3 ms·
And for all those who downplay this process of deletion and think that's just how science works: Where were you when YT and FB were deleting content and accusi
by sazz 4y ago
And for all those who downplay this process of deletion and think that's just how science works:
Where were you when YT and FB were deleting content and accusing people of spreading lies because they contradicted CDC information?
Where were you to say that error is part of science and people with a different opinion may well be right?
Where were you when people from the "team science" mob defamed people with an unpopular opinion and destroyed their livelihoods when they were blackballed by their employers?
So yes - actually, it would be a small thing if the CDC corrected this message after the fact. But after everyone elevated the CDC as the only incontrovertible truth, the fall down is now just a little longer.
- erulabs 4y ago
- sazz 4y agoPlease read my statement carefully. Do you understand the meaning of a Straw man argument? I am not implying it to "everyone", but accusing people of a double standard who now argue that deleting a statement is "quite normal" because that is how it is done in science. And there are plenty of examples in these threads. So I am not accusing these people of anything (because that would be a straw man argument), but I find it hypocritical when someone considers changes in CDC content to be "everyday scientific practice" without taking into the account that entire careers were destroyed based on precisely this content by a mob using CDC content as their religious truth.
- cyanydeez 4y agoWhat matters is authority, after peer review; not peer distribution. Don't confuse the matter with a random agenda.
- kurupt213 4y agoPeer review is not the gatekeeper for accuracy
- drekk 4y agoNecessary but not sufficient for accuracy. Someone googling about molecular biology and posting it on Facebook isn't "contributing to the discourse". They're drowning out signal with noise.
- davidguetta 4y agoMy xp in peer review (in actual scientific research) is that it is VERY STRONGLY BIASED to the agendas of the reviewers, when it's not just failing bc of their incompetence. If anything covid has shown that scientic "truths" are highly political.