3 ms·
That’s a just-so narrative. Scientists can’t make political overtures and require evidence to draw conclusions, yet simultaneously are able to discount the weap
by peytn 5y ago
That’s a just-so narrative. Scientists can’t make political overtures and require evidence to draw conclusions, yet simultaneously are able to discount the weapons program hypothesis? It’s one or the other.
Anyway, one of the problems with media consolidation is that people don’t hear competing narratives, so whatever narrative a small group of people decide on is what ends up feeling true to people.
- MattGaiser 5y ago> yet simultaneously are able to discount the weapons program hypothesis? It’s one or the other. You can discount it from the lack of evidence. I can be considered again once some evidence is available.
- jakeogh 5y agoAnother tactic is just keep implying there is a lack of evidence, with vague appeal to authority independent of anything.
- kube-system 5y agoI think if you looked at the specific questions that top US scientists were asked, the questions may have been political at times, but the responses have always been scientific and based on evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, although some have misinterpreted their responses to mean that. Science is a nuanced thing. Politics is a steamroller to nuance.