Science is racist because....

[Simon_Jester]

It's not "an excuse to be stupid;" it's an explanation for irrational behavior. In the same sense that clinical depression explains why people to make "stupid" choices like failing to maintain their possessions, neglecting their physical health, and so on.

Depressed people who quit brushing their teeth aren't being "stupid" in the traditional sense of the word. Something has systematically distorted their response to a normal situation, causing them to behave strangely.

[Flagg]

South African traditional-magic advocates at least have the excuse of actually being oppressed on racial lines, well within living memory, by a small but powerful minority of evil abusive fucks.

Oh, totally. It's just that the single most dominant religion on Earth has numerous sects that complain about being persecuted and oppressed, so to complain about a religion that actually has been within living memory is so fucking ignorant and obtuse as to be offensive.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the flip side of that is that Christians haven't actually stopped development and technology in the West.

South Africa has actually got some very serious problems associated with 'traditional' (read: magical) thinking among the masses. It makes it virtually impossible for them to deal with their ongoing AIDS epidemic, for instance.

So I can understand the grounds for complaint.

[Flagg]

Well, the flip side of that is that Christians haven't actually stopped development and technology in the West.

South Africa has actually got some very serious problems associated with 'traditional' (read: magical) thinking among the masses. It makes it virtually impossible for them to deal with their ongoing AIDS epidemic, for instance.

So I can understand the grounds for complaint.

The main culprit for males refusing to use contraception like condoms which prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS is... The Roman Catholic Church! So it comes full circle down the drain of humanities penchant for being our own worst enemy. So you have the Catholics saying "no condoms, abstinence only!" And local shamans and magical bullshitters saying you can cure HIV/AIDS by raping a virgin girl, resulting in some of the worst cases of child sexual exploitation like men with HIV/AIDS raping newborns.

[Simon_Jester]

Catholics make up a single digit percentage of the South African population.

[Terralthra]

Catholics make up a single digit percentage of the South African population.

Yeah, but you said "religion doesn't hamper science/tech in the West". You're wrong. Opposition to stem cell experimentation, for example, is widely based on religious objections. It may not be to the degree that is on display in the OP's video, but it's not nothing.

[Simon_Jester]

No, I said haven't stopped.

There is NO scientific or strongly science-related issue facing the West today of anywhere near the sheer scope and urgency of AIDS in South Africa, where Christianity is causing any significant impedance. Yes, Christian religious leaders may have some indirect effects on stem cell research, but compared to "is causing millions of South Africans to not believe AIDS is caused by a virus or that western medicine can treat it," nothing Christian religious leaders do in Western nations is significant.

This isn't necessarily because Christian religious leaders are unwilling to cause problems for scientific and technical fields. But bluntly, they lack the strength to do so, even if they want to.

[Flagg]

Catholics make up a single digit percentage of the South African population.

Yeah, but there are missionaries spreading lies about condoms causing AIDS.

[SpottedKitty]

The one I am familiar with is The Relatively of Wrong, in which he uses the analogy of the shape of the Earth to show how scientific knowledge doesn't become obsolete, only more refined. That might be one of the ones you are thinking of.

It isn't, actually, I've never read that one before — many thanks for the pointer. And you're right, the general thrust of Asimov's argument in that essay is very similar to the ones I remember reading.

Looking over the rest of this thread, I wonder if there's a case to answer that this popular image of "what science is" can be connected to the portrayal of scientists in films and books? I know, getting it right would lead to a very boring story, but some of those "scientists" are so wrong you've got to laugh...

...either that or

[Terralthra]

No, I said haven't stopped.

There is NO scientific or strongly science-related issue facing the West today of anywhere near the sheer scope and urgency of AIDS in South Africa, where Christianity is causing any significant impedance. Yes, Christian religious leaders may have some indirect effects on stem cell research, but compared to "is causing millions of South Africans to not believe AIDS is caused by a virus or that western medicine can treat it," nothing Christian religious leaders do in Western nations is significant.

This isn't necessarily because Christian religious leaders are unwilling to cause problems for scientific and technical fields. But bluntly, they lack the strength to do so, even if they want to.

