This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I have to disagree here. If he was certain that those undeniable proofs were coming, he should have been open and honest about what he was doing. If the facts and evidence back you up, then you don't actually need to do anything deceptive and it actually hurts you in the long run! Sure, keeping the field's hands clean for a few years is a decent motivation, but the only way that tracks is if you assume he already knows he is going to die before the proof comes out and he doesn't care about the field's health in the long run and just wants to maximise trust in the field for the remainder of his life. When people get lied to, they get angry - and even if those slam-dunk proofs showed up in the future, that wouldn't change the damage done to the field's reputation when all of this stuff came out anyway. To use a financial metaphor, why would you take out a loan with a terrible interest rate when you already have enough money to just buy it outright? That thinking is just so short-sighted that I have trouble believing anyone with scientific literacy would act that way, and I know he's not that stupid by virtue of what he's actually done. But the biggest issue for me, the one that makes dishonesty and deception the most likely motivation, is the refusal to disclose conflicts of interest - I just can't see a hypothetical true-believer making such a ruinously short-sighted decision.
I agree that there's only so much informational value that you can extract from behaviour like this - we might be living in the comedy timeline where these scientists are acting deceptively because they wrongly believe in the lab-leak hypothesis even though the natural origin theory is correct. But despite it being a technically fallacious argument from credulity, I just can't comprehend how someone would both genuinely believe that the natural origins hypothesis is correct and behave in the same way that he did.
More options
Context Copy link