4 ms·
Sure, but is it too much to ask that the dissidents accept when they've lost on the merits instead of pivoting to an inane meta-argument about their theories be
by 0xcde4c3db 3y ago
Sure, but is it too much to ask that the dissidents accept when they've lost on the merits instead of pivoting to an inane meta-argument about their theories being "silenced"?
- lazzlazzlazz 3y agoCommand dissidents to accept consensus (even if they disagree) is how you eliminate the possibility of dissidents. It's a contradiction.
- mike_hearn 3y agoTo decide if they did or did not lose on the merits you need open discussion, as otherwise the more aggressive side can simply assert that they won and then silence the dissidents when they point out it's not true. So, the "inane meta-argument" as you put it is in fact required to be resolved first before you can even get to the point of deciding who's right. Nothing inane about it. Without that, science can't be done at all.