4 ms·
> Putting the Bannon label aside, No. The Bannon label is the problem here. White collar way to start dumpster fires. This is malice. Knowingly and actively u
by markvdb 6y ago
> Putting the Bannon label aside,
No. The Bannon label is the problem here. White collar way to start dumpster fires.
This is malice. Knowingly and actively undermining public trust in the scientific method. Whatever works to make two stones fight.
- selfhoster11 6y agoYou are committing the genetic fallacy[0] by stating your argument in this way. A paper like this should be judged on its merits, not its origin. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
- taylodl 6y agoIdeally, yes, but practically no. We are in the midst of a massive disinformation campaign aimed to undermine public trust in public institutions. It takes time to properly evaluate a paper in the manner you describe - and that's a key element of their game. Keep you distracted so they can control the narrative. No. We have to collectively decide to stop playing their game and shut it off at the source. Therefore our strategy must be to ignore papers from known bad actors.
- markvdb 6y agoThat would be absolutely true for those with unlimited mental bandwidth and time, large nations' intelligence services for example. If one wants my attention for something that looks like scientific writing, except for rare exceptions at my personal discretion, one will have to go through peer review - the main filter of the scientific method. Otherwise, the bin.