Does science should be censored ?

Post Reply New Topic

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 408AAJizYQ

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/in ... -censored/

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41188560

This science does seem like psuedoscience

No science should not be. It the long run it can't be. The best we can do is limit harm from science by making most people not want to use certain science that will harm people.

No. Science should never be censored. We should follow it wherever it leads us.

I'm actually glad that this facial recognition software exists. I know that it isn't perfect, but I imagine that gay guys could use this effectively.

I'm not gay, but I imagine that gay guys must have a hard time finding sexual partners, since most people aren't gay. Gay guys are stereotypically portrayed as perverts who are obsessed with sex ... but I imagine that some gay guys must actually have trouble losing their virginity.

This program could help gay incels a whole lot. I don't know why so many gay organisations are mad about this.

Perhaps Milo Yiannopoulos is right when he says that gay culture has been ruined by political correctness ... to a certain extent.

I don't get this "row".

"This research isn't science or news, but it's a description of beauty standards on dating sites that ignores huge segments of the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer/questioning) community, including people of colour, transgender people, older individuals, and other LGBTQ people who don't want to post photos on dating sites," said Jim Halloran, chief digital officer of Glaad, a media-monitoring body.

What on earth does that have to do with the algorithm?

"These reckless findings could serve as a weapon to harm both heterosexuals who are inaccurately outed, as well as gay and lesbian people who are in situations where coming out is dangerous."

It's not like its 99% accurate, they said it was 71% accurate on women, 81% accurate for men, there's a great deal of deniability there.

No censorship. Tabloid type reporting improves critical thinking. (Or exposes the gullible.)

I disagree. I think that tabloid-type reporting actually ruins science.

For example, does anyone remember this old New Scientist cover?



Creationists jumped all over this ... even though the actual article just says that horizontal gene transfer is common among microbes. The article makes it very clear that the tree of life still holds true for multicellular life forms.

When science magazines rely on sensationalism (as they often do in order to make a profit) the general public get an oversimplified and unrealistic view of science.

Tabloid-style sensationalism does not promote critical thinking. It just confuses people. I will admit that this sort of reporting exposes the gullible, but sometimes the gullible stick with a lie even when they are exposed to the truth. Not all gullible people sheepishly accept the truth after believing in a lie.

Furthermore, taking advantage of people's gullibility is pretty cruel. Bernie Madoff certainly exposed the gullible. Should we hold him up as a beacon of progress?

^^^
Agreed. Real science shouldn't be censored, but pseudoscience should be, because it can mislead people into erroneous, and even harmful beliefs. Remember The Bell Curve from years ago? That abomination passed off as a book of science maintained there was an intellectual difference between the races, with blacks being on the bottom. Had the country decided that that was legitimate science, we might never have had the likes of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who is a Titan of modern science, AND a black man.

Mikah identified it.

If someone asked me , "What is the closest truth of our reality?" I would not answer, "science".

I would answer, "a probability distribution".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution

All aspects of observable reality appear to fall into a probability distribution.

This appears to get overlooked in science, where science is often presented as "absolute truth".

For example, "Are vaccines good for you?". Well, the truth is that they kill people ever year.

Negative low probability event are likely kept quiet.

Far more people die from not being vaccinated.
Score another point for science!

I don't think censoring something will stop people from believing it. At times I've seen the opposite: the people who believe something that people want to suppress take it as a sign they're right, because the argument is being countered with force instead of defeating it with a counter argument.

Good point...

I used to be a pathological fence sitter on most things until I adopted the probability principle...
Embracing non-existence of God is a good example of this...
No offence...

No. The US president may not believe in science, but I sure do, and don't think it should be censored because fact is fact whether one wants to accept it or not. I for one will not presume to challenge someone who has a PhD in a certain field of study if I do not have a PhD of my own in the same field. I think someone who has dedicated their life to studying something must know a great deal more about that topic than I ever will.

On the other hand, empiricism only covers observable truth that has been proven as fact, which is to say, even a well-founded theory isn't empirical truth until it ceases to be a theory. Observed data doesn't always have just one possible interpretation. Moreover, there are still things that science hasn't proven or disproven. All I'm saying is, science is imperfect and there is still much to discover, but it is the pursuit of knowledge that will further our understanding of our world and beyond. For that reason, it should not be censored.

People who are genuinely interested in scientific methodology would develop skills in objectivity, be aware of their own bias, counter confirmation bias, develop critical thinking skills and keep an open mind...

And the engagement of critical thinking negates the temptation to have "faith" in so-called experts in the field...
Listen to those you respect and use them as an intellectual compass...
But there is nothing gained in blind acceptance other than indulging in personal intellectual laziness...

There have been incidences where apparent experts have been influenced by the lure of fame or wealth (think thalidomide) or by grants from self-interested parties (think pharmaceutical companies) or government sponsorship with a political agenda catch...
Peer review can only go so far...

Just because professionals say something doesn't automatically make it so...(Think: “If one reaches the Ruhr, my name is not Göring. You can call me Meyer.")
Engage critical thinking methodology rather than a passive-acceptance/blind-faith mentality...
The powers that be depend on the majority letting them think for them...

Of course, if you wear rose coloured glasses and don't believe in the existence of general corruption, hidden agendas, paybacks and power lust, then there is no point discussing this with you...