←back to thread

473 points Bostonian | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.454s | source
Show context
standardUser ◴[] No.42182314[source]
I sympathize with her. There's a big movement in this country that defines itself largely by opposing what its perceived enemies support. When science (or culture) makes a reasonably sound assertion, and it's met with an opposition that wields rhetoric like a weapon with no regard for rationality, it's tempting to fight fire with fire. And when the victims of that opposition are among the most marginalized in society, it's easy to feel like you have the moral high ground.

Maybe in culture it's ok to fight dirty and stretch some truths in order to force newer perspectives into the zeitgeist. Maybe it's even neccesary when the opposition is willing to lie outright, and loudly, as a first resort. But that doesn't work with science. Even if the motivations are pure, it's destined to backfire. It should backfire. Science itself is under assault and losing its ability to hold together some semblance of a shared reality. If people start to believe that science is just as corruptible as journalism because of shitty science journalists, we're fucked.

replies(8): >>42182559 #>>42182870 #>>42182932 #>>42182983 #>>42182985 #>>42183032 #>>42183600 #>>42185012 #
1. heresie-dabord ◴[] No.42182983[source]
The magazine in question is a science-aligned publication. Given the current public discourse, it's no surprise that science-aligned opinions will be attacked. The current public discourse is (gleefully, tribalistically) misinformed, misguided, and hell-bent on social fragmentation.

Watch the bonds between citizens and reality dissolve in real time.

replies(1): >>42183040 #
2. rbanffy ◴[] No.42183040[source]
> Watch the bonds between citizens and reality dissolve in real time.

I've never thought our generations would need to fight this war again... Big brain and opposable thumbs are overrated.