Oh and the articles I presented are not about knee-jerk reactions on twitter and the press. They are about actual scientific debate... but you'd have to have actually read them to find that out, and that seems too much to ask here. — Isaac
they are not about 'actual scientific debate', most of the times. — Olivier5
After that, I got a series of warnings from professional contacts and others, asking me if I had aligned with Donald Trump
there is a lot of anger, and a lot of the scientific discourse has become very acrimonious and even personal… It’s beginning to feel like open discussion is being stifled
The covid-19 pandemic has accentuated an erosion in civility in academic discourse...in professional media — literally the first fucking line
Lenzer and Brownlee were in turn personally criticised after their essay was published, not merely on social media, but more importantly in communications to organizations to which they belong and publications for which they had previously written
Words have a meaning. — Olivier5
It's mainly about discourse outside of scientific outlets — Olivier5
it's about what to do against covid — Olivier5
you HAVE spread the unhelpful anti-science rhetoric of a person with an easily discernable political bias. — Olivier5
And you HAVE spread the unhelpful anti-science rhetoric of a person with an easily discernable political bias. — Olivier5
I am saying that ANTI-SCIENCE RHETORIC IS NOT HELPFUL. — Olivier5
I was responding to GraveItty who was distorting my position, like you are doing all the time yourself. — Olivier5
So you're saying I should only post things according to whether you think they're anti-science and whether you think the person has a political bias. — Isaac
Prasad concludes that "sadly, there are few scientists left". Words have a meaning, Isaac. I for one think there are many scientists left. Do you think otherwise? — Olivier5
I am saying rather that you are spreading the anti-science rhetoric of a heavily politicized pundit about Covid — Olivier5
But you didn't do so, probably because you trusted him enough. — Olivier5
In short, what are your standards? — Olivier5
evidence should come from suitably qualified experts in the appropriate field who have no discoverable conflict of interest or pre-existing bias directly favouring one result — Isaac
We've been through this. It was rhetorical. — Isaac
no one benefits financially from what he's saying, he's not pushing a product and he's not employed by someone who benefits from what he's saying. So he meets the lack of conflicts of interest criteria. — Isaac
He's made no previous overt political statements. — Isaac
That is what I am saying too: it was anti-science rhetoric. — Olivier5
He is mentioning his books in a lot of his posts... :-) — Olivier5
Saying that Covid is the end of progressivism is not an overt political statement? — Olivier5
Rhetorically lamenting that there are "few scientists left" was meant as a wake up call to defend science before it got lost in petty posturing. — Isaac
Try disqualifiying any public commentator who doesn't do that, we'll see how much public discussion of science is left. — Isaac
if that's your standard for 'politicised' then you're basically saying scientists can't comment on government or economic issues without being subsequently banned from being quoted. — Isaac
Which is a ridiculous, totally fake idea about modern science. — Olivier5
He doesn't fit the "no conflict of interest" criteria, period. — Olivier5
Scientists can comment all they want on politics — Olivier5
in his case his statements show a strong political bias towards the right — Olivier5
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.