As terrible as the implications of that are — millions dead, incalculable suffering and loss; all caused by scientific misjudgement — at least it tells us how to make ourselves safer going forward: we should stop doing the thing that creates that danger.
People like Bret Weinstein would be first in line to condemn people for "ignorant anti-science fear-mongering" if it came from the wrong side of the political aisle, so the odds that he would be consistently on the front lines pushing scientists to "stop doing the thing that creates the danger" whenever the potential for danger exists approaches zero.
To do so would be to adopt a conservative or even reactionary mindset towards science, which would seem to run counter to his "actual liberal" mindset towards social and political "progress" that depends on it.
I’m sorry, did his emails and speeches about the evergreen incidents not sate you? The fact he supported the retarded day of absence until it came for him speaks leagues of his views. He is a crybaby who continuously whines about a problem he was supportive of until he was put on trial.
He’s fine with people playing pretend discrimination before he became discriminated against as a result of the pretend discrimination. The entire concept of a day of absence was to make white people feel shame, which Weinstein catered to until the shame became punishment.
Bret Weinstein is a great guy, but he's hopelessly left wing (same as his brother actually who admits he has TDS)
Brett moved to Portland in 2018 by choice that's how left wing he is.
Generally, he is left-wing but reasonable. His one unreasonable opinion in the past few years was when he supported the second, even more absurd impeachment, of Trump.
Let's see him tell governments to place any restrictions on birth control or abortion in an attempt to stem the tide of the rise of the two-income household, collapsing birth and marriage rates, rising marriage ages, higher divorce rates, etc...
When people on the right speak about the disastrous effects that say forced racial integration had on certain communities, does he say we should "stop doing the thing that creates the danger" and let communities self-segregate if that's what they want to do? Or does he call them "racist"?
The "scientific consensus" of at least the past 60 years has been supportive of leftist causes and as such "scientists" of past generations made claims regarding things like racial integration, immigration, drug decriminalization, law enforcement techniques, sentencing guidelines, birth control, abortion, etc... and their ability to improve race relations, eliminate performance gaps, improve social stability and harmony, reduce harm, reduce crime, etc... that haven't lived up to the hype. They also downplayed the risks associated with implementing these policies.
When the right says "hey you experts told us this 'integration' thing would be good, but now all our inner-city schools suck", does Bret say "that was a scientific miscalculation, and we should stop requiring integrated schools"?
When the right says "hey you experts told us abortion would be 'legal, safe, and rare' and it's definitely the first two but isn't isn't 'rare'", does Bret say "that was a scientific miscalculation, and we should make abortion illegal"
When the right says "hey you experts told us that long sentences for criminals don't work, but now we have a lot of people who ought to be in prison out on the street", does Bret say "that was a scientific miscalculation, and we should have harsher sentences for crime and bring back the death penalty"
When the right says "hey you experts said it was important to teach children the basic biological facts behind sex in schools, and now my first-grader is learning about dildos and fetishes", does Bret say "that was a scientific miscalculation, and sex ed should be a matter between parents and child".
I'm not old enough to have witnessed the debate on integrated schools, but I remember the other three; and "scientific experts" going on TV to tell us how important these policies were was a major part of the "discussion" surrounding them.
I don’t recall any of these topics ever coming up with him, but he’s an outspoken critic of the scientific establishment so your original comment couldn’t be more incorrect.
That said, I have no idea what his response would be to your specific questions. Honestly, you come across a bit nutty with your obsession with race, given it has nothing to do with the original topic.
Think what you want about me; I don't really care.
The original topic was Bret Weinstein saying on a particular topic "scientists created a mess they now have a responsibility to clean up". That makes other areas where scientific consensus may have created a mess fair game when we're discussing whether or not someone would be intellectually honest about subjects that might conflict with deeply held beliefs. And notions of racial and gender equality are about as deep as they come on the left.
