It is clear to me from reading your previous comment that you've made an effort to understand the arguments made. That's a breath of fresh air. >Not scream at

It is clear to me from reading your previous comment that you've made an effort to understand the arguments made. That's a breath of fresh air. >Not scream at the author's speaking engagements until he leaves the room. Student politics just suck. But, I don't think they're representative of some of the underlying ideas they are based on. I've met some incredibly intelligent and well-read anarchists - but I wouldn't think anarchy was a system with that thought behind it if all I'd met was the loudest proponents of anarchy. I think one of the problems currently we have in discourse-at-large is its really easy to find the egregious and ridiculous arguments people make, and paint the rest of the whole ideology with it. Perhaps the only partisan movement in politics today? :) >I just think that when we suspect something might be pseudoscientific, we ought to read and study it really carefully, explore the arguments, and discredit it by formulating and publicizing well-reasoned counterarguments. >We don't need to throw out science to deal with bad ideas put forth by scientists. Science itself has the mechanisms for this. We just need to do it better. I think the problem has been that in the past (and still today) women and PoC were hampered by their inability to even get stuff published. If people begin in a position where suspicion is immediate, its harder for them to get a foot in the door, even if the gatekeepers hypothetically would allow in a person they are suspicious of. As a result, some people still feel like one of the few levers they can successfully pull is the protest lever. Some protests suck. >And since the demographics that traditionally practice this sort of thing have some gaping blindspots, we ought to be actively recruiting a broader set of perspectives into this pursuit, so that we can generate more good ideas and discredit more of the bad ones. I think we agree on this - and I think we agree that there's the possibility of bias in science as it stands. Where I'm going next with this: The idea then is that science internally sucks at making choices to correct this bias. Therefore establishment science needs to be externally influenced. That's not a dismissal of the scientific method, that's a claim that the scientific method never existed in an unbiased form in the first place.