3 ms·

The problem is when it criticizes you for criticism. I for one would be happy to know that the other side of every point is properly represented. A scary one i

by jamez1 10y ago

The problem is when it criticizes you for criticism. I for one would be happy to know that the other side of every point is properly represented. A scary one is climate change, it is now no longer palatable to question whether it is happening. So we don't hear the other side, instead the echo chamber has destroyed the scientific process. I'm not saying scientists don't work on it productively (and I'm not denying climate change), I'm just pointing out that we can no longer have science work on the conservative view.

COGlory 10y ago
I'm not a climate change denier, I just don't think anyone fully understands it yet, and I definitely don't think giving the UN money will fix it.
dougfelt 10y ago
"it is now no longer palatable to question whether it is happening" So, back this up. Who are the people with the careful theories, the detailed data, the ironclad arguments, who aren't being heard because of intolerance for their 'conservative' views?
- jamez1 10y ago
  Academia has officially decided that it no longer needs science, it needs populism. You won't get funding anywhere and a journal won't publish you. Your peers will ostracize you. Skepticism doesn't need to produce theories or data, it just needs to try on different views. We can't anymore, you're classed as a believer or a non-believer for even attempting. Have you noticed how still the conversation falls when you ask someone the exact details of climate change? What % is natural? What is the error terms on the assumptions? It's like questioning god in the 16th century, are you surprised that there is nothing in the public sphere? What a funny world we live in where scientists use the word 'skeptic' as a derogatory term?
  - flukus 10y ago
    Is academia required? There is a lot of money to be made from a lot of vested interests for anyone that can come up with a credible theory to explain the current warming level.

by jamez1 10y ago

COGlory 10y ago

I'm not a climate change denier, I just don't think anyone fully understands it yet, and I definitely don't think giving the UN money will fix it.

dougfelt 10y ago

"it is now no longer palatable to question whether it is happening" So, back this up. Who are the people with the careful theories, the detailed data, the ironclad arguments, who aren't being heard because of intolerance for their 'conservative' views?

jamez1 10y ago
Academia has officially decided that it no longer needs science, it needs populism. You won't get funding anywhere and a journal won't publish you. Your peers will ostracize you. Skepticism doesn't need to produce theories or data, it just needs to try on different views. We can't anymore, you're classed as a believer or a non-believer for even attempting. Have you noticed how still the conversation falls when you ask someone the exact details of climate change? What % is natural? What is the error terms on the assumptions? It's like questioning god in the 16th century, are you surprised that there is nothing in the public sphere? What a funny world we live in where scientists use the word 'skeptic' as a derogatory term?
- flukus 10y ago
  Is academia required? There is a lot of money to be made from a lot of vested interests for anyone that can come up with a credible theory to explain the current warming level.