Just because a lot of people do something, that doesn’t make it safe. Drinking alcohol is harmful, but accepted by a lot of people.
The argument against all magical thinking is a bit of a slippery slope argument, so it’s not perfect. That being said, do you really think most people actually believe knocking on wood will prevent something bad from happening? If someone truly believes that their superstitious rituals have an effect on objective reality, then yes, that is very harmful. If someone bases their beliefs on something other than evidence, that person is not only unequipped to make good decisions, but also an easy mark that can be taken advantage of.
Dude, we make decisions based on things like gut feelings and other things that aren’t solid evidence all the time. We often aren’t even aware of doing so.
We aren’t Spock. We aren’t particularly data-driven beings. We make decisions such as who to date on things like the way they look, they way they talk. We pick our food based on what tastes good over what would be the most beneficial nutritionally. We get excited over made up things that happen on a screen.
I’m sorry, but if you want to ban flat-earthers because their illogicality makes them an easy target for right wing extremists, there’s a metric fuck ton more people you’d have to ban alongside them for the same reasons. By that point you probably don’t have a social network anymore.
Sorry, that is not what I meant to convey. There are many reasons for doing things outside of pure logic and pure superstition. It’s not a dichotomy.
When I drink poison, beer for example, that’s not a logical choice, but it’s also not based on magical thinking. Pleasurable sensations and personal preferences are real things that exist. Doing something because it makes you happy is very different from doing something because your priest or guru told you to do it.
I do get what you are saying, and yes blind obedience to authorities in various circles isn’t healthy. But how does one moderate on such principles while maintaing free and open discussion?
How does one moderate on such principles while maintaing free and open discussion?
That’s a really, really good question. Any definite rules are tricky because there are always edge cases in human communication. Also, it shouldn’t be illegal to be wrong or stupid, so what can we do?
I think the only thing close to a real solution is good public education. There will always be stupid and dangerous ideas floating around. The best thing we can do is probably help people understand that evidence-based-policy works and magic doesn’t. (but I still think there should be moderation online to prevent blatant hate and violence.)
Just because a lot of people do something, that doesn’t make it safe. Drinking alcohol is harmful, but accepted by a lot of people.
The argument against all magical thinking is a bit of a slippery slope argument, so it’s not perfect. That being said, do you really think most people actually believe knocking on wood will prevent something bad from happening? If someone truly believes that their superstitious rituals have an effect on objective reality, then yes, that is very harmful. If someone bases their beliefs on something other than evidence, that person is not only unequipped to make good decisions, but also an easy mark that can be taken advantage of.
Dude, we make decisions based on things like gut feelings and other things that aren’t solid evidence all the time. We often aren’t even aware of doing so.
We aren’t Spock. We aren’t particularly data-driven beings. We make decisions such as who to date on things like the way they look, they way they talk. We pick our food based on what tastes good over what would be the most beneficial nutritionally. We get excited over made up things that happen on a screen.
I’m sorry, but if you want to ban flat-earthers because their illogicality makes them an easy target for right wing extremists, there’s a metric fuck ton more people you’d have to ban alongside them for the same reasons. By that point you probably don’t have a social network anymore.
Sorry, that is not what I meant to convey. There are many reasons for doing things outside of pure logic and pure superstition. It’s not a dichotomy.
When I drink poison, beer for example, that’s not a logical choice, but it’s also not based on magical thinking. Pleasurable sensations and personal preferences are real things that exist. Doing something because it makes you happy is very different from doing something because your priest or guru told you to do it.
Carl Sagan does a better job of explaining it.
Ah fair enough.
I do get what you are saying, and yes blind obedience to authorities in various circles isn’t healthy. But how does one moderate on such principles while maintaing free and open discussion?
How does one moderate on such principles while maintaing free and open discussion?
That’s a really, really good question. Any definite rules are tricky because there are always edge cases in human communication. Also, it shouldn’t be illegal to be wrong or stupid, so what can we do?
I think the only thing close to a real solution is good public education. There will always be stupid and dangerous ideas floating around. The best thing we can do is probably help people understand that evidence-based-policy works and magic doesn’t. (but I still think there should be moderation online to prevent blatant hate and violence.)