8 ms·

Certainly very few say that they hate science (tho those people who think evolutionists and round-earthers are demonic are certainly out there: https://www.min

Certainly very few say that they hate science (tho those people who think evolutionists and round-earthers are demonic are certainly out there: https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1967/08/deception-through-science https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1967/08/deception-t... But the conservative party has a history of ignoring science. The scientists asserting this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-reason-some-republicans-mistrust-science-their-leaders-tell-them-to/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-reason-some-r... The mainstream media asserting this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-gop-has-a-long-history-of-ignoring-science-trump-turned-it-into-policy/2020/10/09/53574602-0917-11eb-859b-f9c27abe638d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-gop-has-a-long-hi... It is often said that science changes one funeral at a time, but I have certainly read a lot about efforts to fix the replication crisis. And ten years isn't long to change the behavior of a large number of independent actors. The discourse about the replication crisis comes from scientists and is being fixed by the scientific process. It supports my thesis. Your next example, one diagram in the non-scientific portion of the IPCC report that you don't like doesn't really invalidate the "science is self-correcting." Perhaps you have more details on this supposed diagram? If you ever attend a scientific conference, you will certainly hear scientists criticizing each other. More biting than the most wooly eyed back-woods preacher and more informed than the poshest petroleum funded climate sceptic. But they don't argue about perpetual motion, flat earth, evolution, or global warming due to the carbon burn.

revelio 4y ago
"Scientists" and "journalists" are the very people being accused of propagating pseudo-science so who cares what they think? To resolve disputes about whether certain claims are scientific you can't just ask one side and say, "Well? Are you right?". "The discourse about the replication crisis comes from scientists and is being fixed by the scientific process." I've also read a lot. Unfortunately, it's not being fixed. There is a small amount of discourse in a small segment of a small set of fields, which has had absolutely no impact whatsoever on common practice in those fields, let alone the wider government research enterprise. Also, mind that replicability is only one tiny part of the problem. There's also huge problems with papers that misrepresent their own data, use invalid (but replicable) methodologies, abuse statistics, are entirely fraudulent to begin with, are based on logical fallacies, encode extremely ideologically biased ideas into their study design, are based on buggy programs or invalid assumptions, cite documents that contradict the claims being made and so on. Inability to replicate is not the only problem here, even though it's the only one that really gets discussed. "one diagram in the non-scientific portion of the IPCC report" It's not a diagram, it claims to be a graph of long term temperature history and is thus the core claim that supports the entire thesis of the summary, and yet it's known to be fraudulent and was previously dropped from IPCC reports for being so. And non-scientific?! The IPCC supposedly a summary of a scientific report, which is itself reporting on and summarizing the science! You don't get to put claims about temperature in the summary that don't appear anywhere in the science, then claim to be summarizing science. Yet they do, and this is just an example. Fraud in apparently scientific claims is out of control, but only conservatives are willing to call it out. Then they get labelled as science deniers. It's actually the other way around though: it's the people who blindly accept anything that looks superficially like science, who are denying true science. https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/ https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick...

revelio 4y ago

"Scientists" and "journalists" are the very people being accused of propagating pseudo-science so who cares what they think? To resolve disputes about whether certain claims are scientific you can't just ask one side and say, "Well? Are you right?". "The discourse about the replication crisis comes from scientists and is being fixed by the scientific process." I've also read a lot. Unfortunately, it's not being fixed. There is a small amount of discourse in a small segment of a small set of fields, which has had absolutely no impact whatsoever on common practice in those fields, let alone the wider government research enterprise. Also, mind that replicability is only one tiny part of the problem. There's also huge problems with papers that misrepresent their own data, use invalid (but replicable) methodologies, abuse statistics, are entirely fraudulent to begin with, are based on logical fallacies, encode extremely ideologically biased ideas into their study design, are based on buggy programs or invalid assumptions, cite documents that contradict the claims being made and so on. Inability to replicate is not the only problem here, even though it's the only one that really gets discussed. "one diagram in the non-scientific portion of the IPCC report" It's not a diagram, it claims to be a graph of long term temperature history and is thus the core claim that supports the entire thesis of the summary, and yet it's known to be fraudulent and was previously dropped from IPCC reports for being so. And non-scientific?! The IPCC supposedly a summary of a scientific report, which is itself reporting on and summarizing the science! You don't get to put claims about temperature in the summary that don't appear anywhere in the science, then claim to be summarizing science. Yet they do, and this is just an example. Fraud in apparently scientific claims is out of control, but only conservatives are willing to call it out. Then they get labelled as science deniers. It's actually the other way around though: it's the people who blindly accept anything that looks superficially like science, who are denying true science. https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/ https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick...