Convincing people your interpretation of reality exists is literally all that politics is.
Unfortunately, despite being correct, science is also an interpretation of reality.
Comment on "Science isn't political!"
Tattorack@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
Science is only political because scientists have to continuously convince politicians reality exists.
It’s frustrating that something like climate change is even a political discussion at all. Don’t Look Up captured that frustration really well.
Tiresia@slrpnk.net 19 hours ago
Fedizen@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
Convincing people is war. Exerting power is politics.
leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 hours ago
Convincing people your interpretation of reality exists is literally all that politics is.
What? No. No, no, you naive fool… many politicians, if not most, don’t believe most of what they’re selling, and don’t give a flying fuck about it.
They’ll sell whatever line the party they’re working for wants them to sell, and they’d just as happily sell the opposition party’s line if it paid better and they could switch without being called a turncoat.
Also, it’s not about convincing people about specific beliefs; most people are mostly already convinced of their worldviews and if they change them it won’t be because of some politician. It’s about convincing them, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the politician shares those beliefs, and will impose them on people who don’t if they vote for them.
despite being correct, science is also an interpretation of reality.
Again, no. Science (except for mathematics, but that’s it’s own thing) doesn’t and shouldn’t ever claim to be correct.
It’s the most accurate approximation we have so far of how nature works, but it’s constantly trying to achieve better approximations, and will happily throw away the old ones when it finds a better one.
It also should always make very clear that it’s an approximation or a description, not an interpretation. Science should always be objective, never subjective, and interpretations are by definition subjective.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 18 hours ago
I think we need politics to go beyond one reality, and embrace a subjective multiverse where people can perceive what they want to perceive.
Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 hours ago
If only the idiots could just piss off to their own multiverse of idiocy and leave the rest of us alone
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 8 hours ago
I would be happy if I didn’t have to share a universe with realists, but the thing about realists is, they’re not happy to let that happen. They think there’s only one universe. They psychologically abuse our kind to try to get us back to their reality.
I have a friend named Sonic who’s an introject. He appeared in someone else’s head one day, having been assembled from thoughts about video games and comic books. He tried to get help from a psychologist with his mental health. Instead of helping him, she told him he doesn’t exist and tried to erase him. She messed him up so bad, he tried to commit suicide, tried to destroy the body he lives in and everyone else who lives in it, just to prove he could have an affect on the world, that he exists.
He’s doing a lot better now that he’s surrounded by antirealists and he isn’t seeing that psychologist anymore.
anomnom@sh.itjust.works 12 hours ago
That’s called, Texas, we should let them secede.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works 16 hours ago
Cool cool cool so the climate is pretty fucked and now the way people have lived for millennia will cease to be possible. But at least we were open minded about delusion.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 20 hours ago
You can invent a vaccine, but getting people to take it is a different matter entirely.
starlinguk@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Andrew Wakefield managed to fuck up people’s attitude towards vaccines quite well without politics.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 17 hours ago
Inserting things under people’s skin just freaks people out in general. There are so many reasons.
RobotToaster@mander.xyz 19 hours ago
They also have to continually convince politicians and other politically minded people to give them money, and risk having it taken away if their results are politically inconvenient.
thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 hours ago
161st upvote
Slashme@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
Whether climate change is occurring, what damage it’s doing and what’s causing it are scientific questions. How to address it is a set of political questions: How do we get humanity to emit less greenhouse gases? How do we get countries on the same page? How do we make sure that the effects of these changes don’t increase global inequality?
The scientific questions have been answered very well, and are continuing to be answered in more detail all the time.
The response to the political questions has been an abject failure so far.