Something like virology is not a social science, but that does not mean that we should confuse it with the hard sciences. This sort of scam could not have been pulled in something like physics, let alone for a year.
All sciences are vulnerable to self-censorship which works by preventing scientific study or consideration through ridicule. One example in physics is its continuing discrediting of Psi phenomena (i.e., telepathy, retrocausation, presentiment) in spite of the fact they have been robustly proven in over 3000 of the most closely scrutinised experiments in science.
They've been able to effectively suppress Evolutionary Biology for decades now, and more recently they've infiltrated Comp. Sci and even Math. Nothing is out of reach for these people. If anything the current generation is way more political and supportive of censorship "for the greater good".
Possibly. But the black holes in question would be so small that they wouldn't be able to attract anything.
My point wasn't that physicists are infallible. The whole history of ether should show that. It's that there is a much more healthy discourse in a discipline when you cannot smuggle in wholesale fraud because many of your fellow members agree with it. There is an external test, as Thomas Sowell said.
The problem is peer review, which has morphed from a form of quality control into a puritanical kind of establishment gatekeeping. Most of the greatest advances in physics and every other discipline were published before peer review was really a thing: none of Einstein's big papers were peer reviewed before they were published, for example. In those days, anything could be published and if another scientist disagreed, they could publish their own dissenting paper in the same journal.
These days, radical dissentions from established scientific narratives, especially ones touching on politically charged issues like climate change or the efficacy of masks, can't get published in most major journals, because external reviewers have the power to squash them. Often these reviewers are academic insiders with their own careers and reputations invested in scholarship that upholds the status quo.
People like Bret Weinstein would be first in line to condemn people for "ignorant anti-science fear-mongering" if it came from the wrong side of the political aisle, so the odds that he would be consistently on the front lines pushing scientists to "stop doing the thing that creates the danger" whenever the potential for danger exists approaches zero.
To do so would be to adopt a conservative or even reactionary mindset towards science, which would seem to run counter to his "actual liberal" mindset towards social and political "progress" that depends on it.
I too am very angry about this opinion of Bret Weinstein's that you just made up.
Bret Weinstein is a far leftist who was chased out by a problem he helped create.
Proof that he 'helped create' this?
I’m sorry, did his emails and speeches about the evergreen incidents not sate you? The fact he supported the retarded day of absence until it came for him speaks leagues of his views. He is a crybaby who continuously whines about a problem he was supportive of until he was put on trial.
He said he's fine with people staying away from university, not in demanding that others stay away. I find no issue with that.
He’s fine with people playing pretend discrimination before he became discriminated against as a result of the pretend discrimination. The entire concept of a day of absence was to make white people feel shame, which Weinstein catered to until the shame became punishment.
Bret Weinstein is a great guy, but he's hopelessly left wing (same as his brother actually who admits he has TDS) Brett moved to Portland in 2018 by choice that's how left wing he is.
Generally, he is left-wing but reasonable. His one unreasonable opinion in the past few years was when he supported the second, even more absurd impeachment, of Trump.
No such thing.
Plenty of that. We just need to hear more of them.
What are you basing that on?
Let's see him tell governments to place any restrictions on birth control or abortion in an attempt to stem the tide of the rise of the two-income household, collapsing birth and marriage rates, rising marriage ages, higher divorce rates, etc...
You have no idea what you’re talking about. He speaks out against that very thing almost every chance he gets.
When people on the right speak about the disastrous effects that say forced racial integration had on certain communities, does he say we should "stop doing the thing that creates the danger" and let communities self-segregate if that's what they want to do? Or does he call them "racist"?
What the heck are you talking about? What does any of that have to do with science or anything you said in your previous comment?
The "scientific consensus" of at least the past 60 years has been supportive of leftist causes and as such "scientists" of past generations made claims regarding things like racial integration, immigration, drug decriminalization, law enforcement techniques, sentencing guidelines, birth control, abortion, etc... and their ability to improve race relations, eliminate performance gaps, improve social stability and harmony, reduce harm, reduce crime, etc... that haven't lived up to the hype. They also downplayed the risks associated with implementing these policies.
