Is Science now considered PRSI?

[dukebound85]

In a thread talking about the miami building collapse, I posted these are the effects of climate change

As one who holds a graduate degree in atmospheric science and engineering, this is true and really not up for debate in the scientific community.

is discussing science now taboo in current events? I get a warning from a mod that this is PRSI. Really?

I get that there is a certain political party that seems to refuse science but that does not mean it is not scientifically false.

An explanation would be helpful.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Use the contact us form to have the staff discuss your moderation concern with you.

Contact us

forums.macrumors.com

 

[dukebound85]

Use the contact us form to have the staff discuss your moderation concern with you.

Contact us

forums.macrumors.com

While I am sure you are well intentioned, I am very aware of this contact form. I have been a member here since 2005.

I wish to have the discussion here, on the site and forum feedback, section of the boards

 

[KaliYoni]

its a trend i have seen on these forums where you cant discuss science without someones political feelings being hurt

I don't have any insight into site statistics, metrics, or staffers but I believe the perception of skewed removals felt by many of us is driven by the combination of some users actively patrolling for posts to report and a number of moderators who share certain political, social, and cultural beliefs with those users.

 

[SuperMatt]

It does seem wrong-headed to ban the discussion of science just because some people have tried to politicize certain scientific topics.

 

[arn]

Unfortunately, science and political topics don’t seem to be mutually exclusive. Like vaccines.

We try to limit discussion of these highly debated topics to certain sections, because it can get heated. Whether that’s good or bad, that’s where things stand.

 

[icanhazmac]

is discussing science now taboo in current events? I get a warning from a mod that this is PRSI. Really?

Discussing science is far from taboo but dragging politics or political parties into it just seems petty. I don't think politics have anything to do with the moderation at hand, IMHO it boils down to the rules of discussion in the forums.

While data regarding sea level changes and its effects on this case are concerning and a possible cause or contributing factor for the collapse I think the problem with your post, if I remember it correctly as it is now gone, is that you stated "these are the effects of climate change" as fact when we are probably a ways from a definitive cause. There are a lot of stories about shoddy construction, old building codes and lack of proper maintenance that could also be the cause.

We’d be fools not to ask if condo collapse is linked to Miami-Dade’s shoddy construction in the ’80s | Editorial

South Florida’s long and sordid history of shoddy building practices is hard to ignore in the wake of the Surfside building’s partial collapse.

www.miamiherald.com

Building collapse in Miami: Multiple factors could have contributed, experts say

A number of factors could have brought down the condo - sea level rise, sinking soil, corrosion and human error among them, experts told USA TODAY.

www.msn.com

Things are getting odd around here when opinion is stated as fact, my guess is that if you had said "climate change and rising sea levels may have caused or contributed to the collapse" (with an easily found reference) you probably wouldn't have had an issue. Your credentials and expertise aside unless you proved for a fact that you were an inspecting engineer for that building and knew its history intimately I would just chalk your opinion up as another "educated guess" and I mean no disrespect by that but every news article right now says "under investigation".

While I tend to believe your hypothosis has merit stating it as fact and the only cause is problematic when the boots on the ground are non-committal at this time.

 

[ericgtr12]

Unfortunately, science and political topics don’t seem to be mutually exclusive. Like vaccines.

We try to limit discussion of these highly debated topics to certain sections, because it can get heated. Whether that’s good or bad, that’s where things stand.

They should be though. Vaccines work, we have peer reviewed empirical evidence of it and tens of millions of people who can now live their lives as a result. How is this even debatable? This site has made a clear and conscious decision to allow this to be questioned instead of simply warning people or putting factual labels (corrections) to those doing it.

It's like someone posting that 2+2=4 and when it's challenged by anti-mathers, giving them them a credible platform. Only in the case of vaccines it's sowing doubt in those who may be questioning it. It's flat out irresponsible.

 

[dukebound85]

Discussing science is far from taboo but dragging politics or political parties into it just seems petty. I don't think politics have anything to do with the moderation at hand, IMHO it boils down to the rules of discussion in the forums.

