[ad hom ignored...] just about about any study in any field is likely to have flaws. However, those flaws don't necessarily make the outcomes untrue; although if there were too many they might.
Much more important for science credibility it's the problem of scientific magazines and "peer review". That's where shit is done.
Pray tell, from where do you think the "scientists say" statements come? The journals, and university press releases...of course.
(The idea of menial underlings having a hand in this dissemination is -if not ludicrous- at least unlikely.)
Of course you knew it already and were just quibbling for the sake of quibbling.
Quote from: ersi on 2014-08-19, 19:31:18Of course you knew it already and were just quibbling for the sake of quibbling.No, sir! We are here attempting to come to an understanding of both the sources of "scientists say" stories in the press, and the trivialization and subversion of science for "unscientific" motives... Are we not?
Science is supposed to be "dispassionate"... (An old legal term that has much to recommend it.) That is, the search for truth and understanding is what I think most of us take science to be.Whatever our prejudices, biases, and ulterior motives (Freudians welcome! ) we should be willing to put them aside -- if the science warrants.
That's the opposite of the News You Can Use meme.Or am I just blathering?
well, why are you then demonstrating absolute unwillingness to understand?
I'd attribute it to allergic reaction to some inconsequential reporting. It's easy to avoid, but you chose to overexpose yourself instead. Let's hope you recover soon.
We can't all be hermits, ersi. And we shouldn't all want to be... Are you hoping to be a Cult Leader sometime in the future?
Let me repeat that, so you can savor it: What do disputes about ontology matter, really?
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-08-20, 09:06:00Let me repeat that, so you can savor it: What do disputes about ontology matter, really?The funny thing is that this realisation won't stop you from disputing it anyway.
But I suppose what Oakdale is asking is if Café Talk matters. Course it matters, that's what men should be doing, not working.
hat's very "science-y" sounding, Sang!What it means is that you believe what you believe, regardless of the evidence or arguments... No?
No. It's called having some understanding of the scientific method.
Anthropogenic climate change (you know, the science-stuff?) had nothing really to do with the three studies I mentioned. And studies that fail to support the conclusions they purport are -simply put- trash. They're not maybe true; they're shoddy work, and should be branded such.Just because they (somehow...) support the political prejudices of the researchers (and like-minded readers -- such as yourself) doesn't make them better than they are.Being wrong is always a possibility. That's not what we're talking about here. Being inept and deceitful is not just being wrong...Do you disagree?
You're hopeless, Sang! Of course, you didn't read it: Why make the effort to know what you're talking about...
Just because they (somehow...) support the political prejudices of the researchers (and like-minded readers -- such as yourself) doesn't make them better than they are.
Because thread is not about climate change.
The fields of Cognitive Psychology and "Climate Communication" (whatever that is ) may not be to your liking. But it's the quality of the work, and its reception in the press, that seemed pertinent...
Page created in 0.067 seconds with 40 queries.