Hacker News Reader

The problem is that it doesn't often come down to what will have profound social impacts, instead it tends to be what the loudest group of folks disagree with.

Those are two different things.

Little to do with profound social impacts, its all about how much the evidence contradicts what someone either believes or wants to believe.

Now people certainly can hide behind the idea that they only do so for profound social implications but by then they are just trying avoid acknowledging that they know whats being said is true.

there are always some socially unacceptable facts, the kind people either nod their head or just acknowledge silently. It comes from being in a society where truth is second to needs.

Assuming that the consequences of acting like X is true when X is false, are much worse than the consequences of acting like X is false when X is true, there's a subtle but important difference between saying "we should err on the side of acting as if X is false", and saying "we should be skeptical of claims that X is true"