While data regarding sea level changes and its effects on this case are concerning and a possible cause or contributing factor for the collapse I think the problem with your post, if I remember it correctly as it is now gone, is that you stated "these are the effects of climate change" as fact when we are probably a ways from a definitive cause. There are a lot of stories about shoddy construction, old building codes and lack of proper maintenance that could also be the cause.

We’d be fools not to ask if condo collapse is linked to Miami-Dade’s shoddy construction in the ’80s | Editorial

South Florida’s long and sordid history of shoddy building practices is hard to ignore in the wake of the Surfside building’s partial collapse.

www.miamiherald.com

Building collapse in Miami: Multiple factors could have contributed, experts say

A number of factors could have brought down the condo - sea level rise, sinking soil, corrosion and human error among them, experts told USA TODAY.

www.msn.com

Things are getting odd around here when opinion is stated as fact, my guess is that if you had said "climate change and rising sea levels may have caused or contributed to the collapse" (with an easily found reference) you probably wouldn't have had an issue. Your credentials and expertise aside unless you proved for a fact that you were an inspecting engineer for that building and knew its history intimately I would just chalk your opinion up as another "educated guess" and I mean no disrespect by that but every news article right now says "under investigation".

While I tend to believe your hypothosis has merit stating it as fact and the only cause is problematic when the boots on the ground are non-committal at this time.

I agree

 

[AutomaticApple]

Unfortunately, science and political topics don’t seem to be mutually exclusive. Like vaccines.

Oh yeah, I forgot that the hoax rule doesn't apply to science/politics...

 

[I7guy]

They should be though. Vaccines work, we have peer reviewed empirical evidence of it and tens of millions of people who can now live their lives as a result. How is this even debatable? This site has made a clear and conscious decision to allow this to be questioned instead of simply warning people or putting factual labels (corrections) to those doing it.

It's like someone posting that 2+2=4 and when it's challenged by anti-mathers, giving them them a credible platform. Only in the case of vaccines it's sowing doubt in those who may be questioning it. It's flat out irresponsible.

What are you proposing? Ban the discussion of whether vaccines work? If someone says “vaccines don’t work look at the Yankees”, mod hammer?

Is that the rabbit hole you’re proposing?

 

[ericgtr12]

What are you proposing? Ban the discussion of whether vaccines work? If someone says “vaccines don’t work look at the Yankees”, mod hammer?

Is that the rabbit hole you’re proposing?

First of all, I've been penalized for as little as posting an image without a caption on here so let's not go into the absolute pettiness of MR infractions.

Two things come to mind here, the first is setting the tone. Staff are in a unique position to post an announcement stating such language would not be tolerated, it won't stop it but it will certainly make users think and moderators could then address those posts.

It would also show that MR cares and takes such a lethal diseases seriously. Arn is (or once was) a medical professional, that along with being the site owner carries a lot of weight. All he has to do is present the fact based evidence we know and make prudent recommendations. IMO this was a real lost opportunity for this site.

The other is labeling, this was successful on all social media platforms. If you don't want to pick through those posts (which would likely be an overwhelming task for staff), simply label them as false while providing a link to fact based information.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Unfortunately, science and political topics don’t seem to be mutually exclusive. Like vaccines.

We try to limit discussion of these highly debated topics to certain sections, because it can get heated. Whether that’s good or bad, that’s where things stand.

With respect, @arn, this really isn't good enough.

Not now, and not in the face of a global pandemic.

And - again, with respect, - I would expect that someone who trained as a medical doctor to be more than perfectly aware of the efficacy of vaccines.

In fact, to be quite candid, and this has been the case ever since the times of Edward Jenner, this shouldn't even be a subject matter for serious debate, least of all from a medical perspective.

And if it does become one, might I respectfully suggest that the site (and site owner) make clear that while the expression of differing opinions on such matters may be welcome, the mere expression of such opinions does not confer equal validity on them, as one is proven scientific fact while the other is not.

For that matter, it is one thing to offer differing views equal online space on an online platform, (First Amendment, and commercial imperatives perhaps serving to spur such a stance), but quite another to suggest that they may have equal merit as a matter of fact, or, as a matter of fact based evidence.

