The Motivated Rejection of Science - Slashdot

Slashdot

●Stories

●Firehose

●All

●Popular

●Polls

●Software

●Thought Leadership

Submit

Search Slashdot

● Login

●or

● Sign up

●Topics:

●Devices

●Build

●Entertainment

●Technology

●Open Source

●Science

●YRO

●Follow us:

●RSS

●Facebook

●LinkedIn

●Twitter

● Youtube

● Mastodon

●Bluesky

Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

Nickname:

Password:

Public Terminal

Forgot your password?
Close

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Motivated Rejection of Science More Login

The Motivated Rejection of Science

Load 500 More Comments

Full Abbreviated Hidden

/Sea

Score:

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

More Login

Nickname:

Password:

Public Terminal

Forgot your password?
Close

Close

Search 771 Comments Log In/Create an Account

Comments Filter:

● All

● Insightful

● Informative

● Interesting

● Funny

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Suprising how? (Score:0, Troll)

byjmorris42 ( 1458 ) * writes:

Lefty professors ask a loaded question rigged to produce the result they wanted, anyone suprised? Good way to prove our point that science has been politicised to the point a lot of us take a default position of "BS!" on any pronouncement from the white labcoat set that has the slightest whiff of politics.
We notice that all of the mentioned 'science' issues are tied to public policy positions of the left and that the 'scientists' are working outside their areas of expertise when they push policy solutions

Re: (Score:5, Insightful)

bymyrdos2 ( 989497 ) writes:

We notice that all of the mentioned 'science' issues are tied to public policy positions of the left and that the 'scientists' are working outside their areas of expertise when they push policy solutions to the problems they 'find.'
Whole lines of research were simply forbidden as career ending. Consipracy theories almost always pop up in vacumns of fact, especially when it is pretty obvious that facts are suspected but being supressed.
So... is your post some kind of satire, or what?

Re:Suprising how? (Score:0)

byjmorris42 ( 1458 ) * writes: <(gro.uaeb) (ta) (sirromj)> on Friday September 07, 2012 @12:48PM (#41262917)

No. I have looked into the HIV/AIDS thing enough to be willing to bet that if it isn't the entire story it is pretty close to it. But when the banhammer came down in the 1980s on any dissent (the science is settled! Settled I say!) there was still some room for doubt. That is the sort of thing that creates conspiracy theories. Especially when you have celebrated cases like Jordan who was announced to be HIV positive how far back and still AIDS free?
There is a lot of areas of scientific inquiry that are simply forbidden. People notice that. There is also a lot of 'settled science' that is probably far from settled. There is a word for that sort of thing. Politics. So the only people who don't believe science has been politicized is the few who agree with so many of the political decrees they don't even see it as a controversy. I.e. progressive academics.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:3, Informative)

byBMOC ( 2478408 ) writes:

It was actually Earvin "Magic" Johnson who was declared HIV positive. And yes, he has remained AIDS free. While I personally find this miraculous to the point of incredulity, I'm willing to believe he has a good combination of genetics, a fantastic health regimen, and lots of money for experimental drugs to stave off full-blown AIDS. For the record, there are recorded cases of people who live with the HIV virus and never show symptoms without taking ANY special medication.

Re: (Score:2)

byLarryish ( 1215510 ) writes:

... willing to believe...
Your belief is faith-based?

Re: (Score:2)

byBMOC ( 2478408 ) writes:

... willing to believe...
Your belief is faith-based?
Is there any other kind of belief? I've never met anyone with HIV, and since the scare slowly died off in the 90s I've not spent any time thinking about HIV as I'm not a promiscuous person. So I'm actually somewhat lost on your point with HIV, I think it detracts from your other valid point about politicized science, tbh.