Ok, a) you realize that the religion convincing those South Africans about HIV is...Christianity...right? b) Evolution in high school text books? Dominionist denial of climate change? Like, c'mon, Simon.

[Flagg]

The one I am familiar with is The Relatively of Wrong, in which he uses the analogy of the shape of the Earth to show how scientific knowledge doesn't become obsolete, only more refined. That might be one of the ones you are thinking of.

It isn't, actually, I've never read that one before — many thanks for the pointer. And you're right, the general thrust of Asimov's argument in that essay is very similar to the ones I remember reading.

Looking over the rest of this thread, I wonder if there's a case to answer that this popular image of "what science is" can be connected to the portrayal of scientists in films and books? I know, getting it right would lead to a very boring story, but some of those "scientists" are so wrong you've got to laugh...

...either that or

The most anti-science author was also unfortunately one of the most popular authors of the latter quarter of the 20th century; Michael Crichton. He was also a vindictive shitstain who had a character in one of his shitty anti-science screeds who he portrayed in detail as a fat disgusting pedophile with a very tiny penis (yes, he went at length to describe how small the penis was and how loathsome the character in question was) named after a writer for (IIRC) 'Popular Science'. The writer in question (whose name escapes me, but I read the article way back when) took issue with a Crichton novel portraying scientists perpetrating attacks across the globe 'Hydra/Cobra/Guild of Calamitous Intent' style with some kind of weather machine to get rich faking Global Climate Change (Crichton was a denier right up until his not soon enough death) in a later novel as revenge.

That said, I think James Cameron stands out as a pretty pro-science/technology film maker in which technology is used both positively and negatively, like how you can both fix a bike with a screwdriver or stab someone in the face with a screwdriver. I also give 'Interstellar' props just for the awesome robots.

[Flagg]

No, I said haven't stopped.

There is NO scientific or strongly science-related issue facing the West today of anywhere near the sheer scope and urgency of AIDS in South Africa, where Christianity is causing any significant impedance. Yes, Christian religious leaders may have some indirect effects on stem cell research, but compared to "is causing millions of South Africans to not believe AIDS is caused by a virus or that western medicine can treat it," nothing Christian religious leaders do in Western nations is significant.

This isn't necessarily because Christian religious leaders are unwilling to cause problems for scientific and technical fields. But bluntly, they lack the strength to do so, even if they want to.

Ok, a) you realize that the religion convincing those South Africans about HIV is...Christianity...right? b) Evolution in high school text books? Dominionist denial of climate change? Like, c'mon, Simon.

He seems to be arguing with himself since no one has said otherwise, and I brought up the Catholic missionaries lying about condoms having the effect of spreading HIV/AIDS before your quoted post, so...

[Simon_Jester]

This isn't necessarily because Christian religious leaders are unwilling to cause problems for scientific and technical fields. But bluntly, they lack the strength to do so, even if they want to.

Ok, a) you realize that the religion convincing those South Africans about HIV is...Christianity...right? b) Evolution in high school text books? Dominionist denial of climate change? Like, c'mon, Simon.

Do you realize the difference between a small problem and a large one?

Attempts by fundamentalists to suppress knowledge of evolution in schoolchildren is bad.

Belief that sorcerers are the most effective way to treat a fatal disease which afflicts something like ten percent of your national population and thirty percent of newborn babies is a completely different order of problem.

The former problem is "small," in that it does not have the potential to result in millions of unnecessary deaths over the next couple of generations. The latter problem is "large," in that it does.

I mean, seriously, I get that the influence of religious fundamentalism is bad. But there is very little comparison between how self-destructive Christianity's influence on Western societies has ACTUALLY BEEN in the past generation or two, and how self-destructive a hardcore anti-science movement HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE in developing nations faced with tremendous, pressing, epidemic-level disease problems and severe overpopulation.

Catholics make up a single digit percentage of the South African population.

Yeah, but there are missionaries spreading lies about condoms causing AIDS.

