RICHARD DAWKINS ❤ CANCEL CULTURE (or not)

[Gian]

"Let's stop being so damned respectful! Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness... Lets stop being damned respectful!"

RICHARD DAWKINS 2002

 

"I think it's very sad especially in universities... where you should be free to speak your mind and to listen to something even if it's something you don't like, and it's very tragic that universities seem to have bought into the idea that if you hear something you don't like you should shut them up and refuse to let them speak"

RICHARD DAWKINS bleating to Piers Morgan about cancel culture 2023

Edited April 2 by Gian

[Moontanman]

What do you want to discuss here? 

[MigL]

Stems from the  new attitude permeating the Western world; that whatever you 'feel' cannot be wrong, and to even mention it can be offensive and you need 'protection' from other's opinions.
Meanwhile science teaches us that what is right does not need protection, as it can be proven.

But I don't know why this is in Astronomy and Cosmology ...

Edited April 2 by MigL

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

new attitude permeating the Western world; that whatever you 'feel' cannot be wrong, and to even mention it can be offensive and you need 'protection' from other's opinions.

I agree. The political right and maga-class has been getting beyond ridiculous in ostracizing people who refuse to tow the party line and repeat the lies, casting out anyone deemed to be "others." It demands a level of purity nobody can ever maintain, and it's pretty sad that their views can't hold up to even remedial scrutiny. 

[Moontanman]

I would say that "revealed truth" is one of the most dangerous concepts we currently face. When you have a group of people who view the world through a lens of "faith" it becomes possible to pretty much manipulate people of faith into believing anything.  

[MigL]

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

I agree. The political right and maga-class has been getting beyond ridiculous

Absolutely.
But the only one that regularly demands protection from others' opinions, by taking even family members to court, is that joke of a former President, D Trump.

But this is still in Astronomy and Cosmology ...

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Stems from the  new attitude permeating the Western world; that whatever you 'feel' cannot be wrong, and to even mention it can be offensive and you need 'protection' from other's opinions.
Meanwhile science teaches us that what is right does not need protection, as it can be proven.

But I don't know why this is in Astronomy and Cosmology ...

Surely that is not what science teaches, though? Science gives us predictive models of the physical world, none of which can be proven and consequently none of which can be said to be definitively right.

[MigL]

19 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Surely that is not what science teaches, though?

Well, let's see.
A Einstein's GR predicted light would be bent in the curved space-time of a gravitational field.
Sir A Eddington proved him right by observing the Solar eclipse in May 1919.

If you live in North America, you can prove it yourself, next Monday; and you'll no longer be able to say, about light bending in a gravitational field, that

28 minutes ago, exchemist said:

none of which can be proven and consequently none of which can be said to be definitively right.

Obviously, some things can be 🙂 .

[exchemist]

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

Well, let's see.
A Einstein's GR predicted light would be bent in the curved space-time of a gravitational field.
Sir A Eddington proved him right by observing the Solar eclipse in May 1919.

If you live in North America, you can prove it yourself, next Monday; and you'll no longer be able to say, about light bending in a gravitational field, that

Obviously, some things can be 🙂 .

That proved one prediction was right. It does not prove the theory.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

The theme seems political, so moved to Politics.

 

[CharonY]

I think the quotes from Dawkins are missing the mark and certain folks are weaponizing that kind of arguments. There is an issue in universities, but it is not what OP describes and it is more related to a deeper change in society. First, there is a fundamental misunderstanding how discussions should be done and specifically how it should be conducted in universities. Universities are (were) a space for critical discussions, which should involve aspects of critical thinking and expertise. I.e. it was never supposed to be a platform where e.g. conspiracy theories of microchips in vaccines should be discussed at the same level as the benefits of immunization. The former would suck the entire oxygen from anything meaningful and there would be no learning or development of thoughts, which would be the purpose of universities. 

Rather, discussions should be vetted and led by folks with actual expertise. There is a difference if e.g. economists with different viewpoints and arguments relating to fiscal policies explain their thoughts vs. talking heads who argue that somehow any fiscal policy is a dictatorship (as a mild example).

