4 ms·
Edit: writing in a hurry, have to read the link more carefully. Ok, so the case is a pretty decent edge case. However, I wrote "deliberately going against scie
by karmakurtisaani 3y ago
Edit: writing in a hurry, have to read the link more carefully.
Ok, so the case is a pretty decent edge case. However, I wrote "deliberately going against science", which I don't see happening here. Here, people did more science disagreeing with other science (if you can call it that). In this case the first "research" seems to have an agenda and should indeed warrant criticism. And the criticism is good with data to back it up.
The same does not happen with climate denialists for example - just plain old misinformation with an agenda. They are free to publish papers, yet don't seem to be able to, at least with convincing results.
- hotdogscout 3y agoA distilled version of the strongest points of this discussion is in this post (in my opinion). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36946171#36948005 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36946171#36948005
- karmakurtisaani 3y agoSorry, I updated my reply after thinking a bit more carefully. To put my point in short: I don't think we should call something that has data to back it up and the intention to get to the truth misinformation in the context of this discussion. Regardless how it's labelled by authorities.
- hotdogscout 3y ago>something that has data to back it up and the intention to get to the truth misinformation It's hard to infer people's intention. Maybe I'm being naive but I think even flat earthers have the earnest intention of getting to the truth and use data and observations. My algorithm to deal with untruth is engaging with everyone and asking for clarification/evidence. To me creating a blanket label for "people you should never listen to" is dangerous.