When the right says "hey you experts told us this 'integration' thing would be good, but now all our inner-city schools suck", does Bret say "that was a scientific miscalculation, and we should stop requiring integrated schools"?
When the right says "hey you experts told us abortion would be 'legal, safe, and rare' and it's definitely the first two but isn't isn't 'rare'", does Bret say "that was a scientific miscalculation, and we should make abortion illegal"
When the right says "hey you experts told us that long sentences for criminals don't work, but now we have a lot of people who ought to be in prison out on the street", does Bret say "that was a scientific miscalculation, and we should have harsher sentences for crime and bring back the death penalty"
When the right says "hey you experts said it was important to teach children the basic biological facts behind sex in schools, and now my first-grader is learning about dildos and fetishes", does Bret say "that was a scientific miscalculation, and sex ed should be a matter between parents and child".
I'm not old enough to have witnessed the debate on integrated schools, but I remember the other three; and "scientific experts" going on TV to tell us how important these policies were was a major part of the "discussion" surrounding them.
I don’t recall any of these topics ever coming up with him, but he’s an outspoken critic of the scientific establishment so your original comment couldn’t be more incorrect.
That said, I have no idea what his response would be to your specific questions. Honestly, you come across a bit nutty with your obsession with race, given it has nothing to do with the original topic.
Think what you want about me; I don't really care.
The original topic was Bret Weinstein saying on a particular topic "scientists created a mess they now have a responsibility to clean up". That makes other areas where scientific consensus may have created a mess fair game when we're discussing whether or not someone would be intellectually honest about subjects that might conflict with deeply held beliefs. And notions of racial and gender equality are about as deep as they come on the left.
Something like virology is not a social science, but that does not mean that we should confuse it with the hard sciences. This sort of scam could not have been pulled in something like physics, let alone for a year.
All sciences are vulnerable to self-censorship which works by preventing scientific study or consideration through ridicule. One example in physics is its continuing discrediting of Psi phenomena (i.e., telepathy, retrocausation, presentiment) in spite of the fact they have been robustly proven in over 3000 of the most closely scrutinised experiments in science.
Do you have any examples of 'psi phenomena' experiments? I've never heard of this, it sounds interesting.
This video is pretty old now but covers it pretty well.
They've been able to effectively suppress Evolutionary Biology for decades now, and more recently they've infiltrated Comp. Sci and even Math. Nothing is out of reach for these people. If anything the current generation is way more political and supportive of censorship "for the greater good".
Aren't the physicists making the experiments that can potentially create s black hole and other ridicalous scenarios like that?
Possibly. But the black holes in question would be so small that they wouldn't be able to attract anything.
My point wasn't that physicists are infallible. The whole history of ether should show that. It's that there is a much more healthy discourse in a discipline when you cannot smuggle in wholesale fraud because many of your fellow members agree with it. There is an external test, as Thomas Sowell said.
The problem is peer review, which has morphed from a form of quality control into a puritanical kind of establishment gatekeeping. Most of the greatest advances in physics and every other discipline were published before peer review was really a thing: none of Einstein's big papers were peer reviewed before they were published, for example. In those days, anything could be published and if another scientist disagreed, they could publish their own dissenting paper in the same journal.
These days, radical dissentions from established scientific narratives, especially ones touching on politically charged issues like climate change or the efficacy of masks, can't get published in most major journals, because external reviewers have the power to squash them. Often these reviewers are academic insiders with their own careers and reputations invested in scholarship that upholds the status quo.
Peer Review in its earliest form was a way for the Catholic Church to dictate science. The only thing that has changed today is the cabal in charge.
There's been quite a lot of "are you sure it won't kill everyone?" like with https://www.insidescience.org/manhattan-project-legacy/atmosphere-on-fire and yet they went YOLO with it, "let's find out!"