A science agency wants to stop knowing which ideas are true and which ones aren’t. - ThreadSky

jetjocko.bsky.social • 12 days ago

A science agency wants to stop knowing which ideas are true and which ones aren’t.

🚨 NIH sent out another data call, this time for projects "related to any form of censorship at all or directing people to believe one idea over another related to health outcomes… e,g., any contracts to promote COVID vaccine uptake," I'm told.

These data calls have recently preceded terminations.

Comments

cluftnyc.bsky.social•12 days ago

So -- we're now expected to approach every scientific question as if no evidence has been gathered about it, assume there is no existing scientific consensus or even understanding, and start at square one each time?

j15r.com•12 days ago

“Any form of censorship at all or directing people to believe one idea over another [...] any such contracts or grants to fight misinformation [...] any contract that could be used to ‘censor Americans’”

These are some Orwellian linguistic contortions to avoid directly saying what they're saying.

jetjocko.bsky.social•12 days ago

Not for nothing, back in the late 1980s this “scientific relativism” was a (catastrophic, in my opinion) notion the postmodern science studies people had, and the political right *hated* it.

jetjocko.bsky.social•12 days ago

The whole success of the Enlightenment was based on the idea that it was possible for people, through effort, to know true things about the universe. But, sure, eff that stuff if it makes you feel bad or loses money. You do you.

daedricnonsense.bsky.social•12 days ago

Please ignore this is a dumb nitpick of "know" vs. "justifiably believing with increasing evidence":

I'm not sure how perfectly we can understand/model the universe, but science has been AMAZING at eliminating false ideas about how it works, like excavating a fossil from the rock it's embedded in.

jetjocko.bsky.social•12 days ago

I hear you, believe me—as a history of science undergrad and a journalist. But it’s exactly this (important, real) disntinction that modern know-nothings latch onto. I think “know” doesn’t preclude “…and revise with increasing precision” or “…given current data and understanding.”

daedricnonsense.bsky.social•12 days ago

That depends on how you define "know." I gather your meaning just fine, and it's clear enough for casual use without having to entirely explain epistemology every time you want to talk to the public about science. "Justified true belief" for me, hence my hedging and why you should ignore me. :)

daedricnonsense.bsky.social•12 days ago

I don't think we get to know if what we believe is true, but I'm like you, I think, in thinking that science is the best way to have beliefs most consistent with reality, or, at the very least, the best way to remove beliefs not aligned with it.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply