But just because something is junk doesn’t mean we should prevent people from accessing it.
Again, after glibly dismissing antivax conspiracy theories as unscientific under the presumption that no one credible would believe them (not that that stopped the spread and distribution of them to the general public) you’re suggestion that all of the harmful prior false science listed at the following:
should get openly and freely distributed under some idealistic notion of “set it all free” while you already derided the public for buying into antivax nonsense. Your idealism can and will hurt a lot more people because you clearly are more fine with racism than antivax conspiracy theories.
You’re very good at putting words into people’s mouths (I didn’t even mention antivax theories)
You previously said:
Strong disagree, given the vaccine hysteria was on the part of the deniers. The science supported and continues to support the vaccines effectiveness and safety. It’s primarily people who aren’t scientists and don’t know how to interpret medical studies that are claiming that they are dangerous or ineffective.
Nice to meet you, I’m a medical scientist that specializes in Alzheimer’s research. Absolutely none of my colleagues think vaccines are dangerous.
If you’re going to complain about “putting words into people’s mouths” don’t be a liar on top of that.
That arbiter is not doing a good job considering the proliferation of antivax, race “science,” and climate change denialism, among other things.
Feel as above the fray as you like, but normalizing the mass distribution of junk/shit or otherwise false science under some lofty ideal of “the free marketplace of ideas will select for the correct data” is clearly, demonstratively, and repeatedly not doing that and hasn’t in the past either.
Someone else responded better than I could to what amounts of your wall of arrogance that was toward someone with an opinion and a take so similar to yours that it applies to you as well.
Every single time someone does a report on crime and breaks down data by race you’re seeing racist social science in action. The way we do clinical trials. Decisions about what to study, like the impacts of lead, or education, or pharmaceuticals, all of it lies on top of and interpermeates racist superstructure. Recent? Forced hysterectomies. Public statements from researchers that genetics are not politically correct. Mauna Kea. Environmental impact studies in Guam. I mean, it’s never ending.
We’re very critical of the racism and sexism in medical research.
You’re demonstratably actively and overtly ignoring examples given to you, right now, showing just how flawed your claimed “critical” status is of such issues.
And still none of that has anything to do with physics, chemistry, materials science, geology, oceanography.
Yes, you have that ivory tower of yours crammed so high that you’re willfully ignoring intersectional issues that do affect the application, interpretation, even the funding and political will to allocate resources to such fields.
For everything that you can point to as a current problem, I can point to another thing that used to be a problem and now has been corrected.
That only demonstrates that correcting the process and actively rejecting bad/false science requires ongoing vigilance, not smug and arrogant dismissal of concerns.
therefore we shouldn’t do science at all
No one said that and you’re willfully ignorant at this point.
You think it’s anti-intellectual to address intersectional society-wide concerns? Is it truly “intellectual” to pretend that they didn’t happen or that they only happened in the past? ok
It is the pinnacle of ideological arrogance to believe that scientific fields, as practiced by scientists, exist in perfectly sealed vacuums that require no interaction with government or society and that every experiment that is funded, all research undertaken, is powered by sheer scientific purity instead of the unfortunate material realities of funding and decisions made of “what” is researched and for how long.
It does affect all of the above fields if funding and resources are wasted in pursuit of junk science. Announcing that such junk should be “free” and distributed out there under the belief that it will magically be banished by the light of truth and cease being distributed entirely because it is wrong with no other actions necessary is willful ideological ignorance.
Assuming people that disagree with you are children, and using that for insult purposes only demonstrates your contempt, even hatred, of children.
You failed to address what I talked about so of course I repeated myself. You had nothing to respond to but your own arrogant dismissal of issues and your empty sense of superiority.
So much for your fedora-tipping farewell. You needed to add just how not mad you are at having uncomfortable issues brought up that you failed to address.
You’re trying to win a last word game while demonstrating how very not mad you are in the most transparent way possible.
You had nothing from the start but your bloviating arrogance, and now you have nothing left but enraged immaturity after calling me a child (because children are contemptible to you, Redditbrained as you are).
Since you’re not posting anything of value (and didn’t do so before) I’ll just repost a reflection of what you’re continuing to do.
Modern Life Is Perfect (lemmy.ml)
Self Defense vs War Crimes (lemmygrad.ml)
Remove all barriers in the way of science (mander.xyz)
reddit.com/…/a_mural_in_the_science_faculty_of_my…...