5 ms·
If they get injected they are participants already.
by janto 5y ago
If they get injected they are participants already.
- igetspam 5y agoThey're participants in society but not the scientific community. They're not even part of a study. What makes their opinions on the science worth entertaining? Do you think John and Jane Q Public should be involved in network architecture because they have phones? Or civil engineering of bridges because sometimes they drive over one? I cannot find th logic in these arguments.
- 6510 5y agoThis is exactly what the article [that you didn't read] talks about. The end user can usefully participate in the network architecture debate if enough of their messages are vanishing. If the expert then says: "oh, but 1 in 2680 is rare" other professionals may adjust their opinion about them personally. If they then go on a crusade to get the exchange scrubbed from the record it would make them more credible to you?
- janto 5y agoTheir doubts are worth entertaining because their health and freedom is directly on the line. They correctly suspect they are being fed only specific information and all counter discussion is getting labeled as "misinformation" by what is supposedly the Fourth Estate. If I drive across a bridge I should have the right to question the competency and the trust being put in the engineers. If something looks like a crack, I would ask detailed questions and I hope my fellow citizens would do the same. Can you really not find the logic, in good faith?
- inter_netuser 5y agoShould we cut off people below certain h-index? What’s yours?
- COGlory 5y agoAre you part of the scientific community? If not, I'd ask you defer to my opinion on this matter, thanks.