Just because two views, or opinions, may differ - or may "become heated" in discussion, debate and argument, does not mean that both should be accorded equal online space and afforded equal respect as opinions, or perspectives.

Not when one has been scientifically and factually proven, such proofs confirmed and validiated in credible sources, - in other words, is an example of fact based (and supported) evidence - while the other is simply a differing opinion, one that expresses disagreement.

In history, something either happened or it didn't; the post-modernist perspective ("it depends on how you look at it") doesn't really work when addressing with the standard questions (what, who, where, when) of historical fact.

And likewise, this also applies with a discussion on matters that pertain to scientific - evidence based - fact.

 

[I7guy]

First of all, I've been penalized for as little as posting an image without a caption on here so let's not go into the absolute pettiness of MR infractions.

Two things come to mind here, the first is setting the tone. Staff are in a unique position to post an announcement stating such language would not be tolerated, it won't stop it but it will certainly make users think and moderators could then address those posts.

It would also show that MR cares and takes such a lethal diseases seriously. Arn is (or once was) a medical professional, that along with being the site owner carries a lot of weight. All he has to do is present the fact based evidence we know and make prudent recommendations. IMO this was a real lost opportunity for this site.

The other is labeling, this was successful on all social media platforms. If you don't want to pick through those posts (which would likely be an overwhelming task for staff), simply label them as false while providing a link to fact based information.

The above really didn't answer the question I was proposing in the post based on your original post, which is more of where is the dividing line that you want the moderators to take action. My take from the post is you want to mods to censor any discussion that goes against science using vaccines as an example but where is that line in the sand between acceptable discourse and mod hammer?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

The above really didn't answer the question I was proposing in the post based on your original post, which is more of where is the dividing line that you want the moderators to take action. My take from the post is you want to mods to censor any discussion that goes against science using vaccines as an example but where is that line in the sand between acceptable discourse and mod hammer?

At the risk of presuming to pre-empt any reply that @ericgtr12 might choose to write, may I offer my thoughts:

My preference would not, necessarily, request that one "censor" any such discussion, but, equally, I would advocate not adopting the sort of apparently disinterested, (and a disingenuous), even-handed approach which presupposes - or conveys the sense - that proven scientific fact and subjective opinion are of equal merit, validity or veracity in any such discussion.

Thus, personally, I would flag such posts and threads, have them labelled "alleged", or something of the sort.

Challenges to the view that vaccines - and masks - work, in the context of a global pandemic, ought not - not now, a year and a half into the pandemic, when we know some of the steps that can be taken to mitigate the risk of infection or transmission - ought not be given the respect of being taken as seriously, or being treated as seriously, as stances that derive from evidence based, proven, scientfic fact.

 

[Bollockser]

Depends whether youre discussing Science, or #TheScience
One is real, the other is propaganda

 

[icanhazmac]

The other is labeling, this was successful on all social media platforms. If you don't want to pick through those posts (which would likely be an overwhelming task for staff), simply label them as false while providing a link to fact based information.

And what happens when your labels are proven to be incorrect? Facebook used to censor and label Wuhan Lab Leak posts but now has reversed that policy. "Oooops, we got that one wrong"

Facebook censors WSWS article exposing Wuhan lab conspiracy theory

Facebook has labeled the WSWS Perspective column, "Washington Post’s 'Wuhan Lab' conspiracy theory stands exposed,” as “misinformation” and blocked users from sharing it.

www.wsws.org

Facebook reverses censorship of WSWS article debunking “Wuhan Lab” conspiracy theory

On Friday, Facebook notified users that it had wrongly censored them for posting a WSWS article exposing the false claim that COVID-19 was released from a Chinese lab.

www.wsws.org

Facebook Lifts Ban on Wuhan Lab Leak Posts amid Renewed Debate over Theory

Facebook will no longer treat online content about the lab-leak theory as a qualifying misleading claim amid recent debate over the virus's origins.

www.msn.com

Facebook accused of showing ‘true and ugly colors’ with Wuhan lab story ban

The social media giant Facebook has long quashed reports questioning if COVID-19 leaked from the Chinese lab in Wuhan.

nypost.com

This is what happens when you allow ideologies to drive censorship. Instead of allowing an unqualified tech company to censor discussion we should have listened to the dissenting viewpoint.

