4 ms·

This looks like an opinion piece disguised as objective reporting. There's just enough factual information to make it seem credible but the author is clearly ta

This looks like an opinion piece disguised as objective reporting. There's just enough factual information to make it seem credible but the author is clearly taking sides. For example, the article characterizes people with environmental concerns as "anti-science" yet there's no evidence presented to support this point of view.

paganel 8y ago
It does sound a little subjective but then the following seems like it really happened, which definitely looks like being anti-science: > In June, some parliamentarians formally deposited documents at the Senate, one of Italy’s two houses of parliament, which challenged the scientific evidence on which Xylella management plans have been based and called for a Senate inquiry into whether scientists have misled the public. These claims were repudiated the following month, in an independent analysis commissioned by the national science academy, the Accademia dei Lincei. The Senate has not yet acted on the call for an inquiry.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  that action isn't intrinsically anti-science. It depends on the objection that the counterparty has raised - if their objections are legitimate or just based in conspiracy. If the results cannot be defended without resorting to an appeal to authority then that is more anti-science than challenging the work itself.
  - frostburg 8y ago
    "These claims were repudiated the following month, in an independent analysis". It was anti-science populism (and it was actually worse than this retelling makes it look).
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      the claims being repudiated doesn't make it anti-science either. However, I'm not denying that it could be anti-science, and it sounds like you know more about this than is written in TFA.
  - paganel 8y ago
    > If the results cannot be defended without resorting to an appeal to authority then that is more anti-science than challenging the work itself. I think trusting "an independent analysis commissioned by the national science academy" compared to a political action initiated by a few politicians is not "an appeal to authority", quite the contrary. At some point we do have to trust some people who are better prepared and informed than us on a particularly given subject. Especially in the Italian political and social context, where some other scientists have been recently prosecuted for "failing" to predict earthquakes.
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      to be clear, I was addressing the original complaint, not the response to the independent analysis. If your allegations are addressed by an independent third party and you continue to reject the outcome, then it's pretty clearly conspiracy-based.
Nasrudith 8y ago
Well not wanting to use /any/ insecticidal measures I think qualifies. One can rightfully argue about the specific chemicals while agreeing using something to contain outbreaks is needed.
ataturk 8y ago
Welcome to all journalism.
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
Scientists were accused of having spread the bacterium delierately, or allowed to become endemic through neglect, that they have been subject to the corrupting influence of business (in particulary solar companies who might stand to profit from the clearing of olive groves), that they have a remedy but will not release it, that they are wrong about the cause of the disease which is instead a fungus that can be dealt with without having to cut down the infected trees, etc [1]. None of the above is a direct attack on "science" in general, as a process, or a concept, nor an attack on scientists in general. However, all these sound a great deal like the claims of various anti-science conspiracy theorists, like anti-vaxxers or HIV-denialists: scientists are in bed with big pharma, they spread HIV through infected needles, vaccines are what cause disease, etc. "I'm not saying that this proves anything- I'm just stating the facts". ___________ [1] https://www.nature.com/news/italian-scientists-vilified-in-wake-of-olive-tree-deaths-1.17651 https://www.nature.com/news/italian-scientists-vilified-in-w...

paganel 8y ago

It does sound a little subjective but then the following seems like it really happened, which definitely looks like being anti-science: > In June, some parliamentarians formally deposited documents at the Senate, one of Italy’s two houses of parliament, which challenged the scientific evidence on which Xylella management plans have been based and called for a Senate inquiry into whether scientists have misled the public. These claims were repudiated the following month, in an independent analysis commissioned by the national science academy, the Accademia dei Lincei. The Senate has not yet acted on the call for an inquiry.

beaconstudios 8y ago
that action isn't intrinsically anti-science. It depends on the objection that the counterparty has raised - if their objections are legitimate or just based in conspiracy. If the results cannot be defended without resorting to an appeal to authority then that is more anti-science than challenging the work itself.
- frostburg 8y ago
  "These claims were repudiated the following month, in an independent analysis". It was anti-science populism (and it was actually worse than this retelling makes it look).
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    the claims being repudiated doesn't make it anti-science either. However, I'm not denying that it could be anti-science, and it sounds like you know more about this than is written in TFA.
- paganel 8y ago
  > If the results cannot be defended without resorting to an appeal to authority then that is more anti-science than challenging the work itself. I think trusting "an independent analysis commissioned by the national science academy" compared to a political action initiated by a few politicians is not "an appeal to authority", quite the contrary. At some point we do have to trust some people who are better prepared and informed than us on a particularly given subject. Especially in the Italian political and social context, where some other scientists have been recently prosecuted for "failing" to predict earthquakes.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    to be clear, I was addressing the original complaint, not the response to the independent analysis. If your allegations are addressed by an independent third party and you continue to reject the outcome, then it's pretty clearly conspiracy-based.

Nasrudith 8y ago

Well not wanting to use /any/ insecticidal measures I think qualifies. One can rightfully argue about the specific chemicals while agreeing using something to contain outbreaks is needed.

ataturk 8y ago

Welcome to all journalism.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

Scientists were accused of having spread the bacterium delierately, or allowed to become endemic through neglect, that they have been subject to the corrupting influence of business (in particulary solar companies who might stand to profit from the clearing of olive groves), that they have a remedy but will not release it, that they are wrong about the cause of the disease which is instead a fungus that can be dealt with without having to cut down the infected trees, etc [1]. None of the above is a direct attack on "science" in general, as a process, or a concept, nor an attack on scientists in general. However, all these sound a great deal like the claims of various anti-science conspiracy theorists, like anti-vaxxers or HIV-denialists: scientists are in bed with big pharma, they spread HIV through infected needles, vaccines are what cause disease, etc. "I'm not saying that this proves anything- I'm just stating the facts". ___________ [1] https://www.nature.com/news/italian-scientists-vilified-in-wake-of-olive-tree-deaths-1.17651 https://www.nature.com/news/italian-scientists-vilified-in-w...