3 ms·

But who? And what questions do you ask? Without a baseline, you're poking around in the dark. Or knocking on the same 20 doors at the same 20 universities, and

by ke88y 3y ago

But who? And what questions do you ask? Without a baseline, you're poking around in the dark. Or knocking on the same 20 doors at the same 20 universities, and all those people talk to each other and they and their students all sit on each others' grant review committees. Etc. And when two scientists disagree about the evidence, how do you determine whether one of them is a total quack? Or do you just report everything that everyone says as long as they say big words you don't know? It's really easy to be unproductively skeptical. Never believe anything. Everything is a lie or a conspiracy. That's not particularly productive, though, because although it protects you from lies and bad actors it will never get you to the truth.

taeric 3y ago
Sorry, I meant to be more explicit there. I don't believe in "full productivity" in the search for things. You will, by necessity, waste some time. Do try and make sure you aren't completely poking around in the dark. But also don't feel bad if you find out you were. I do hate that I'm posting this in this thread. At large, I get the impression that the "coverup" is being blown out of proportion. I also can't deny that a lot of the dismissals earlier were heavy handed. Such that some topics and inquiries have somehow become toxic. But, at large, most "quack" theories don't have to be fully dismissed by other scientists. They are more easily explained with other ideas. It can be frustrating for some of them, as I'm sure many are tired of hearing about "UFOs" and such. But for a lot of crazier ideas, the "dismissal" can quite literally be "that necessarily leads to enough other things that we are not seeing, that I just can't bring myself to believe it right now." This does require, though, that asking the questions is not done in such a way to paint a contest. Try to build the questions in such a way to expand ideas.
jimbokun 3y ago
But isn't that a journalist's job description?

by ke88y 3y ago

taeric 3y ago

Sorry, I meant to be more explicit there. I don't believe in "full productivity" in the search for things. You will, by necessity, waste some time. Do try and make sure you aren't completely poking around in the dark. But also don't feel bad if you find out you were. I do hate that I'm posting this in this thread. At large, I get the impression that the "coverup" is being blown out of proportion. I also can't deny that a lot of the dismissals earlier were heavy handed. Such that some topics and inquiries have somehow become toxic. But, at large, most "quack" theories don't have to be fully dismissed by other scientists. They are more easily explained with other ideas. It can be frustrating for some of them, as I'm sure many are tired of hearing about "UFOs" and such. But for a lot of crazier ideas, the "dismissal" can quite literally be "that necessarily leads to enough other things that we are not seeing, that I just can't bring myself to believe it right now." This does require, though, that asking the questions is not done in such a way to paint a contest. Try to build the questions in such a way to expand ideas.

jimbokun 3y ago

But isn't that a journalist's job description?