Hacker News Reader

I don't take a strong position on evolution one way or another because the outcome doesn't affect me in any way.

You're just fine with having the next generation of schoolkids taught that "God Did It (or maybe aliens)" is the only acceptable explanation for the origin of life, then? Because this fight started with religious zealots trying to prosecute teachers for going against scripture, and it's hard to have any doubt that the clowns pushing Intelligent Design would do something similar if people stopped smacking them down. It might not matter to you whether evolution is right or not, but that's not what the fight is about - the fight is about whether or not scientists should have to poll the idiocracy and make sure they won't offend them before reporting their findings.

And yes, I'm arguing slippery slope, maybe - but the argument in favor of worry is a lot more compelling when we've just finished clawing our way up from the bottom.

It seems like the more we know the more we lose sight of what we still don't know and don't proceed with much humility.

Absolutely. And with climate science, I'd tend to agree with you, we don't know all that much and might want to be careful about how much we trust the preliminary findings - the data appears to be messy, incomplete, and difficult to work with, and the field started out so highly politicized that it's hard to know who to trust.

Evolution, on the other hand, is not even in the same ballpark - evidence is plentiful, it all agrees with the theory, and consensus is overwhelming (and one big difference between bio and climate science is that biologists don't tend to go into biology because of political leanings, so there's far less selection bias amongst researchers).

I think that I am fine with that because I'm not sure it matters. The truth is the truth and it has a nasty habit of winning out even if it takes hundreds of years. Theories and ideas go into and out of favor over time. The battle between rationalism and empiricism has raged basically nonstop since Aristotle and continues today with each side gaining and losing ground with each generation of thinkers.

I'm amazed by the continuing influence of Marx and other socialist philosophers even though we have theories rooted in Platonic arguments and empirical observation that are fairly one sided in their analysis of the subject. It disturbs me greatly that schools teach Keynesian economics and that Paul Krugman has more distribution than what a blog would provide him. I'm disturbed by the success of the Neocons and their apparent love for war.

All that being said I move on with my life. I realize that the best I can is argue my case and if I fail then that's fine. Ideas aren't as important as life and the people in it.

I don't think this is arrogance, no one is lacking in humility and skepticism. It is more a matter that any and every claim need not be treated with the same sort of gravity as a rigorously investigated subject. The scientists in question are most likely dismissive of people purposefully ignoring evidence that does not fit into their world/political views rather than view points rooted in scientific data.

It is absolutely important to care what others' think when it comes to topics in science. We live in a society, and others' views and ideas unfortunately will most likely impact people other than themselves. People are free to be as ignorant as they want in isolation, but the moment they start affecting policy, we should care.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/hn/your_rationality_is_my_business/

Seems like the argument here is that because this person can't mind his own business I need to hear about it. Not sure about anyone else but my life is complicated enough without me taking on the problems of other people who aren't asking for my help in the first place.

> You can't advance in a career in the sciences without accepting on some terms evolution by means of natural selection so who cares if a bunch of people don't agree?

Because we're afraid that that could change.