To be honest I'd rather live in the world where people have an overabundance of care for each other rather than the world where people disregard the well-being of others entirely.

Of course it's not binary, and it shouldn't be binary... but comments like this are hellbent on making it that way. I understand why you feel this way, but the hyperbole doesn't help anyone.

I wish people would not flag comments like this. I don't agree with the commenter at all, but killing their comment doesn't help us have a conversation about their concerns. It's critical that we resolve these conflicts and not do what we (as a society) have been doing for years, where we treat people like an "other" and shun them because we don't want to deal with them.

They wouldn't call it religion if they wanted a conversation.

I was among the first who wore a mask in my area (before it was mandatory) and I recognize the benefit of masks as one of the interventions with the best cost-benefit tradeoff.

Nevertheless, I 100% agree with that post, and think "religion" is the most accurate word to describe the situation, especially in the US.

Calling something religion can start a shouting match or an echo chamber. Rarely a conversation. It doesn't matter if it's accurate.

"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I can see where you're coming from but to be forced to be inaccurate in order to placate people for whom the accuracy may be upsetting is a hallmark of the current state of affairs in our culture and it's hugely not beneficial to anyone.

A new religion with ever shifting rules. What was dogma one day can be blasphemy the next. Older religions were subject to change but usually slowly over generations, giving everyone time to adapt to the new revelation. But this secular religion changes constantly and woe to those who aren't current on the latest changes.

Secular religion is an oxymoron. Sure, the secular world is slowly being taken over by "new" belief systems, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. Hell, religion isn't necessarily a bad thing. But anything drastically new is taken as a threat, and it would seem that one aspect of the modern "culture war" phenomena is the perceived threat of these new belief systems encroaching on old belief systems.

I think the sense is which the GP is using secular is to roughly mean atheistic faith. The new movements we see with a religious characteristic are not based on a deity but otherwise have all of the hallmarks or a religious system (clergy, faith, heretics, threat of damnation, etc).

I actually think atheistic faith is pretty scary: its sortof a psychopathic version of theism, where instead of a supreme being that generally has a conscious and can be reasoned with (within the religious mythology), atheistic faith presents itself as some kind of objective fact, with no central leader or responsible parties.

> all of the hallmarks or a religious system (clergy, faith, heretics, threat of damnation, etc)

which is a very Western/Abrahamic view of religion.

Belief is always scary to the Observer, and comforting to the Believer. the more sure the Believer is, the more scared the Observer gets, because they perceive more threat. theist and atheist Believers are more alike than they are different.

You're not entirely wrong. There are plenty of people for or against wearing masks regardless of what the science says, almost cultish. We had it before the pandemic and we have it now even with highly effective vaccines. It happens on the extreme right but it also happens on the extreme left.

I personally can't wait until the two weeks after my final vaccine shot ends so I can stop wearing a mask and not care anymore. I had a heck of an immune response so I'm pretty hopeful I'm in the now immune category.

It’s been a religion from day 1. PCR tests being run at too high of a cycle count was a conspiracy theory until it wasn’t. Hospitals being incentivized to mark any possible patients as COVID cases for extra government money was a conspiracy theory until it wasn’t. Mandatory vaccination with a drug that hasn’t even gotten FDA approval was a theory and yet I see people call for it. People I had had great chats with about the problems in the pharma industry, problems of government overreach.

I was one of the most scientifically literate people in my friend group and now I’m an outcast because I don’t always “trust the science”.

And just 2 years ago we were seeing all manner of stories on HN about experiment reproducibility, the issues with the peer review system, etc.

I have been completely demoralized by the past year.

We all have, dude. But just like it's not completely rational to inject everyone in the world with a brand new drug that's been rushed to market, it's equally irrational not to try every possible thing we can to stem a once-in-a-century global pandemic killing millions of people and trashing economies.

> I was one of the most scientifically literate people in my friend group and now I’m an outcast because I don’t always “trust the science”.

Unless you're an expert in a field, you are not scientifically literate in that field.

Being able to read a couple conclusions isn't scientific literacy. It's the same slapdash stuff that conspiracy theorists do. Find a couple publicized studies. Read the conclusions. Repeat as though you're an expert.

Even in your comment, the majority of your points are political, because I suspect you're not actually scientifically literate.

>Unless you're an expert in a field, you are not scientifically literate in that field.

Really? There's nothing in between expert level and being able to judge if data was shoehorned or was a natural fit? Only an expert in a specific field can determine if logical flaws exist? If there's possibly hidden variables impacting readings, or incomplete models?

Has the scientific world become that black and white? You're either an expert or your opinion is not worthy of discussion?