Where the university leadership is failing is basically that they are becoming more corporate and try to appease everyone, especially students (which they increasingly treat as customers rather than, well, students). What that means is that discussions have become more superficial, folks who are popular are getting more space than folks who actually know things (Peterson is one of the persons who managed to grift on that, for example). It is obvious why students are drawn to these superficial but emotional spectacles and why they pick and choose sides just as everyone nowadays in the population. They are still untrained when it comes to critical analysis (and I am afraid, the quality is dropping), they are more outspoken as they have been trained by social media algorithms that every thought has equal weight, no matter how ludicrous. As such, discussions on any topic are now more about picking sides rather than a critical analysis of the situation and, even more importantly, proposing solutions. 

University leadership tries (badly) to be corporate neutral on these issues in order not to get on the bad side of folks and thereby gives the power to the louder voices. This is especially disappointing as they do have in theory access to the best experts but they lack the courage to show actual leadership, which involves taking some modicum of risk. One could argue that then the faculty themselves should do something, but in the current environment they are overworked (as students are more and more demanding, which is encouraged by leadership) and only those with the loudest voices (often in social media) get all the attention. But those are not necessarily the subject experts. So yes, universities are failing in their purpose, but it is not because of free speech issues, but rather because Universities are transforming into a service industry in which critical thinking and analysis is not at the forefront anymore.

All the discussions about cancel culture are therefore in my mind missing the mark entirely.

Edit: perhaps even worse than missing the mark, it contributes to the erosion of intellectualism and is yet another tool in dismantling trust in expertise.

[MigL]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

and certain folks are weaponizing that kind of arguments.

Do you mean me ?
I'm just trying to stir up a good discussion.
( almost managed to drag INow into it, unfortunately, I had to agree with him 😄 )

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Rather, discussions should be vetted and led by folks with actual expertise.

Are you saying that in the case of the OP, which references 'revealed faith' ( whatever that is ), discussion should be vetted by priests/rabbis/imans/etc. who have the actual 'expertise' ?
I can see that working out really, really well ...

I agree that universities are in a tough position, but fact based information cannot be easily dismissed.
Opinion based information is a different matter; who is the arbiter of what is valid discussion, and what is conspiracy theory   'sucking all the oxygen from the discussion' ?

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

who is the arbiter of what is valid discussion, and what is conspiracy theory

Those who wield the power and who shape the info in our feeds get to decide. It’s a modern take on history being written by the victors, where today victory is measured by likes, shares, views, and impressions.

”A lie gets half way around the world before the truth even gets its pants on.”

[Sensei]

8 hours ago, Moontanman said:

What do you want to discuss here? 

..about lack of consistency in statements, mutually contradictory statements over the years, change of mind depending on who is asking the questions etc. etc. ...

 

 

8 hours ago, MigL said:

Stems from the  new attitude permeating the Western world; that whatever you 'feel' cannot be wrong, and to even mention it can be offensive and you need 'protection' from other's opinions.
Meanwhile science teaches us that what is right does not need protection, as it can be proven.

I have no idea what this has to do with the so-called "cancellation culture."

 

8 hours ago, iNow said:

I agree. The political right and maga-class has been getting beyond ridiculous in ostracizing people who refuse to tow the party line and repeat the lies, casting out anyone deemed to be "others."

OMG, are not you the same, toward the people who claim that the Earth is flat?

 

 

You "cancel" them,

and they "cancel" you..

Two groups, have no discussions etc. etc.

 

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

I agree that universities are in a tough position, but fact based information cannot be easily dismissed.
Opinion based information is a different matter; who is the arbiter of what is valid discussion, and what is conspiracy theory   'sucking all the oxygen from the discussion' ?

There are different venues where expertise does not matter (such as facebook). The value in academic, and I thought that is what you were arguing about is that there exist a methodology to evaluate "facts". The methodology is certainly not infallible, but it has some modicum of self-correction, which is based on academic discourse. If that is not feasible to evaluate, then you are basically saying that facts are meaningless as we cannot evaluate them.  Facts without critical evaluation are, for the most part, meaningless by itself. The synthesis of facts is what provides insights. And this requires at least some level of expertise in the subject matter. I understand that the rise of social media and the democratization of opinion has resulted in a radical decline in trust in expertise. And while it is partially justified, it created a situation where fact-free arguments are mainstream.

