3 ms·
We're discussing the experience of educated, and critical truthful observers, vs sensationalistic scientism and you throw up alien abductions, life-after-death
by rusk 8y ago
We're discussing the experience of educated, and critical truthful observers, vs sensationalistic scientism and you throw up alien abductions, life-after-death experience and something about germ theory. I don't know which people you're talking about but it's been known for time immemorial among many cultures that cleanliness is a good way to avoid disease. You are cherry-picking narratives to suite your rhetoric.
We need to be beyond a level of discourse where "because science" or "a study said" is considered a fait acompli. Science often contradicts herself and studies are often debunked.
Just because "some guy wrote it", doesn't make it so.
- emodendroket 8y ago> We need to be beyond a level of discourse where "because science" or "a study said" is considered a fait acompli. Science often contradicts herself and studies are often debunked. I don't disagree. But I don't think personal anecdote is a sufficient answer. You could criticize the quality of the research (in more specific terms than "pop-sci") or present contradictory evidence and I'd have no problem with it. Simply attacking a guy in a casual discussion that is not particularly rigorous for posting a citation you deem insufficiently rigorous without further explanation I do not think is fair.
- rusk 8y agoHuh? Initially, I merely proposed that in the modern world we need to be more rigorous in our evaluation of scientific propositions. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18083635 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18083635 That's where you joined in.
- emodendroket 8y agoI had wrongly attributed the DanBC comment to you. Sorry.