4 ms·

He's gone, so this isn't really the place for this discussion at all. However, I'm glad this is mentioned and how it shows that there are a lot of intelligent

He's gone, so this isn't really the place for this discussion at all. However, I'm glad this is mentioned and how it shows that there are a lot of intelligent people who have concerns with the current science debate. Consensus isn't science, it's politics, and challenging ones ideas is how we both reinforce the truth as well as dispel myths.

naiveprogrammer 7y ago
Amen
m0zg 7y ago
It's just annoying that some snooty reporter is trying to shit on this great man's legacy by speaking of things they do not understand.
aeorgnoieang 7y ago
Why isn't this an appropriate venue for this discussion? It seems perfectly germane.
- oska 7y ago
  Agree. Can't imagine Freeman himself having any problems with his stance on the issue being discussed now (or at any other time).
speedgeek 7y ago
There is a prize winning physicist in my area who was arrested for starting a major brush fire. He plugged multiple extension cords together to power an electric fence and the overheating of the cords started the fire. Intelligence does not apply to every possible topic. Trusting the consensus of people trained in an area is always better than discounting that consensus because someone with little to no expertise on the subject challenges their ideas.
- m0zg 7y ago
  > Trusting the consensus of people trained in an area is always better That's what they said when Galileo Galilei was on trial for not trusting the "consensus" about geocentric view of the world. To use a more recent example, that's what they said of Dr. Barry Marshall who discovered that it was Heliobacter Pylori, and not "stress" that's causing ulcers in the stomach. Dude was very nearly laughed out of his field, to the point where he had to take the unconventional step of infecting himself with h. pylori to prove the point, and then curing himself of it with antibiotics. In a politicized field especially, it can very easily cost one their scientific career if they "disagree with consensus" if one is less prominent than Dyson, whereas "agreeing with consensus" is strongly beneficial.
  - InitialLastName 7y ago
    Galileo didn't get into trouble because of a general consensus, he got into trouble because he made fun of the Pope. It was straight up authoritarianism that put him on trial, not his scientific position.
  - AQuantized 7y ago
    I think you'll find those people were actually trained in their respective fields and not fielding essentially uneducated opinions, however.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
rtsil 7y ago
He was a genius and an inspiration for many people, why can't we just admit that he was wrong in one accessory domain (relative to his work and legacy) and not turn him into a romantic Don Quixote fighting against the "bad politics-based consensus" of climate change?
Oletros 7y ago
> Consensus isn't science, it's politics, What?

naiveprogrammer 7y ago

Amen

m0zg 7y ago

It's just annoying that some snooty reporter is trying to shit on this great man's legacy by speaking of things they do not understand.

aeorgnoieang 7y ago

Why isn't this an appropriate venue for this discussion? It seems perfectly germane.

oska 7y ago
Agree. Can't imagine Freeman himself having any problems with his stance on the issue being discussed now (or at any other time).

speedgeek 7y ago

There is a prize winning physicist in my area who was arrested for starting a major brush fire. He plugged multiple extension cords together to power an electric fence and the overheating of the cords started the fire. Intelligence does not apply to every possible topic. Trusting the consensus of people trained in an area is always better than discounting that consensus because someone with little to no expertise on the subject challenges their ideas.

m0zg 7y ago
> Trusting the consensus of people trained in an area is always better That's what they said when Galileo Galilei was on trial for not trusting the "consensus" about geocentric view of the world. To use a more recent example, that's what they said of Dr. Barry Marshall who discovered that it was Heliobacter Pylori, and not "stress" that's causing ulcers in the stomach. Dude was very nearly laughed out of his field, to the point where he had to take the unconventional step of infecting himself with h. pylori to prove the point, and then curing himself of it with antibiotics. In a politicized field especially, it can very easily cost one their scientific career if they "disagree with consensus" if one is less prominent than Dyson, whereas "agreeing with consensus" is strongly beneficial.
- InitialLastName 7y ago
  Galileo didn't get into trouble because of a general consensus, he got into trouble because he made fun of the Pope. It was straight up authoritarianism that put him on trial, not his scientific position.
- AQuantized 7y ago
  I think you'll find those people were actually trained in their respective fields and not fielding essentially uneducated opinions, however.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

rtsil 7y ago

He was a genius and an inspiration for many people, why can't we just admit that he was wrong in one accessory domain (relative to his work and legacy) and not turn him into a romantic Don Quixote fighting against the "bad politics-based consensus" of climate change?

Oletros 7y ago

> Consensus isn't science, it's politics, What?