I would much rather err on the side of allowing some tin foil hat theories to be heard versus canceling them because their theories don't fit XYZ political narrative.

 

[Mac47]

God forbid that MR should start appending “fact check” notices to posts.

 

[ThisBougieLife]

And what happens when your labels are proven to be incorrect? Facebook used to censor and label Wuhan Lab Leak posts but now has reversed that policy. "Oooops, we got that one wrong"

Facebook censors WSWS article exposing Wuhan lab conspiracy theory

Facebook has labeled the WSWS Perspective column, "Washington Post’s 'Wuhan Lab' conspiracy theory stands exposed,” as “misinformation” and blocked users from sharing it.

www.wsws.org

Facebook reverses censorship of WSWS article debunking “Wuhan Lab” conspiracy theory

On Friday, Facebook notified users that it had wrongly censored them for posting a WSWS article exposing the false claim that COVID-19 was released from a Chinese lab.

www.wsws.org

Facebook Lifts Ban on Wuhan Lab Leak Posts amid Renewed Debate over Theory

Facebook will no longer treat online content about the lab-leak theory as a qualifying misleading claim amid recent debate over the virus's origins.

www.msn.com

Facebook accused of showing ‘true and ugly colors’ with Wuhan lab story ban

The social media giant Facebook has long quashed reports questioning if COVID-19 leaked from the Chinese lab in Wuhan.

nypost.com

This is what happens when you allow ideologies to drive censorship. Instead of allowing an unqualified tech company to censor discussion we should have listened to the dissenting viewpoint.

The problem is social media sites are caught between a rock and a hard place. If they let something false proliferate they're said to be spreading misinformation and "undermining democracy", but if they prevent something valid from being discussed, they're accused of censorship and propaganda. So what's the correct choice? Labeling something is at least not as bad as censoring it entirely. Any attempt to "gatekeep" information is going to result in getting it wrong sometimes. Facebook could opt to censor and label nothing and let people make their own decisions on what to view, but then they're going to be accused of "influencing" politics, there will be more government inquests, and bad press and it might not be worth it financially (but of course the bad press when they get something wrong negatively affects them too). Seems like you're screwed either way.

 

[arn]

With respect, @arn, this really isn't good enough.

Topics are not nearly as black and white as people seem to suggest. And I’m not even suggesting false equivalency between truth and not truth.

Teasing out valid reasons vs invalid reasons of widely held opinions is not something that we can realistically moderate. Should we ban all discussion of religion or belief in God, since it’s not scientifically proven?

Even the example which triggered this thread was saying a building collapse was caused by climate change. Was it caused by climate change? Maybe? I frankly don’t know and I don’t expect the moderators to figure it out.

And does saying it wasn’t caused by climate change automatically mean you don’t believe in climate change or are anti science?

The OP would have you believe we are being anti science for not allowing that discussion to take place outside of PRSI.

 

[ericgtr12]

Topics are not nearly as black and white as people seem to suggest. And I’m not even suggesting false equivalency between truth and not truth.

Teasing out valid reasons vs invalid reasons of widely held opinions is not something that we can realistically moderate. Should we ban all discussion of religion or belief in God, since it’s not scientifically proven?

Even the example which triggered this thread was saying a building collapse was caused by climate change. Was it caused by climate change? Maybe? I frankly don’t know and I don’t expect the moderators to figure it out.

And does saying it wasn’t caused by climate change automatically mean you don’t believe in climate change or are anti science?

The OP would have you believe we are being anti science for not allowing that discussion to take place outside of PRSI.

I was citing your specific example of vaccines, I would also make the same case for masks. Unlike God or questions or whether or not climate change caused the foundation of a building to fail, these things have basis in fact. We know wearing a mask and taking the vaccine prevent the spread. On this topic it's irresponsible to allow discussion without some sort of fact checking or at least a statement backed by the site, like it or not these discussions influence people who may be on the fence and can cause real harm.

