2 ms·
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
by 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 agothe 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 agoto 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.