Re: (Score:2)

byBlueStrat ( 756137 ) writes:

So I'm actually somewhat lost on your point with HIV, I think it detracts from your other valid point about politicized science, tbh.
This.
I was reading along, thinking he was making some decent, logical arguments and then..."wut? HIV? wtf?"
An o/t bridge too far, and didn't really add much to his general arguments over other possible, and more on-topic, arguments he could easily have offered instead imho.
Just sayin'...
Strat

Asymptomatic (Score:3)

byzooblethorpe ( 686757 ) writes:

It was actually Earvin "Magic" Johnson who was declared HIV positive. And yes, he has remained AIDS free. While I personally find this miraculous to the point of incredulity, I'm willing to believe he has a good combination of genetics, a fantastic health regimen, and lots of money for experimental drugs to stave off full-blown AIDS. For the record, there are recorded cases of people who live with the HIV virus and never show symptoms without taking ANY special medication.
HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus, has been traced back to simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), which has been traced back to feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV), which has been traced back to bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV). Some web hits. [google.com]
If I understand things correctly, retroviruses tend, over time, to evolve to be less than fatal to the host. That's just basic selection pressure -- if a virus kills its host, it's lost its home; meanwhile, the selection pressure on host is to not be killed by

Re:Suprising how? (Score:5, Informative)

byblind biker ( 1066130 ) writes: on Friday September 07, 2012 @01:34PM (#41263983) Journal

That's strange; I thought it was Timothy Ray Brown [webmd.com] the only man to be officially declared cured from AIDS. Apparently, he was cured 3 years ago as a result of a bone marrow transplant (to cure leukemia) from a donor with a rare genetic mutation that makes him/her immune to HIV. Brown was declared cured last July.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:2)

byFned ( 43219 ) writes:

That's strange; I thought it was Timothy Ray Brown [webmd.com] the only man to be officially declared cured from AIDS.
Except despite the headline, what the actual article you linked correctly points out is that he's the only man officially delcared cured from HIV.
Those people who have HIV but never develop AIDS still have HIV.

●

1 reply beneath your current threshold.

Re: (Score:3)

byNadaka ( 224565 ) writes:

Jordan had the best HIV and AIDS preventative treatment in the world. and even common people are living for decades without going into terminal immune states if they have the insurance to afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatments. HIV is now something that one can be expected to live a long life with if they stick to a strict treatment plan. That is a terrible example.
What areas of scientific inquiry are simply forbidden as you say?

Re: (Score:2)

byNadaka ( 224565 ) writes:

you are right, the grandparent made the same mistake and I didn't notice it.

Re: (Score:2)

byAnon-Admin ( 443764 ) writes:

What areas of scientific inquiry are simply forbidden as you say?
Medical Marijuana research.

Re: (Score:2)

byNadaka ( 224565 ) writes:

Wrong. It has and is being researched.

Re: (Score:2)

byAnon-Admin ( 443764 ) writes:

Federal law prohibits it. If it is than it is being done in violation of the law.

●

2 replies beneath your current threshold.

●

1 reply beneath your current threshold.

Re: (Score:2)

byHazel Bergeron ( 2015538 ) writes:

What?
People who have anal sex are obviously more at risk because the likelihood of transmission is much higher than with vaginal sex.
No-one denies this. HIV awareness campaigns often focus on gay men for this reason. Few people are in denial about it any more. Indeed, some gay men have had it so pounded into them that "being gay will get you AIDS" that subcultures have formed decided they're going to get HIV anyway, so might as well not use protection. This is quite sad, but it's by the bye.
Perhaps you're g

Re: (Score:2)

byFarmer Tim ( 530755 ) writes:

...some gay men have had it so pounded into them....
I see what you did there.

Re:Suprising how? (Score:5, Insightful)

byiluvcapra ( 782887 ) writes: on Friday September 07, 2012 @01:06PM (#41263291)

Do you really believe that groups of people, regardless of their level of psychological commitment to any idea, are capable of convincing literally thousands of people in their own profession, aligned professions and knowledgeable bystanders to simply ignore facts and evidence, and to promulgate, knowingly, wrong information, proudly, authoritatively, and consistently without error.
And then, granting this is even possible, they're able to recruit entirely new generations of people, people who may not even have been born when the "lie" was originally concocted, to repeat the same lies, over and over, to not ask questions, to not pursue the truth, to simply obey, mindlessly, and to do so for nothing more than the remuneration of the occasional government grant (which they gotta fight like hell for regardless).
The problem is, if you all of this as true, you've successfully killed the Enlightenment and any principle of self-government through reason and debate. If conspiracies decide what the popular mind accepts as "fact," we might as well have kings and clerics decide the best course of action, because democracy in such a world is pointless. The people are sheeple, the books are cooked, and votes are a waste of energy, energy that could be more effectively spent by elite, autocratic decision makers.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:1)

byAnonymous Coward writes:

You must have never heard the tale of "The Emperor's New Clothes" when, in fact, it's the basis of the article.
You must have also never heard of "framing the question"
You do seem to spin the "Argumentum ad populum" and "Strawman" logical fallacies very well, however.
>All scientists believe in AGW. Do you agree with them, or are you an idiot who hates science?