Yeah, but the missionaries aren't the only ones spreading those particular lies, nor are they the ones spreading the lies about how sex with a virgin will cure your AIDS, or how [insert mumbo-jumbo here] will cure your AIDS.

In terms of gauging the harm actually caused, fixating on the Catholic church because of our own lingering anticlericalism in the West is largely missing the point.

I repeat, I get that this is objectively harmful. My point is simply that it is in fact possible for things to be a lot worse than they are. That there are religious institutions that are on average even more toxic than the average Christian sect. Significantly more toxic. And that the combined toxic effects of ALL religious institutions in developed nations tends to be less than that of religious institutions in places like Africa and the Middle East.

Which is precisely because Western societies have sensibly secularized certain functions, so that religious/mystical thinking is not allowed to completely dominate people's decision-making.

And yet people are misquoting me (Terralthra) so that they can 'prove' me wrong when my specific choice of words was selected precisely so they can dwell on the relatively abstract harm caused by religions in their own countries, rather than on the much greater harm caused (mostly) by (different) religions in other people's countries.

[Terralthra]

This isn't necessarily because Christian religious leaders are unwilling to cause problems for scientific and technical fields. But bluntly, they lack the strength to do so, even if they want to.

Ok, a) you realize that the religion convincing those South Africans about HIV is...Christianity...right? b) Evolution in high school text books? Dominionist denial of climate change? Like, c'mon, Simon.

Do you realize the difference between a small problem and a large one?

Attempts by fundamentalists to suppress knowledge of evolution in schoolchildren is bad.

Belief that sorcerers are the most effective way to treat a fatal disease which afflicts something like ten percent of your national population and thirty percent of newborn babies is a completely different order of problem.

The former problem is "small," in that it does not have the potential to result in millions of unnecessary deaths over the next couple of generations. The latter problem is "large," in that it does.

I mean, seriously, I get that the influence of religious fundamentalism is bad. But there is very little comparison between how self-destructive Christianity's influence on Western societies has ACTUALLY BEEN in the past generation or two, and how self-destructive a hardcore anti-science movement HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE in developing nations faced with tremendous, pressing, epidemic-level disease problems and severe overpopulation.

I realize you're trying to make a point here, but you're undercutting your own point. Attempting to hobble or outright prevent responses to anthropogenic climate change - as the anti-science religious right dominionist movement is doing - in the second-biggest contributing country to the problem (biggest, per capita) does, in fact, have the potential to result in millions of unnecessary deaths over the next few generations, if not billions. Likewise, not understanding evolution on a public policy level results in drug-resistant illnesses that, again, have the potential to result in millions of unnecessary deaths (it's already in the tens of thousands). Not understanding herd immunity results in potentially millions of deaths to preventable unvaccinated illnesses like the flu.

Like, I'm not denying that tribal religions in South Africa are a problem, but you're making it sound like religious anti-science thought in the US isn't costing lives and doesn't have the potential to cost more, but it is, and it does. Lots of them.

This is ignoring that there are plenty of "faith healer" scams in the US still that cost lives due to people not treating their treatable illnesses, because that is comparatively speaking a tinier problem.

[Simon_Jester]

I realize you're trying to make a point here, but you're undercutting your own point. Attempting to hobble or outright prevent responses to anthropogenic climate change - as the anti-science religious right dominionist movement is doing...

Thing is, it's not the dominionists who are the dominant force in doing this. They're one of many groups, quite a lot of them entirely secular, trying to pretend Hy-Brasil isn't sinking.

Likewise, not understanding evolution on a public policy level results in drug-resistant illnesses that, again, have the potential to result in millions of unnecessary deaths...

Is this only a problem that's driven in the US, or are drug-resistant illnesses also originating in other countries where the religious right is less powerful?

Not understanding herd immunity results in potentially millions of deaths to preventable unvaccinated illnesses like the flu.

And the anti-vaccine movement in the US is in large part secular or driven by quasi-mystical notions of 'purity' and the evils of modern medicine, while plenty of Christians including some pretty extreme ones are getting their kids vaccinated.