I'm glad that of the many things I want to rant about, one I chose was the PCR cycles. Because the creator of that technology, Kary Mulis, specifically warned about it's misuse in that manner. Now for anyone just wandering into this mess going to search him for the first time - be warned, he did hold a very controversial opinion about another disease. But I don't think anyone could appeal to a higher authority on PCR testing at its core.

>Even in your comment, the majority of your points are political, because I suspect you're not actually scientifically literate.

Thank you

> Really? There's nothing in between expert level and being able to judge if data was shoehorned or was a natural fit? Only an expert in a specific field can determine if logical flaws exist? If there's possibly hidden variables impacting readings, or incomplete models?

Generally, yes. If you don't work in the field, I doubt you can even read a single paper, let alone identify errors.

> Has the scientific world become that black and white? You're either an expert or your opinion is not worthy of discussion?

That's always been the case. But yes, if you are not an expert or knowledgable about a topic, your opinion generally does not mean anything. I know this is hard for people to hear.

> I'm glad that of the many things I want to rant about, one I chose was the PCR cycles. Because the creator of that technology, Kary Mulis, specifically warned about it's misuse in that manner. Now for anyone just wandering into this mess going to search him for the first time - be warned, he did hold a very controversial opinion about another disease. But I don't think anyone could appeal to a higher authority on PCR testing at its core.

Kary Mulis can have an opinion. You not just being an expert is repeating something you don't understand.

> Generally, yes. If you don't work in the field, I doubt you can even read a single paper, let alone identify errors.

I doubt you have enough knowledge about sciences and the process of learning in general to discuss this matter, let alone to make bold claims on other people's ability to reason about findings of various papers.

> That's always been the case. But yes, if you are not an expert or knowledgable about a topic, your opinion generally does not mean anything. I know this is hard for people to hear.

It's fun to watch how quickly you switched from the original "unless you're an expert in a field" to "if you are not an expert or knowledgable about a topic", and yet you are stil unable to admit that you said a silly thing in the first place.

Also, what you are saying has never been the case in scientific circles. It's been the case in the circles around them, among the people with less intelligence yet unjustified ambition: "expert" is the same phony concept as "prestige" - a token of a social climber who is seeking a stamp of committee approval, and who couldn't care less about the actual knowledge in the field and the pursuit of truth.

> I doubt you have enough knowledge about sciences and the process of learning in general to discuss this matter, let alone to make bold claims on other people's ability to reason about findings of various papers.

That's fine. You can have your opinions on whatever you want. I still don't think you can read papers from most fields :shrug:.

> It's fun to watch how quickly you switched from the original "unless you're an expert in a field" to "if you are not an expert or knowledgable about a topic", and yet you are stil unable to admit that you said a silly thing in the first place.

I don't choose my words that carefully, so this isn't the point you think it is. I said knowledgable as some wiggle room. Don't read too much into it.

> Also, what you are saying has never been the case in scientific circles. It's been the case in the circles around them, among the people with less intelegence yet unjustified ambition: "expert" is the same phony concept as "prestige" - a token of a social climber who is seeking a stamp of committee approval, and who couldn't care less about the actual knowledge in the field and the pursuit of truth.

This is an insecurity you have with yourself, creating some weird definition of expert. Like I said, people hate to hear that their opinions don't matter.

> That's fine. You can have your opinions on whatever you want. I still don't think you can read papers from most fields :shrug:.

That wasn't an argument in your original comment. You specifically said that people were not scientifically literate unless they were "experts".

> I don't choose my words that carefully, so this isn't the point you think it is.

One day you will discover that before you are able to make a point you need to learn to choose your words carefully first. Words, like science, have an exact meaning too.

> I said knowledgable as some wiggle room. Don't read too much into it.

Don't worry, I'm not taking you seriously yet, at least not until you define what precisely does "expert" mean. Nevertheless, it's fun to see how far you are willing to go with your comments without admitting your mistake.

> This is an insecurity you have with yourself, creating some weird definition of expert. Like I said, people hate to hear that their opinions don't matter.

Which insecurity? Please be specific about your words here too.

And let's finally check your premises. What's your definition of an "expert"?

> One day you will discover that before you are able to make a point you need to learn to choose your words carefully first. Words, like science, have an exact meaning too.

One day you will discover that comments on HN don't matter. Also words do not have exact meanings. I suspect you're not an expert in linguistics, are you? ;).

I mean it's kinda funny that you got one of the basic tenants of lingustics wrong, in trying to argue that non-experts opinions matter, lol.

> And let's finally check your premises. What's your definition of an "expert"?

I don't find debating definitions to be interesting. It's just an arbitrary line, and you'll argue with whatever line I pick.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. You can fool yourself on social media. It fits in line with the anti-intellectualism of half the country, that think they can read a single study and then cock off about it.

I don't think you're an expert of expertise so therefore I reject your analysis of expertism

There you go. Now you understand.