Re: (Score:2)

byiluvcapra ( 782887 ) writes:

You must have never heard the tale of "The Emperor's New Clothes" when, in fact, it's the basis of the article.
When a rational person see a little boy laughing at the king's nakedness, he joins in. When a conspiracy theorist sees a little boy laughing at the king's nakedness, he arrests him for lese majeste and tortures him to discover his co-conspirators.
The resolution of "The Emperor's New Clothes" affirms the common sense of good people to not be taken in, and the minuscule amount of effort required to

Re: (Score:2)

byiluvcapra ( 782887 ) writes:

Religion is possible for a reasonable person as long as it makes no falsifiable claims. The existence and nature of God are not factual claims in the same class as "carbon dioxide reflect infrared radiation" or "HIV kills CD4 T cells ."

Re: (Score:2)

byblahplusplus ( 757119 ) writes:

"you've successfully killed the Enlightenment and any principle of self-government through reason and debate."
Science killed the enlightenment.
http://bit.ly/dYaWUc [bit.ly]

Re: (Score:2)

byiluvcapra ( 782887 ) writes:

Orwell was a cynic, and frankly Nineteen Eighty-Four, though great literature, has about as much in common with the real world and real human beings as Hansel and Gretel. All of the so-called totalitarian superstates that allegedly control the "truth" disappear remarkably abruptly as soon as their leader dies, and the survivors are quite quick at disavowing the whole rotten business. After Stalin died, Russians, up to the premier himself acknowledged that he was a murderer and a charlatan, and the country

Re: (Score:2)

bykhallow ( 566160 ) writes:

Do you really believe that groups of people, regardless of their level of psychological commitment to any idea, are capable of convincing literally thousands of people in their own profession, aligned professions and knowledgeable bystanders to simply ignore facts and evidence, and to promulgate, knowingly, wrong information, proudly, authoritatively, and consistently without error.
No, the real question is how could you have believed otherwise? As has already been noted, religions of the world are great examples of the above in action. One just needs to learn a little history. There's a lot of such examples of human nature throughout history for people willing to pay attention.

Re: (Score:2)

byiluvcapra ( 782887 ) writes:

Religions and totalitarian governments manage to sustain lies through force and torture, through monopolization of all public discourse and co-option of all social authority. I have not recently met a climate scientist who put a rifle to my head and demanded a AGW loyalty oath, I'm constantly reminded in the popular press that AGW has "detractors," and many of these detractors are billionaires who shape the public discourse with media, entertainment, endowments to scholarly institutions and overt political

Re: (Score:2)

bykhallow ( 566160 ) writes:

I have not recently met a climate scientist who put a rifle to my head and demanded a AGW loyalty oath
And you probably haven't had a minister, rabbi, guru, or imam do that to you either. That's not how it's done. Instead, it's done by story.
I'm constantly reminded in the popular press that AGW has "detractors," and many of these detractors are billionaires who shape the public discourse with media, entertainment, endowments to scholarly institutions and overt political campaigns.

"Reminded" by whom? This is an example of a story. The antagonists of the story are "detractors" particularly "billionaires".

Let us recall a rival story. A story where tens of billions of dollars of public funds are waiting to be spent on global warming or whatever the flavor of the year environmental disaster is. All that they need is backup from climatologists to ma

●

2 replies beneath your current threshold.