Like, I'm not denying that tribal religions in South Africa are a problem, but you're making it sound like religious anti-science thought in the US isn't costing lives and doesn't have the potential to cost more, but it is, and it does. Lots of them.

There are very few issues in the US where you can point specifically to religion and say "religion is the reason for this ongoing disaster and the total failure to do anything meaningful about it." You can say "religion sure isn't helping" or "religion exacerbates this," but that's not the same thing.

In much of the developing world, there are major social issues that are even more driven by religious issues and failure to comprehend and embrace scientific fact. To me, turning a discussion of that problem into a discussion of Christians in the US is just being parochial, it's complaining about the same things one always complains about, rather than thinking and learning about other situations.

[Solauren]

People, calm down.

This is just some nobody showing how ignorant they are. Nothing more. It's barely worth comment.

It's not like she's running for a high political office that could damage modern civilization or something.

She's not likely to change her views, and anyone stupid enough to fall for them is probably beyond help anyways.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Anytime someone associated with the "SJW" term makes an error, no matter how minor or unrepresentative of the whole they are, it will be held up as some kind of "smoking gun" that These People are some kind of serious threat to the finer virtues of our society by people who have a weird axe to grind with "SJWS" - even if they're Not Alt-Right, But... or anything like that.

[Flagg]

Anytime someone associated with the "SJW" term makes an error, no matter how minor or unrepresentative of the whole they are, it will be held up as some kind of "smoking gun" that These People are some kind of serious threat to the finer virtues of our society by people who have a weird axe to grind with "SJWS" - even if they're Not Alt-Right, But... or anything like that.

That's to be expected when you're a member of THE OTHER, in this case "SJW" (somehow a perjorative when social justice seems like a goal everyone should be fighting for).

[ray245]

Anytime someone associated with the "SJW" term makes an error, no matter how minor or unrepresentative of the whole they are, it will be held up as some kind of "smoking gun" that These People are some kind of serious threat to the finer virtues of our society by people who have a weird axe to grind with "SJWS" - even if they're Not Alt-Right, But... or anything like that.

That's to be expected when you're a member of THE OTHER, in this case "SJW" (somehow a perjorative when social justice seems like a goal everyone should be fighting for).

It's usually used to attack a sub-section of left-wing campaigners as being the "far-left". It's meant to target the group of people who say "all whites are racists".

In the grand scheme of things, the entire SJW "debate" only have relevance if you frequent internet discussion boards.

[Balrog]

People, calm down.

This is just some nobody showing how ignorant they are. Nothing more. It's barely worth comment.

It's not like she's running for a high political office that could damage modern civilization or something.

She's not likely to change her views, and anyone stupid enough to fall for them is probably beyond help anyways.

This person might personally not amount to anything, but reading more about it she does represent a movement which if nothing else is alarming in its racism prejudice against white South Africans (in addition to the whole "Science is the Devil" on display in the video).

But yeah, nothing bad can ever come of ignorant people with an agenda. That's why Trump is still just a goofy entertainer...

[mr friendly guy]

People, calm down.

This is just some nobody showing how ignorant they are. Nothing more. It's barely worth comment.

It's not like she's running for a high political office that could damage modern civilization or something.

She's not likely to change her views, and anyone stupid enough to fall for them is probably beyond help anyways.

This person might personally not amount to anything, but reading more about it she does represent a movement which if nothing else is alarming in its racism prejudice against white South Africans (in addition to the whole "Science is the Devil" on display in the video).

But yeah, nothing bad can ever come of ignorant people with an agenda. That's why Trump is still just a goofy entertainer...

From what I remember of British history, Rhodes was a racist. The Rhodes scholarship (which we have in Australia for students) is not limited by your race, which would have Rhodes rolling in his grave, since he set up the scholarship for white people. So having a Rhodes must fall movement does not in itself bother me. However they should still strive for academic excellence that Rhodes embodied and ignoring his racism, and I don't care if they rename some other institutions or scholarships which bear his name. Unfortunately they don't seem to be striving for academic excellence with that pitiful display of ignorance. In effect they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Flagg]

People, calm down.

