Thanks, Vijay. The notion of “Science “ has been badly tarnished and will never regain the respect it once had. A lot of these people will apparently do anything to support their false narrative.
Climate science lost the plot and the philosophers of science never called them out, here is a philosopher who wrote a book to defend "consensus science."
“my view is that philosophers do better to paint a picture in which we urge trust in the consensus of the scientific community, based on features of that community’s social organization ,” (Winsberg p. 161)
Giving up on critical appraisal means referring questions of scientific credibility to a consortium of politically correct grant-seekers, environmental fundamentalists and UN officials dedicated to the transformation of the economies of the western world. That is not really what one might have expected from a scholar in the Queen of the Sciences!
Consensus is the red flag talk-speak for “sit down and be quiet”.
It attempts to belittle and shame opposing viewpoints and is childishly akin to name-calling (what you do when civility and logic are both absent).
In other words, it lacks maturity and feels threatened when opposing viewpoints are suggested.
If all else fails, withhold funding, remove tenure and punish naysayers in the public market of ideas. It requires the media to be complicit and generously funded to keep the “accepted narrative” (consensus) alive.
You can search for other countries and cultures around the world to find similar examples and none of them are virtuous.
“Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.”
First, the entire premise of "consensus" in science is fatally flawed. Science doesn't operate by consensus, so it's irrelevant what "the consensus" happens to be on a given topic. What matters is the strength of evidence. Ideally, the consensus and the evidence would align, but that is frequently not the case. Second, given how many science journals and the peer review process have both become politically compromised, a scientific "consensus" on a topic can easily be manufactured. Third, anyone that was actually awake during the pandemic should now realize how dangerous it is to use a so-called scientific "consensus" to make decisions.
Thanks, Vijay. The notion of “Science “ has been badly tarnished and will never regain the respect it once had. A lot of these people will apparently do anything to support their false narrative.
Climate science lost the plot and the philosophers of science never called them out, here is a philosopher who wrote a book to defend "consensus science."
“my view is that philosophers do better to paint a picture in which we urge trust in the consensus of the scientific community, based on features of that community’s social organization ,” (Winsberg p. 161)
This is a critical review.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/alarming-defence-of-climate-alarmism
Giving up on critical appraisal means referring questions of scientific credibility to a consortium of politically correct grant-seekers, environmental fundamentalists and UN officials dedicated to the transformation of the economies of the western world. That is not really what one might have expected from a scholar in the Queen of the Sciences!
Consensus is the red flag talk-speak for “sit down and be quiet”.
It attempts to belittle and shame opposing viewpoints and is childishly akin to name-calling (what you do when civility and logic are both absent).
In other words, it lacks maturity and feels threatened when opposing viewpoints are suggested.
If all else fails, withhold funding, remove tenure and punish naysayers in the public market of ideas. It requires the media to be complicit and generously funded to keep the “accepted narrative” (consensus) alive.
You can search for other countries and cultures around the world to find similar examples and none of them are virtuous.
“Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.”
1 Timothy 6:9-10 NIV
First, the entire premise of "consensus" in science is fatally flawed. Science doesn't operate by consensus, so it's irrelevant what "the consensus" happens to be on a given topic. What matters is the strength of evidence. Ideally, the consensus and the evidence would align, but that is frequently not the case. Second, given how many science journals and the peer review process have both become politically compromised, a scientific "consensus" on a topic can easily be manufactured. Third, anyone that was actually awake during the pandemic should now realize how dangerous it is to use a so-called scientific "consensus" to make decisions.
The point here bears deep understanding and wide duscussion.