Blogging again?

Bandwhich demonstrates how little I understand networking. I don’t even know if I have to be superuser to sniff an interface. A friend wrote something not unlike Sniffglue and made a business of it, back in the olden days.

The Pew survey has a list of striking findings from 2019. Rather than striking, I’d say most of them are, “Yeah, I can believe that.”

Why isn’t this seen as a “both and” rather than an “either or?” Conservatives appreciate the importance of science even as they distrust scientists.

Although self-identifying political conservatives in the United States show high levels of distrust toward the scientific community, they are far from abandoning science as a valid epistemology and a field in which crucial cultural contests might be won. This insight—that audiences are able to partition scientific beliefs and attitudes according to cultural preferences—has been most fully appreciated in the context of conservative Protestants. Scientifically knowledgeable religious conservatives have been able to effectively partition their knowledge and attitudes in ways that maintain a broad recognition of the legitimacy of scientific endeavor while selectively rejecting the science and, more importantly the scientists, that contradict particular religious (e.g., creationist) or political (e.g., climate science) identities and worldviews; impinge on areas perceived as outside their purview, like public policy or morality; or, in the case of scientists specifically, are perceived as personally hostile toward religion.

Scott Alexander’s Adversarial Collaboration Contest included an entry by Alexander, “Is Eating Meat a Net Harm?” It was predicated on the assumption that humans are capable of eating meat, or not, with no health consequences. The evidence of the past 8,000 years, and certainly the last 100 years, argues that this is not a settled issue. For example, consider these two articles: Stangle: Impossible burgers are made of what? and Reduction in red meat consumption to ‘increase death and disease’. (The articles’ publishers have obvious conflicts of interest; however, the point of adversarial collaboration is that neither party pretends to have a neutral outlook.)