this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
22 points (75.0% liked)

Skeptic

1297 readers
1 users here now

A community for Scientific Skepticism:

Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism, sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.

Do not confuse this with General Skepticism, Philosophical Skepticism, or Denialism.

Things we like:

Things we don't like:

Other communities of interest:

"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -David Hume

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Steven Pinker explains the cognitive biases we all suffer from and how they can short-circuit rational thinking and lead us into believing stupid things. Skip to 12:15 to bypass the preamble.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I think that's a valid take I'd like to see discussion on. For me, I think it's not black and white. Just because of cultural context in the time they lived, I'm certain almost every scientist before 1900 was a raging homophobe and likely racist to boot. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if Darwin and Mendel had problematic beliefs in this same regard. We take the ideas and iterate on them in non-problematic ways to validate the underlying assumptions. Is this guy in the same sort of bucket? Hell if I know.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Don't let me get started in what Isaac Newton used to believe. It ought to be a crime that we still teach his laws of motion in school.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Pinker didn't live before 1900. He's alive in 2024 and he's a racist and climate change denier who OP expects to tell us about science.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Of course, and I agree with that (on faith, because I genuinely don't know who the guy is yet). I've met enough people who are incredibly talented with fucked up views to know that intellect and morality are not as entwined as we might hope. Death of the author, applied to science.

I'm not sure I even agree with this take btw, as much as just finding it a valid one to hold that I would disagree with. It's also fully possible I'm getting invested enough in a hypothetical to the point of being irritating. If so, I do apologize. I'm not trying to provide any sort of moral cover for someone who sounds like an overall shitty person.