An ineffective ban [Re:Suprising how?] (Score:5, Interesting)

byGeoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) writes: on Friday September 07, 2012 @01:17PM (#41263497) Homepage

No. I have looked into the HIV/AIDS thing enough to be willing to bet that if it isn't the entire story it is pretty close to it. But when the banhammer came down in the 1980s on any dissent (the science is settled! Settled I say!) there was still some room for doubt.
You mean, the AIDS denier Peter Duesberg [wikipedia.org]? This guy: http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/data/cohen/266-5191-1642a.pdf [sciencemag.org]
This 1980s "ban" on dissent you mention-- you mean the one that allowed him a major article in 1989, "Human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: correlation but not causation" in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences?That "1980s" ban?
Pretty ineffective "ban" I'd say, since he continued publishing his theories well into the 2000s, long long after they were thoroughly discredited. Turns out, the science actually was settled, and, well guess what-- the scientific researchers really did know what they were doing.
Duesberg has the unique distinction among wackos, though, that his rhetoric of "HIV doesn't cause AIDS so go ahead and have sex even if you're HIV positive, it won't hurt anybody (but don't take those antiviral drugs!)" actually did result in killing large numbers of people.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:2)

byinterkin3tic ( 1469267 ) writes:

To add to that: being denied funding or being denied publication in respectable journals is not a "ban" unless you for some reason think scientists are entitled to publishing wherever and getting funding for whatever they feel like, reguardless of what the rest of the field thought.

As a scientist, I think it would be nice if we were entitled to that, but we're obviously not.

Re:Suprising how? (Score:5, Insightful)

byAmericano ( 920576 ) writes: on Friday September 07, 2012 @01:20PM (#41263585)

Except that HIV treatments have improved dramatically since the early 90's when Mr. Johnson (not Jordan) announced his diagnosis, with people being diagnosed today having a life expectancy slightly shorter than - but actually approaching - the general population. Of course, it depends on how quickly you start treatment after diagnosis, how far along your infection has progressed when you're diagnosed, your overall health, and your access to appropriate treatments.
But Magic Johnson has survived a bit over 20 years with his HIV under control; That's not even really an outlier based on today's prognosis - proper medication and treatment will turn it into a chronic, but mostly manageable, disease for many people. Given that Johnson was famous, rich, and presumably in excellent physical condition, it's not all that surprising that he'd have access to the best care available, and survive for a long time as a result.
You should probably also look up Long-Term Non-Progressors (HIV "controllers"), and the general natural history (infection process) of HIV. After initial infection, HIV typically enters clinical latency which can last up to 20 years (avg. of about 10 years, I believe). AIDS is only diagnosed when T-cell counts drop below a certain level, or one of the opportunistic infections associated with AIDS is diagnosed.
Given his diagnosis about 20 years ago, and the increasing efficacy of HIV treatments in the last 20 years... it's really not all that shocking that a young, healthy, rich man with access to the best care that money & fame can buy, and who also happens to be in excellent physical condition as a professional athlete, even if he's not a "controller," would be able to survive past his initial diagnosis for this long.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:3)

byiluvcapra ( 782887 ) writes:

PS.
It was the only disease in human history to get a bizarre sort of 'rights' attached to it.
Leprosy? Epilepsy? People who contract many kinds of diseases don't get extra rights, but the government must to take action to make sure they are not discriminated against due to a pernicious folk belief that they are "unclean" or immoral.

Re: (Score:3)

byilsaloving ( 1534307 ) writes:

For any illness, there will always be people who are, for reasons we may or may not understand, immune. There will also always be people who, for reasons we may or may not understand, will become asymptomatic carriers.
Ever heard of the phrase 'Typhoid Mary'?
Conspiracy theories are no different than religion. You have True Believers who will continue to espouse their belief no matter how much evidence you provide to the contrary.
Before science figures out how some specific thing works exactly, it figures o

Re: (Score:2)

byCarrot007 ( 37198 ) writes:

Potato?

●

1 reply beneath your current threshold.

●

2 replies beneath your current threshold.

●

1 reply beneath your current threshold.

●

1 reply beneath your current threshold.

There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.

Slashdot

Moderate Moderator Help Delete

● Get more comments

● Submit Story

It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.

●FAQ

●Story Archive

●Hall of Fame

●Advertising

●Terms

●Privacy Statement

●About

●Feedback

●Mobile View

●Blog

Icon

Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.

×

Close

Close

Slashdot

Working...