8 ms·

Quelling dissenters! A true victory for science!

by skylan_q 12y ago

div 12y ago
These people do not participate in science.
- skylan_q 12y ago
  Next up: muting people who don't agree with the fact that inflation is good because the only people who deny it don't participate in economics.
  - nav1 12y ago
    But science isn't about someone agreeing with a theory. If you can disprove a theory, great. Otherwise no one really cares about your flawed arguments.
    - skylan_q 12y ago
      But science isn't about someone agreeing with a theory. Those who advocate blocking dissent with theories in the name of science would disagree. Apparently, it's more important that people agree with a body of work that is largely impenetrable than it is to question it or disagree with it.
      - muuh-gnu 12y ago
        There is no time left to debate any more, we now have to act or we're all gonna die. Suppressing dissent by a Soviet style thought police is a small price to pay if the future of the human species is at stake. I for one, fully and sincerely and deeply believe in climate change, and I welcome our new bolsheviks in lab coats overlords.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        But who is talking about blocking dissent? Not giving airtime on the BBC is blocking dissent, now? Should they also give airtime to the flat-earth society? The BBC is not a scientific journal, it's a mass-media organization. It's not its job to promote every little scientific theory.
- pling 12y ago
  They should ban Songs of Praise as well then... Edit: if you're going to down vote at least have the balls to explain your position.
  - div 12y ago
    I didn't downvote, but your comment is not pertinent. The post to which I replied ironically stated that this is "a great victory for science", to which I responded that these people are not really participating in science (but rather playing politics). Your comment on banning Songs of Praise seems to imply that I'd like all non-scientific TV to be curbed or banned, which is a straw man argument.
scribu 12y ago
Dissenters should be given air time proportional to the quality of the counter arguments they put forward. "Nuh-uh" isn't a very strong counter argument.
Steko 12y ago
More like astroturf dissent is no longer going to be subsidized by a stupid journalistic policy. Yes it's a victory for real science. If climate deniers want to debate the real science that door is wide open as always.
woodchuck64 12y ago
Religious dissent? Unqualified, uninformed dissent? Yes, quell the hell out of it.
- smsm42 12y ago
  You may read a bit on US history and the role religious dissent played in it. It's no accident that religious freedoms are in the first amendment.
  - bdamm 12y ago
    Asserting a policy of not publishing an opinion is quite different from a legislative edict to make an opinion illegal. Just because your opinion is legal does not mean I have to listen to it.
    - smsm42 12y ago
      Yes, but the parent post was "religious dissent? quell the hell out of it!".
  - woodchuck64 12y ago
    I have read US history and not once did religiously motivated dissent to scientific consensus result in the advancement of science or the advancement of any other measure of human progress.
    - smsm42 12y ago
      Religiously motivated dissent is, by a large measure, what started what became the US, and the importance of dissent is ingrained deeply in the ideological base of the US republic. Also, you can read on abolitionist movement and their religious motivations (science was playing racial theories with gusto at that time and continued for some time even after the slavery was abolished). So your rosy picture of triumphant march of science against the forces of darkness is somewhat misguided. But the point is not even that - the point is the cheerfulness with which people meet the proposition of quelling of the religious dissent is positively frightening.
bdamm 12y ago
From the article, it looks like the BBC reporters were actually going out of their way to ignore the opinions of interviewed scientists and went to fringe groups to gain a contrary opinion. If a contrary opinion is so difficult to find maybe that would have been the better report.

Quelling dissenters! A true victory for science!

div 12y ago

These people do not participate in science.

skylan_q 12y ago
Next up: muting people who don't agree with the fact that inflation is good because the only people who deny it don't participate in economics.
- nav1 12y ago
  But science isn't about someone agreeing with a theory. If you can disprove a theory, great. Otherwise no one really cares about your flawed arguments.
  - skylan_q 12y ago
    But science isn't about someone agreeing with a theory. Those who advocate blocking dissent with theories in the name of science would disagree. Apparently, it's more important that people agree with a body of work that is largely impenetrable than it is to question it or disagree with it.
    - muuh-gnu 12y ago
      There is no time left to debate any more, we now have to act or we're all gonna die. Suppressing dissent by a Soviet style thought police is a small price to pay if the future of the human species is at stake. I for one, fully and sincerely and deeply believe in climate change, and I welcome our new bolsheviks in lab coats overlords.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      But who is talking about blocking dissent? Not giving airtime on the BBC is blocking dissent, now? Should they also give airtime to the flat-earth society? The BBC is not a scientific journal, it's a mass-media organization. It's not its job to promote every little scientific theory.
pling 12y ago
They should ban Songs of Praise as well then... Edit: if you're going to down vote at least have the balls to explain your position.
- div 12y ago
  I didn't downvote, but your comment is not pertinent. The post to which I replied ironically stated that this is "a great victory for science", to which I responded that these people are not really participating in science (but rather playing politics). Your comment on banning Songs of Praise seems to imply that I'd like all non-scientific TV to be curbed or banned, which is a straw man argument.

scribu 12y ago

Dissenters should be given air time proportional to the quality of the counter arguments they put forward. "Nuh-uh" isn't a very strong counter argument.

Steko 12y ago

More like astroturf dissent is no longer going to be subsidized by a stupid journalistic policy. Yes it's a victory for real science. If climate deniers want to debate the real science that door is wide open as always.

woodchuck64 12y ago

Religious dissent? Unqualified, uninformed dissent? Yes, quell the hell out of it.

smsm42 12y ago
You may read a bit on US history and the role religious dissent played in it. It's no accident that religious freedoms are in the first amendment.
- bdamm 12y ago
  Asserting a policy of not publishing an opinion is quite different from a legislative edict to make an opinion illegal. Just because your opinion is legal does not mean I have to listen to it.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    Yes, but the parent post was "religious dissent? quell the hell out of it!".
- woodchuck64 12y ago
  I have read US history and not once did religiously motivated dissent to scientific consensus result in the advancement of science or the advancement of any other measure of human progress.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    Religiously motivated dissent is, by a large measure, what started what became the US, and the importance of dissent is ingrained deeply in the ideological base of the US republic. Also, you can read on abolitionist movement and their religious motivations (science was playing racial theories with gusto at that time and continued for some time even after the slavery was abolished). So your rosy picture of triumphant march of science against the forces of darkness is somewhat misguided. But the point is not even that - the point is the cheerfulness with which people meet the proposition of quelling of the religious dissent is positively frightening.

bdamm 12y ago

From the article, it looks like the BBC reporters were actually going out of their way to ignore the opinions of interviewed scientists and went to fringe groups to gain a contrary opinion. If a contrary opinion is so difficult to find maybe that would have been the better report.