[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 791 KB, 3264x2448, 20221223_152913-min.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15073665 No.15073665 [Reply] [Original]

Why are viewpoints like pic related so controversial with normies, the general public, plebbitors and mainstream journalists today? This is an excerpt from a book by Herbert Simon who was literally a Nobel Prize winning computer scientist and psychologist.

These sorts of views are actually pretty common amongst working scientists and other scholars, but the general public and the media generally scoff at these sorts of attitudes, and in many cases even argue that these sorts of views should not be expressed in public and should be censored. If these people really claim to "trust the science" and "trust the experts", then how come they think experts who criticize aspects of our public and private institutions, social norms, and pop culture should be censored? How can science proceed if certain scientists are not allowed to share their research and their perspective just because it happens to upset the general public and non-scientists who have no idea what they're talking about?

>More than ten years ago, when two whistle blowers at Livermore Laboratory produced some staistics allegedly showing that health dangers from radiation in the vicinity of nublear plants were substantially greater than had been thought, the first reaction of people associated with nuclear power was to close ranks. With exceptions, they did not say, "Let's look into this more closely. Let's appoint an impeccable blue-ribbon commission to find the fact." On the contrary, the almost universal reaction was "Why are those irresponsible fellows shooting off their mouths?"

>> No.15073670
File: 186 KB, 928x1024, 1639158465144.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15073670

>>15073665
Yawn. "Science" is dead.

>> No.15073671

>>15073665
Because the "threat" of nuclear power plants is actually lower than "the experts" claim it is. There has been fearmongering about it by uninformed proles for decades even though scientists have done very public stunts to disprove the myths, like eating uranium and swimming in spent fuel ponds.

>> No.15073675
File: 54 KB, 337x499, crowd (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15073675

>> No.15073733

>>15073671
The point here isn't about muh nuclear power, the author is using that as an example. The point is that any criticism of "settled science" is basically viewed as blasphemy. The language we use today is a bit different. The Expert Worshippers don't actually use phrases like "blasphemy". Instead, they label their critics "racists", "conspiracy theorists", "science deniers", "Russia supporters", etc. but the sociological meaning of these labels is basically the same. Just as the medieval blasphemers were excluded from the Catholic Church, from public life, and in some cases were even imprisoned or physically attacked, so too must the conspiracy theorists be excluded from academia, from social media, from journalism, and in extreme cases even from banking or shopping.

>> No.15073739

>>15073675
Thanks for the source anon, looks interesting.

>> No.15074445

>>15073733
Because science has become religion. I think maybe that's how other religions came to be. Maybe Jesus was some kind of medical researcher in Rome, and then after centuries he was turned into what we know. Who knows.

>> No.15074762

>>15073665
>why do people who abandon god immediately seek him out
it almost seems like majority of people are made to be cattle for the elite

>> No.15076178

>>15073739
read up on Bernays too, the century of the self is a good documentary

>> No.15077571

>>15073670
>most cancer research is largely a fraud
bullshit