Sometimes research tells us things we don't like to hear.
That's not a good reason to suppress the publication of that research.
That's not a good reason to suppress the publication of that research.
https://twitter.com/graykimbrough/status/1388135665267789826
The paper in question found that when people's parents are imprisoned, their children do better along some dimensions.
That's obviously not a conclusion I want to hear. But science means we can't shy away from unpleasant conclusions.
That's obviously not a conclusion I want to hear. But science means we can't shy away from unpleasant conclusions.
https://twitter.com/AEAjournals/status/1387776406873071626?s=19
We need research to tell us how the world really works. Suppressing results for ideological reasons doesn't just damage the credibility of the scientific process; it leaves us less capable of actually making the world better.
John Pfaff, who studies and writes about prison reform for a living, and who is a dedicated opponent of mass incarceration, has the best take IMO:
https://twitter.com/JohnFPfaff/status/1388522718232973316?s=19
We don't have to choose between seeking the truth and trying to make the world a better place. The two goals are complements; they are not in competition.
(end)
(end)
I wrote a post to follow up on this thread, laying out my views on science and politics in greater detail:
noahpinion.substack.com/p/why-politica…
noahpinion.substack.com/p/why-politica…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
