Hacker News Reader

Comment by reitanqild | Hacker News Reader

Agree. Reading just the primer is way better than starting to argue with even HN about this.

Problem us either is HN and Ars Technica are very political or techies and science lovers has started abandoning their love for evidence to participate in "troll hunting" not just blatant trolls but also anyone who asks any critical question.

And, as a former sceptic: from the outside climate science seems cult-like :-/

(That said, even as a former sceptic, I have advocated cutting the dependency on fossil, I do have all my shares in solar etc.)

View on HN

Genuine request: what kinds of conversation / arguments tend to work for people who think science is cultish, and might help it to seem less so. This is of course for those willing to engage with you rationally? (although counter-emotive arguments are also good, and maybe more effective). I have a Republican friend who will engage with my and she sees a 'groupthink' problem. Your advice may be invaluable in helping to open up discourse.

You weren't asking me, but... maybe it is a bit cultish? Many adopt it as a belief system and wear rationalism like a mantle. We just aren't that rational. I like Stephen Covey's formulation "Seek first to understand, then to be understood". If you can learn why she feels the way she does, you might find common ground.

I don't think science is cultish.

And I don't think I ever did, except for clinate sciences.

The reason they appeared cultish to me was the way anyone who doesn't immediately believe it must obviously be a troll or a paid shill and must be attacked.

Also the huge focus on "n x 1000 scientists can't be wrong" just screams bad science.

And there are many other good reasons to cutting our dependency on fossil fuel.

Limited supply, geopolitical implications, and simply quality of air. I am not convinced that electric cars pollute less overall, as they will become obsolete much faster than a normal car, and I understand the batteries are problematic to recycle, but at the very least it creates pollution in low population density areas, rather than under the nose of tens of millions of people, including people with asthma, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com