4 ms·
I am not talking about obvious (and easily labeled morons), but instead there are many educated and real scientists that raise questions and there is no dialogu
by nomendos 5y ago
I am not talking about obvious (and easily labeled morons), but instead there are many educated and real scientists that raise questions and there is no dialogue, but instead only defunct-fact checkers totalitarian response.
Science is always open to listen, discuss and stand open to be corrected and in no time in history there was "attack on me is attack on science" attitudes that ended up be right or productive.
It is circus in all places without this approach and open dialogue.
- stickfigure 5y agoWhat kind of reasoned, introspective dialogue do you think you're going to have 140 characters at a time?
- TheRealDunkirk 5y agoIt's 280 now, but the point is the same: The system has been engineered from the ground up to create an environment that ENcourages insipid repetition, and actively DIScourages insightful discourse. I fear this will somehow get worse with Jack's departure.
- freebuju 5y agoKind of reminds me when one of the foremost mRNA researchers, Dr. Robert Malone was temporarily banned on LinkedIn regarding his views on the vaccine. While speaking at a JRE interview, he says later on after the ban, LinkedIn (probably after public backlash) sent him an apology letter, quoting they could not assemble a team (or they themselves were not) qualified enough to fact-check him. Let that sink in for a moment... When did we turn to social media spaces to get our health facts from. Fact checking from big tech is the silliest thing normal people have embraced on the Internet. Kind of loony when you think of the historical context of the internet.
- soco 5y agoI also don't understand that position. If somebody doing research in a certain domain comes to talk about that domain, then whatever they say will be relevant. Even if ill-intentioned, they will know their stuff and come up with a valid critique which needs or needs not to be taken into consideration. Now if a neuro surgeon - even if genial and successful - talks about vaccines, there's already a serious chance the topic goes astray, and the further a person removed from field is the lower the trustworthiness of their comment. I know, there are exceptions to this rule, and everyone thinks they are that exception...