This is just some nobody showing how ignorant they are. Nothing more. It's barely worth comment.

It's not like she's running for a high political office that could damage modern civilization or something.

She's not likely to change her views, and anyone stupid enough to fall for them is probably beyond help anyways.

This person might personally not amount to anything, but reading more about it she does represent a movement which if nothing else is alarming in its racism prejudice against white South Africans (in addition to the whole "Science is the Devil" on display in the video).

But yeah, nothing bad can ever come of ignorant people with an agenda. That's why Trump is still just a goofy entertainer...

He's not?

[Swindle1984]

the other problem is that scientists overwhelming come from places of wealth and power, leading to a feeling of scientific imperialism as native ideas are shot down. .

When native ideas consist of things like raping infants to cure AIDS, casting spells to make your neighbor's penis disappear, 'corrective rape' of lesbians, and eating someone's heart to gain his strength, their ideas don't deserve to be taken seriously or given consideration.

So, yeah. I can understand why they might feel ignored, but there's a reason for that.

[Ralin]

When native ideas consist of things like raping infants to cure AIDS, casting spells to make your neighbor's penis disappear, 'corrective rape' of lesbians, and eating someone's heart to gain his strength, their ideas don't deserve to be taken seriously or given consideration.

So, yeah. I can understand why they might feel ignored, but there's a reason for that.

And that's the exact attitude that is encouraging the people in question to reject science. Which doesn't lead to 'native ideas' (which include a whole bunch of other things) being ignored; it leads to science being ignored. South Africa does not have an SD.net moderator to swoop in and tell everyone who takes an anti-science position to shut up and then back it up with bans and mockery. If you want to change those practices you need to do the hard work of actually convincing people (not just proving) that you're right. Otherwise they're going tell you and people like you to go to hell and continue to go with non-science alternatives, which in practice means whatever feels right.

Scientists tend to come from places of wealth and power enough to piss off natives. That doesn't mean they're rich and powerful enough to force their will on those natives.

[mr friendly guy]

And that's the exact attitude that is encouraging the people in question to reject science. Which doesn't lead to 'native ideas' (which include a whole bunch of other things) being ignored; it leads to science being ignored. South Africa does not have an SD.net moderator to swoop in and tell everyone who takes an anti-science position to shut up and then back it up with bans and mockery. If you want to change those practices you need to do the hard work of actually convincing people (not just proving) that you're right. Otherwise they're going tell you and people like you to go to hell and continue to go with non-science alternatives, which in practice means whatever feels right.

Scientists tend to come from places of wealth and power enough to piss off natives. That doesn't mean they're rich and powerful enough to force their will on those natives.

The damage from pseudoscience comes in two forms. Damage who harms those who hold it, and damage which also harms everyone else as well. Examples of the latter include anti-vaxxers (since it prevents us eradicating disease, for example we are so damn close to eradicating polio but for anti-vaxxers in certain countries), and climate change.

In this case, it seems the only the people will be hurt by adopting these anti science ideas are, the people who adopt them. Maybe the country of South Africa if their stupidity spreads. Please note South Africa isn't a major carbon emitter and the countries still dealing with polio are in Asia, not Africa. So even if they decide vaccines need "decolonising" its unlikely polio would make a comeback there.

Now when I was younger I used to think we should counter stupid ideas when we find them, but now I find I am more philosophical about it. Just as when Europe went into a dark age, Greek ideas were preserved in the Muslim world. When Muslims started thinking natural events were due to Allah instead of natural explanations, the knowledge had spread back to Europe after the collapse of the Byzantine empire. So to will happen if pseudoscience moronic thinking dominate one country. Some other country will pick up the slack and scientific progress will continue. And the dumbasses will only hurt themselves, or at least the country where this believe is prominent will harm itself and fail to harm another country.

So now I just laugh at these dumbasses. They aren't worth the effort convincing. Anti-vaxxers are fought by legislating some punitive measures against them, eg limit welfare. In this case, since their stupidity is confined to their own country (actually make that their own little group) then its best to laugh at their stupid antiscience position.