 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Are you saying that in the case of the OP, which references 'revealed faith' ( whatever that is ), discussion should be vetted by priests/rabbis/imans/etc. who have the actual 'expertise' ?

I interpret the quote as some sort of conviction without evidence, not necessarily faith in the religious sense. Folks might be be utterly convinced that vaccination make folks magnetic, for example. 

I think you are missing the point though. The idea here is that universities should take a step further and think about what a the discussion is really about, not what folks want to make of it. If say the discussion is about vaccinations, one should invite folks who are able to educate and discuss in good faith (again, not in the religious sense). And that can include folks who have data on adverse reactions of vaccines, but should not include folks who insist that they vaccines are made from dead babies. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

OMG, are not you the same

No

[Sensei]

25 minutes ago, iNow said:

No

..I bow before your eloquence..

 

 

 

[MigL]

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

OMG, are not you the same, toward the people who claim that the Earth is flat?

That the Earth is not flat is factual, and can be proven.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Folks might be be utterly convinced that vaccination make folks magnetic, for example. 

That vaccinations are beneficial is also factual, and can also be proven.

I stand by my claim that subjective opinions are NOT factual.
Just like a rectum, everyone has one.
And society decides which opinion is 'fashionable'; dissenting opinions only get you labelled, and the fashionable opinion 'du jour' must then be protected against the dissenting views.
What the hell is 'revealed faith' anyway ?
I may tolerate it,but I see no reason to protect such garbage.

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

What the hell is 'revealed faith' anyway ?
 

It's the word of the all powerful Yahweh!!! Pay attention... 🫠

[MigL]

How is that different from regular faith, Moon ?
It just sounds much more 'pompous',

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

How is that different from regular faith, Moon ?
It just sounds much more 'pompous',

Pompous? Moi? 

[MigL]

No, not you., Moon.
The term 'revealed faith'.

[Moontanman]

Just now, MigL said:

No, not you., Moon.
The term 'revealed faith'.

Revealed Faith is a very popular term in certain circles that believe in magic. 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I stand by my claim that subjective opinions are NOT factual.
Just like a rectum, everyone has one.
And society decides which opinion is 'fashionable'; dissenting opinions only get you labelled, and the fashionable opinion 'du jour' must then be protected against the dissenting views.
What the hell is 'revealed faith' anyway ?
I may tolerate it,but I see no reason to protect such garbage.

You seem to agree with me that discussions require to be filtered by expertise rather than opinion. Though you also seem to think that I am arguing the opposite? Your claim however was to question who is going to decide who are supposed to be experts who are able to establish factuality and connections. And again I posit that these are not just opinions, but can be underpinned by analyses and data. There are areas where it will be more difficult. E.g. trying to have a plenary discussion on the way forward for peace in the middle East. None of the arguments are going to be trivial, but my point is that folks need some level of relevant expertise in order to propose arguments that are worthy of further discussion.

Just giving everyone a platform does not achieve that (as per OP).

[MigL]

12 hours ago, CharonY said:

You seem to agree with me that discussions require to be filtered by expertise rather than opinion. Though you also seem to think that I am arguing the opposite?

No, I totally agree with you when the discussion involves factual subjects, like vaccines or the shape of the Earth.
But there are subjective opinion based discussions where the 'experts' don't agree with each other and sometimes make a mess of things.
The soft sciences,  psychiatry being one example, is where I would find issues with your approach.
I remember examples, from a few years back, where people who suffered from emotional trauma, or delusions, were led, by their Psychiatrist, to 'remember' traumatic events from their childhood, such as emotional, physical, sexual or incestual, depending on the fashion of the week, that actually never happened.

Who would you choose as 'experts' in a discussion about garbage such as 'revealed faith' ?

Edited April 3 by MigL