4 ms·
How does that build/refute the position that dogma is required to deal with anti-science in public discourse. I ask because while I think its an awful conclusi
by intended 10y ago
How does that build/refute the position that dogma is required to deal with anti-science in public discourse.
I ask because while I think its an awful conclusion, I've seen and experimented enough for more than 2 decades, to recognize this same appeal from the days people first started spreading climate FUD which has metastized to what we see today.
The conclusion is that this is NOT a scientific communication problem - because science has been DESPERATELY trying to do that in whatever fair and logical manner they can.
It's been met by concerted efforts to confuse, muddle, emotionalize, subvert, defund, ridicule, and physically attack people on what used to be "boring nerd territory".
This is a political/emotional problem, and for that, isn't dogma a horrid but simplistic solution.
- nonbel 10y ago>"dogma is required to deal with anti-science in public discourse." You want a ministry of science devoted to spreading dogma? Do people still know about the book 1984?
- intended 10y agoNo I don't. I am well aware of 1984, and I am also keenly aware that many people seem to be applying it like a manual as opposed to a warning. Its easy to tell me, a random person who mentions that he thinks its a horrid solution, "remember 1984". I am already on this site, and already disposed to that vein of thought. Its not that effective at countering, or dealing with people who are not here, some of whom are coders who have never read those books, or think the books are over hyped.