4 ms·

And tptacek felt that your use of quotes around "scientists" was also charged to imply Lowe wasn't entirely credible. But he wanted to make sure that's that wha

by bena 4y ago

And tptacek felt that your use of quotes around "scientists" was also charged to imply Lowe wasn't entirely credible. But he wanted to make sure that's that what you were claiming because Lowe apparently has the academic credentials to lay claim to the appellation. You also want to accuse him of not engaging with your main point. But from your posts, I would say your main point is that some of those who claim to be scientists are more akin to politicians than scientists. And if that is not your intention, then I would say that is a failure on your part to convey what point you actually wanted to make. You want to knock his use of the term "real virologist", but he's using it to distinguish the people as people who work in virology and not random people on the internet arguing about the semantics of an apparently ill-defined term.

PathOfEclipse 4y ago
That's fair. I can see how the quotes would easily imply I'm suggesting these people aren't real scientists. I am however, suggesting though that in articles like these, they aren't doing science, and they could do much better. For instance, I think it would be more "scientific" to review various definitions of GOF research and suggest how this research might or might not fit each definition. This would at least have the appearance of being more objective and gathering data on existing usages of this word. And, to slightly correct your summary, I'm saying scientists are often conducting politics, or operating in the political arena (or moral arena), while, either explicitly or implicitly, taking advantage of the scientific credibility that society gives them by default. It's articles like these that land in leftwing fact-checking sites like Politifact that are then used as solid evidence that a particular claim is "misleading" or "mostly false."

by bena 4y ago

PathOfEclipse 4y ago

That's fair. I can see how the quotes would easily imply I'm suggesting these people aren't real scientists. I am however, suggesting though that in articles like these, they aren't doing science, and they could do much better. For instance, I think it would be more "scientific" to review various definitions of GOF research and suggest how this research might or might not fit each definition. This would at least have the appearance of being more objective and gathering data on existing usages of this word. And, to slightly correct your summary, I'm saying scientists are often conducting politics, or operating in the political arena (or moral arena), while, either explicitly or implicitly, taking advantage of the scientific credibility that society gives them by default. It's articles like these that land in leftwing fact-checking sites like Politifact that are then used as solid evidence that a particular claim is "misleading" or "mostly false."