The logical fallacy in some of the argument here is: "Some sciences have flaws, therefore all science must be condemned."
Just because some liberals have invaded climate science does not mean all climate science is bad, nor that all science is bad.
Calling science monolithic and implying it is universally in error is an invalid argument. Also, all science is not a monolithic cult.
Added: I see this thread's been invaded by liberals using the kind of critical race theory logic that says math is racist because it was created by old white males.
Where did I say “all science must be condemned”? I’m saying that science has been corrupted to the point that you can’t simply trust that the community is putting out honest material and self-correcting.
When I say monolithic, I mean there is no such thing as branches or subgroups in the scientific community because they are all expected to be adhering to the scientific method.
The problem is that there are many examples of falsifying data to get conclusions because of grants, status, political views, etc.
So when you say you are a scientist, you are not able to differentiate yourself from the scammers, since they also call themselves scientists and say they are adhering to the scientific method. How is the average person supposed to tell the difference?
The logical fallacy in some of the argument here is: "Some sciences have flaws, therefore all science must be condemned." Just because some liberals have invaded climate science does not mean all climate science is bad, nor that all science is bad. Calling science monolithic and implying it is universally in error is an invalid argument. Also, all science is not a monolithic cult.
Added: I see this thread's been invaded by liberals using the kind of critical race theory logic that says math is racist because it was created by old white males.
Where did I say “all science must be condemned”? I’m saying that science has been corrupted to the point that you can’t simply trust that the community is putting out honest material and self-correcting.
When I say monolithic, I mean there is no such thing as branches or subgroups in the scientific community because they are all expected to be adhering to the scientific method.
The problem is that there are many examples of falsifying data to get conclusions because of grants, status, political views, etc.
So when you say you are a scientist, you are not able to differentiate yourself from the scammers, since they also call themselves scientists and say they are adhering to the scientific method. How is the average person supposed to tell the difference?