3 ms·
>Yes. The search for scientific truth shouldn't be a narrative for the people who pay for it. I don't believe the parent comment is arguing on behalf of "merch
by rtl49 11y ago
>Yes. The search for scientific truth shouldn't be a narrative for the people who pay for it.
I don't believe the parent comment is arguing on behalf of "merchants of doubt". He or she is suggesting that it should be possible to enter into a contract with a scientist in which the scientist agrees to investigate a scientific truth without disclosing it publicly in exchange for money. Whether you have herpes is a "scientific truth" a scientist might discover, but it's your prerogative whether that fact is publicly disclosed.
- PhasmaFelis 11y agoWhere does that leave scientists who were already working when Harper showed up and unilaterally muzzled them?
- rtl49 11y agoWith respect to my comment, it leaves them in a completely different position from the one I referred to, as they were before Harper's term. I was clarifying that the OP did not appear to be defending the sale of "credentialed" opinions on political issues. The intent behind the "muzzling" matters. There are situations where a contracting party has a legitimate interest in enlisting a scientist to investigate a truth while maintaining confidentiality. Harper's suppression of scientific evidence was not one of these, but my comment addressed the notion that there are no such circumstances.