 

[icanhazmac]

The problem is social media sites are caught between a rock and a hard place. If they let something false proliferate they're said to be spreading misinformation and "undermining democracy", but if they prevent something valid from being discussed, they're accused of censorship and propaganda. So what's the correct choice? Labeling something is at least not as bad as censoring it entirely. Any attempt to "gatekeep" information is going to result in getting it wrong sometimes. Facebook could opt to censor and label nothing and let people make their own decisions on what to view, but then they're going to be accused of "influencing" politics, there will be more government inquests, and bad press and it might not be worth it financially (but of course the bad press when they got something wrong negatively affects them too). Seems like you're screwed either way.

I agree with most of your comment except that, at least in the US, about half the people will be mad at you regardless of what you say on any given topic, not because they can challenge the validity of XYZ statement or opinion but simply because it doesn't fit their teams narrative. Therefore social media platforms, IMHO, should err on the side of allowing as much as possible and censoring as little as possible.

 

[arn]

I was citing your specific example of vaccines, I would also make the same case for masks. Unlike God or questions or whether or not climate change caused the foundation of a building to fail, these things have basis in fact.

I don’t want to take the vaccine bc it doesn’t work.
I don’t want to take the vaccine bc bill gates is in on it
I don’t want to take the vaccine bc I don’t like needles
I don’t want to take the vaccine bc I’m allergic
I don’t want to take the vaccine bc they are sketchy
I don’t want to take the vaccine bc I don’t trust the government
I don’t want to take the vaccine bc my family told me not to
I don’t want to take the vaccine bc it is under emergency authorization
I don’t want to take the vaccine bc I’m young and covid won’t hurt me
I don’t want to take the vaccine bc Covid is a lie
I don’t want to take the vaccine bc I'm young, I don’t trust it and I don’t like the government telling me what to do.
I don’t want to take the vaccine. Reasons unspecified.

 

[icanhazmac]

We know wearing a mask and taking the vaccine prevent the spread.

FALSE CLAIM, should be moderated, labeled and canceled!!! /s

What you should have said is that "we know that wearing a mask and taking the vaccine HELP prevent the spread. Stating that those 2 preventative options PREVENT the spread is a misleading and potentially dangerous statement. After reading your post someone might feel that if they wear a mask and have been vaccinated that they can cuddle in the same space as someone who has covid.

On masks, please define a mask that can PREVENT the spreading of the virus, short of a fitted filtered respirator I am not aware of any mask that is 100% effective. Per the link below even an N95 is only 98.4% effective, great but not 100% as you claim. Did you go shopping during the pandemic? Half the people I saw were wearing loose fitting woven or poly gaiters which while they may HELP prevent the spread the will not PREVENT it.

EPA Researchers Test Effectiveness of Face Masks, Disinfection Methods Against COVID-19 | US EPA

EPA scientists are applying their expertise in aerosol and decontamination research to better understand mask effectiveness, as well as methods for disinfecting personal protective equipment for the public, healthcare workers, and other essential workers.

www.epa.gov

Getting the vaccine will not PREVENT you from getting covid, it will certainly help but it will not PREVENT as per your claim.

Yes, vaccines block most transmission of COVID-19

The latest data show that getting a shot not only protects vaccinated individuals, it reduces the chance they can spread the virus to others.

www.nationalgeographic.com

 

[ericgtr12]

I don’t want to take the vaccine bc it doesn’t work.
I don’t want to take the vaccine bc bill gates is in on it
I don’t want to take the vaccine bc I don’t like needles
I don’t want to take the vaccine bc I’m allergic
I don’t want to take the vaccine bc they are sketchy
I don’t want to take the vaccine bc I don’t trust the government
I don’t want to take the vaccine bc my family told me not to
I don’t want to take the vaccine bc it is under emergency authorization
I don’t want to take the vaccine bc I’m young and covid won’t hurt me
I don’t want to take the vaccine bc Covid is a lie
I don’t want to take the vaccine bc I'm young, I don’t trust it and I don’t like the government telling me what to do.
I don’t want to take the vaccine. Reasons unspecified.

In every single one of these cases, these people would benefit from a trusted medical professional utilizing his site and status to give them the facts. Sadly on this site you're doing absolutely nothing to insert fact based scientific data and instead are letting people with a political view insert ambiguity. It's a shame.