3 ms·

> Unless you he scrutiny is biased and meant to discredit the science that is. The entire point of scrutiny is to discredit and of course it's going to be bias

by maratd 9y ago

> Unless you he scrutiny is biased and meant to discredit the science that is. The entire point of scrutiny is to discredit and of course it's going to be biased. That's the point. If the science is solid, it'll withstand the scrutiny. And if it's not, it won't. Any kind of scrutiny or inquiry should be encouraged, regardless of where it comes from.

orf 9y ago
In a bubble, sure. In reality people still believe the thoroughly scrutinized paper linking vaccines to autism. Once the news cycle has chewed through the "EPA says climate change is not real" headlines and that's soaked in, it will be regurgitated for years to come. No matter how biased the scrutiny.
- Spivak 9y ago
  We don't really care about laypeople in this discussion, that's the domain of journalists who are expected to do their homework. Biased scrutiny is the best kind. Scrutiny needs to occur and I would rather the people doing it sincerely believe that community at large is wrong rather than someone playing devil's advocate. They should make the best possible case against climate change they can.
  - orf 9y ago
    > We don't really care about laypeople in this discussion And that's why this discussion is pointless, because they are exactly the people who will be fooled by a flawed and untruthful study and are exactly the people who a) will suffer most due to climate change and b) are able to take action to stop it.
UncleMeat 9y ago
Okay suppose somebody raises a concern about the state of the research. Climate scientists address the concern and show that it is not meaningful. Then two decades later people raise the same concern. That's what is happening here. There hasn't been any new criticism. It is the same debunked arguments over and over and over and over and over. At what point can we stop encouraging that?
- maratd 9y ago
  > At what point can we stop encouraging that? At no point. That's how science works. Those who are opposed will bring up the best arguments available, even if those arguments aren't new. They'll get evaluated, rebuffed, accepted, etc. That's how it's supposed to work. Many of the ideas you currently believe in were at some point rejected and ignored, frequently for decades and sometimes centuries. Bringing stuff up again, over and over, is a good thing. If you are so thoroughly convinced that you are right, that is the surest evidence that you're doing it wrong. Always allow for the possibility that whatever you believe may be off and can be improved, even by ideas that aren't new.
  - Oletros 9y ago
    > At no point. That's how science works. Those who are opposed will bring up the best arguments available, even if those arguments aren't new. They'll get evaluated, rebuffed, accepted, etc. That's how it's supposed to work. No, this is not how Science works. Repeating ad nauseaum the same debunked arguments is not how science works. Or perhaps you think that is still valid to bring the Thomson atomic model today? Or the flogistum hypothesis? The only thing those are doing is mudding the waters to stop the actions, nothing more.

by maratd 9y ago

orf 9y ago

In a bubble, sure. In reality people still believe the thoroughly scrutinized paper linking vaccines to autism. Once the news cycle has chewed through the "EPA says climate change is not real" headlines and that's soaked in, it will be regurgitated for years to come. No matter how biased the scrutiny.

Spivak 9y ago
We don't really care about laypeople in this discussion, that's the domain of journalists who are expected to do their homework. Biased scrutiny is the best kind. Scrutiny needs to occur and I would rather the people doing it sincerely believe that community at large is wrong rather than someone playing devil's advocate. They should make the best possible case against climate change they can.
- orf 9y ago
  > We don't really care about laypeople in this discussion And that's why this discussion is pointless, because they are exactly the people who will be fooled by a flawed and untruthful study and are exactly the people who a) will suffer most due to climate change and b) are able to take action to stop it.

UncleMeat 9y ago

Okay suppose somebody raises a concern about the state of the research. Climate scientists address the concern and show that it is not meaningful. Then two decades later people raise the same concern. That's what is happening here. There hasn't been any new criticism. It is the same debunked arguments over and over and over and over and over. At what point can we stop encouraging that?

maratd 9y ago
> At what point can we stop encouraging that? At no point. That's how science works. Those who are opposed will bring up the best arguments available, even if those arguments aren't new. They'll get evaluated, rebuffed, accepted, etc. That's how it's supposed to work. Many of the ideas you currently believe in were at some point rejected and ignored, frequently for decades and sometimes centuries. Bringing stuff up again, over and over, is a good thing. If you are so thoroughly convinced that you are right, that is the surest evidence that you're doing it wrong. Always allow for the possibility that whatever you believe may be off and can be improved, even by ideas that aren't new.
- Oletros 9y ago
  > At no point. That's how science works. Those who are opposed will bring up the best arguments available, even if those arguments aren't new. They'll get evaluated, rebuffed, accepted, etc. That's how it's supposed to work. No, this is not how Science works. Repeating ad nauseaum the same debunked arguments is not how science works. Or perhaps you think that is still valid to bring the Thomson atomic model today? Or the flogistum hypothesis? The only thing those are doing is mudding the waters to stop the actions, nothing more.