beliefs in America/the West are like Lysenkoism? What can be done about them?
How accepted was Lysenkoism among the general public? scientists outside the relevant field? the political elite?
There are many other examples of beliefs like the Soviet one in abiogenic oil: Germans and low blood pressure, Japanese and blood types, Koreans and fan death, 19th-century Americans and the belief that masturbation causes insanity, Anglophones (or at least Americans and Brits) and the belief that eating carrots improves eyesight. What beliefs in [parts of] America/the West fall into that category? What, if any, are their significant consequences? (Abiogenic oil means depletion isn't a problem; fan death means... people buy fewer fans, and don't leave them on at night.)
Well one place to start is to look at people who believe that certain scientific opinions are inherently "unjust" and shouldn't be heard, that their cause is so noble that it justifies lying and falsifying science.
They think that certain topics they discuss in a nuanced way among themselves might be used for crude propogandistic purposes by others....like you're doing right now.
Is "nuanced" supposed to be a euphemism for "not corresponding to reality"? Because near as I can tell even when they talk among themselves they avoid mentioning said "unjust" scientific opinions and act lie they believe their own lies.
This is not surprising, as I described here once you start lying to attract people to your cause, your cause will be staffed by people who believe said lies. And if there really is some inner circle which free discusses the truth, how do you know they're goals are at all related to the goals that attracted you to the movement?