4 ms·

Is there something wrong with questioning scientific theories? Except that it's not PC.

by laut 16y ago

shiven 16y ago
Except that it's not PC. My beef is not with it being PC or nPC. It is about questioning the theorie(s) in a scientific manner with rigorously formulated and educated questions. Otherwise, it is merely politics/BS/political-BS.
- jaltucher 16y ago
  For the first person who brought up this climate change thread I have a few questions I hope you can answer honestly: A) did it have to do with the article in question? B) Did you see the reference to climate change on wikipedia or you have actually read the chapter on it in my book where I feel I present a very balanced view.
  - shiven 16y ago
    I apologize for not making myself clear. My reply was not directed towards the article or your book, I was replying to the immediate parent only. My ire was directed towards the idea that any criticism of global climate change is bunk simply because it is not PC. I would posit that such criticism, in the context of general public and media, is mostly bunk for the reason I outlined in my first reply.
gnaritas 16y ago
> Is there something wrong with questioning scientific theories? Not if you're actually qualified to question them; if on the other hand you're not a specialist in the field and you're claiming all those who are haven't a clue what they're talking about, then yes, there's something wrong with it and you're very likely both wrong and a quack.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Not if you're actually qualified to question them; if on the other hand you're not a specialist in the field and you're claiming all those who are haven't a clue what they're talking about, So basically, the scientific process is limited to a group of select insiders and outside criticism is forbidden? FYI, most serious skeptics don't claim the specialists "haven't a clue". They claim that the certainty in our current conclusions is overstated. It's also important to note that many AGW proponents make the exact same claim when geoengineering is discussed.
  - gnaritas 16y ago
    > So basically, the scientific process is limited to a group of select insiders and outside criticism is forbidden? Let me rephrase that for you to more reflect reality... The scientific process is limited to those educated on the subject and criticism from the uneducated isn't taken seriously nor should it be. So, if you're not a climate scientist, and your position on climate science is in opposition to 99% of actual climate scientists, it's very likely that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and should be summarily ignored by any rational person.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      So, if you're not a homeopath and your position on homeopathy is in opposition to 99% of actual homeopaths, it's very likely that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and should be summarily ignored by any rational person? FYI, I'm a former scientist, so I have some idea of the scientific process. It's actually pretty rare for a field to declare outside opinions worthless. The only other fields I'm aware of which try to do this are math ed, labor economics, and psychometrics of race/gender. I'm also not sure why you are attempting to conflate not being a climate scientist with being uneducated. That's simply ridiculous.

Is there something wrong with questioning scientific theories? Except that it's not PC.

by laut 16y ago

Is there something wrong with questioning scientific theories? Except that it's not PC.

Except that it's not PC. My beef is not with it being PC or nPC. It is about questioning the theorie(s) in a scientific manner with rigorously formulated and educated questions. Otherwise, it is merely politics/BS/political-BS.

jaltucher 16y ago
For the first person who brought up this climate change thread I have a few questions I hope you can answer honestly: A) did it have to do with the article in question? B) Did you see the reference to climate change on wikipedia or you have actually read the chapter on it in my book where I feel I present a very balanced view.
- shiven 16y ago
  I apologize for not making myself clear. My reply was not directed towards the article or your book, I was replying to the immediate parent only. My ire was directed towards the idea that any criticism of global climate change is bunk simply because it is not PC. I would posit that such criticism, in the context of general public and media, is mostly bunk for the reason I outlined in my first reply.

gnaritas 16y ago

> Is there something wrong with questioning scientific theories? Not if you're actually qualified to question them; if on the other hand you're not a specialist in the field and you're claiming all those who are haven't a clue what they're talking about, then yes, there's something wrong with it and you're very likely both wrong and a quack.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Not if you're actually qualified to question them; if on the other hand you're not a specialist in the field and you're claiming all those who are haven't a clue what they're talking about, So basically, the scientific process is limited to a group of select insiders and outside criticism is forbidden? FYI, most serious skeptics don't claim the specialists "haven't a clue". They claim that the certainty in our current conclusions is overstated. It's also important to note that many AGW proponents make the exact same claim when geoengineering is discussed.
- gnaritas 16y ago
  > So basically, the scientific process is limited to a group of select insiders and outside criticism is forbidden? Let me rephrase that for you to more reflect reality... The scientific process is limited to those educated on the subject and criticism from the uneducated isn't taken seriously nor should it be. So, if you're not a climate scientist, and your position on climate science is in opposition to 99% of actual climate scientists, it's very likely that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and should be summarily ignored by any rational person.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    So, if you're not a homeopath and your position on homeopathy is in opposition to 99% of actual homeopaths, it's very likely that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and should be summarily ignored by any rational person? FYI, I'm a former scientist, so I have some idea of the scientific process. It's actually pretty rare for a field to declare outside opinions worthless. The only other fields I'm aware of which try to do this are math ed, labor economics, and psychometrics of race/gender. I'm also not sure why you are attempting to conflate not being a climate scientist with being uneducated. That's simply ridiculous.