2 ms·

But you all are so quick to assume that people have a financial agenda rather than their own thoughts. Like maybe people just think things and say them, and it

But you all are so quick to assume that people have a financial agenda rather than their own thoughts. Like maybe people just think things and say them, and it's not all some propaganda campaign.

alanwreath 5y ago
Career scientists not motivated by money assumes there is something that would dissuade them from not being so. Is there anything that motivates a scientist to avoid tailoring a response beyond personal moral codes? We do have a replication crisis mind you https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Overall https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Overall
- saalweachter 5y ago
  The problem is you're bringing it in too early. Discrediting your opposites is primarily a feature of rhetoric, not discourse. If your goal is to have an earnest discussion, to go over the various sorts of evidence and the varied hypotheses, you need to address those first. Some American scientists have claimed the virus does not look engineered. Why? What is their evidence for the claim? If you are asserting the virus is or at least could be engineered, can you account for the evidence supporting their assertion? Can you point to evidence that supports your hypothesis and not theirs? How do they respond to this evidence? It may be -- in an earnest discussion -- that one side is not engaging, for one reason or another. Maybe they don't want to admit they are wrong, maybe they are getting paid not to. At that point, after you have yourself examined their claims, after you have examined whether you are just being stubborn yourself, it is quite reasonable to disregard them, maybe even in the future. Bringing it in too early, before engaging with their claims, trying to find reasons not to examine their evidence, makes it seem like you are just interested in winning the rhetorical argument.
ekianjo 5y ago
Most scientific research is not self funded. Why assume outside sponsoring has no influence. You dont see TV news bad mouthing pharma companies as TV channels rely on pharma ads...

But you all are so quick to assume that people have a financial agenda rather than their own thoughts. Like maybe people just think things and say them, and it's not all some propaganda campaign.

alanwreath 5y ago

Career scientists not motivated by money assumes there is something that would dissuade them from not being so. Is there anything that motivates a scientist to avoid tailoring a response beyond personal moral codes? We do have a replication crisis mind you https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Overall https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Overall

saalweachter 5y ago
The problem is you're bringing it in too early. Discrediting your opposites is primarily a feature of rhetoric, not discourse. If your goal is to have an earnest discussion, to go over the various sorts of evidence and the varied hypotheses, you need to address those first. Some American scientists have claimed the virus does not look engineered. Why? What is their evidence for the claim? If you are asserting the virus is or at least could be engineered, can you account for the evidence supporting their assertion? Can you point to evidence that supports your hypothesis and not theirs? How do they respond to this evidence? It may be -- in an earnest discussion -- that one side is not engaging, for one reason or another. Maybe they don't want to admit they are wrong, maybe they are getting paid not to. At that point, after you have yourself examined their claims, after you have examined whether you are just being stubborn yourself, it is quite reasonable to disregard them, maybe even in the future. Bringing it in too early, before engaging with their claims, trying to find reasons not to examine their evidence, makes it seem like you are just interested in winning the rhetorical argument.

ekianjo 5y ago

Most scientific research is not self funded. Why assume outside sponsoring has no influence. You dont see TV news bad mouthing pharma companies as TV channels rely on pharma ads...