3 ms·
It would seem, by your logic, that it is actually impossible for scientists to voice concern about anything, because once they do so, they can no longer be call
by sterkekoffie 7y ago
It would seem, by your logic, that it is actually impossible for scientists to voice concern about anything, because once they do so, they can no longer be called scientists, only advocates. If that's the case, then I simply disagree with your logic. If it isn't, and you see some egregious bias-having somewhere in the scientists' statements or qualifications, feel free to point it out. If you can do so without the overt hostility, even better.
- ajross 7y agoYou're still misunderstanding. It's not a criticism of the people quoted, it's a criticism of the journalism that presented the ideas as consensus worries when they're actually pretty niche concerns without a lot of good basis. You can advocate for anything you want, and we can post a link to a screed by the hilariously named "Center for the Environmental Implications of NanoTechnology"[1] and we can discuss that here if you like. But for the Guardian to do that is just editorializing. [1] Still not scare quotes
- sterkekoffie 7y agoPerhaps I need to be more clear myself. I do not think that you're criticizing the contributors, but I also do not think that you're criticizing the article. I think you're (inadvertently) criticizing an entire vein of science writing where the director of a Duke research lab can say there is room for concern and not get written off as an agenda-pusher in the comments.