zlacker

>>southe+(OP)
When the platforms starting censoring during the pandemic and last election cycle I remember saying they better get it right 100% of the time because the moment they get it wrong their credibility is shot. Hear we are.

Censorship, beyond what’s required by law, is doomed to fail.

>>chasd0+u8
I still remember that so many people cheered when legitimate doctors and scientists were banned from Twitter or Facebook, just for questioning either the lockdown or the effectiveness or risks of the vaccines. The doctors may not be correct, but shouldn't we allow people to question science? Our government can do what it does because the people embolden them.

>>hintym+QI
This is the proof that the religion of “I believe in science” is not a friend to creating a culture of science appreciation

It’s been the struggle for scientific progress, the breakthroughs are the exception not the rule and the reason is the culture of belief around the science of the time

The lesson I’ve most learned from science is that the questions are more interesting than the answer and the answers we have are a way to ask new questions

>>sirspa+cN
I find "I believe in science" as delivered on social platforms and the mainstream media hysterical in the past few years. I mean, how do we even know if "science" is right without questioning? I can understand that people believe that they are on the right side of the history during the Covid era, for lockdowns, for the efficacy of the vaccines (For those who get angry, I took vaccines by the way, so it's not about my personal assessment here) and etc. But is it by default we are on the right side? Like Government "helped" people believe that Lysenkoism was on the right side of the history? Like people should not challenge social Darwinism or eugenics? Like Chinese people believed that the yield of rice patty could be 100x higher because a top JPL scientist said so and the government "helped" them understand? Like authorities challenged Darwin for his evolution theory? Like people would rather lock up Galileo because his heliocentric model was just plainly wrong? Like Ignaz Semmelweis was obvious crazy to propose the hand hygiene in hospitals? Like Wegener's continental drift was just batshit crazy theory? Like Bolzmann deserved to be shunned from the academic society for his outrageous statistical mechanics? Like those who believed in the existence of irrationals should be drowned by Pythagorean?

Since when science can't be challenged, even when the challenge can be outrageously wrong?

>>hintym+Gn1
Questioning science is and should be encouraged when it comes from other scientists seeking in specialized publications and conferences.

The public at large however is not informed enough to have a legitimate opinion.

>>LunaSe+FT2
https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115286/documents/... Jay was banned for merely retweeting a peer-reviewed paper that questions the efficacy of lockdown (maybe the last straw, I don't know). Some people in Twitter were apparently very righteous.