FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Science is about debate, not censoring.
Science is about debate, not censoring.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
I was listening to a program about it and it was interesting.
They were worried of how we are entering into the dark ages of how science is conducted and how that science is about to have a open debate for and against something.
They added where nowadays it means if you disagree you would most likely to get censored.
Who else thinks like me and miss a real passionate debate for and against something, like with the climate change hysteria?
What is your view and in what way do you think that the science is heading towards?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Censorship in what way?
I think there's definitely something there with regards to non disclosure agreements and "shared science Vs protecting IP".
I think blocking everything behind an expensive Paywall is unjust science.
I think politics gets in the way of science as well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The problem is we have a country full of idiots that think they aren’t dumb. So they misinterpret data and studies
Then they exist in an echo chamber where only things that support their view is listened too, everything else is fake news
Covid was a perfect example. People that couldn’t do fractions where d*unk in their garden and arguing with scientists and doctors |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
"Censorship in what way?
I think there's definitely something there with regards to non disclosure agreements and "shared science Vs protecting IP".
I think blocking everything behind an expensive Paywall is unjust science.
I think politics gets in the way of science as well."
Yes, politics do get in the way of it too, it would be cencord like their research wouldnt be accepted as it would go against the narrative and also the chance they could lose their job over it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
"The problem is we have a country full of idiots that think they aren’t dumb. So they misinterpret data and studies
Then they exist in an echo chamber where only things that support their view is listened too, everything else is fake news
Covid was a perfect example. People that couldn’t do fractions where d*unk in their garden and arguing with scientists and doctors "
You are right there as they misinterpreted that and yes, covid was a good example of it too  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They were worried of how we are entering into the dark ages of how science is conducted and how that science is about to have a open debate for and against something.
They added where nowadays it means if you disagree you would most likely to get censored."
How is science entering the dark ages I don't understand?
And who is being censored exactly the scientists? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Couldn’t agree more! No such thing as a debate anymore unfortunately. It’s just about your point of view until the other person stops talking apparently 
Mr |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Max Plank hit it on the head:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ...”
Science has always had “censorship” and groupthink - whether it is generational or political is ultimately irrelevant. The correct ideas will eventually bubble to the surface no matter the prevalent orthodoxy - ask Galileo - it might just take a while. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Opinions matter even about the science on here. Sex is science after all.
Loves a good debate but covid was debated news that was censored if you spoke the truth you were classified as fake news. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You misunderstood me.
My point was that part science was shared, a public body of shared understanding whose content was open for investigation and scrutiny.
Nowadays a lot of science is under NDA because a lot of it makes money. There's the private stream funded by business, who will not share their findings, and the public stream who will.
Because of this money lockdown, science will not move as fast towards progress as we would've otherwise seen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
One thing that irks me is the basic confusion of a scientific fact with objective truth.
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
The mentality that what I am saying is objectively true is often why people are talking at, rather to each other in discussion and debate, in my opinion.
What I see a great deal of these days is: I am right and I know I am right, so you must be wrong, if you disagree.
As Chomsky put it, he gave lecturers on this 20 years ago. Creativity, requires people to think outside the box of established knowledge. Progress requires dissent. And anything but unfaltering submission to authority now is seen as socially abhorrent and immediately immoral.
That's how I see Science. Reliable tested theories, which produce repeatable results. Different theories on the same subject can also produce repeatable results. No more so perhaps is this true than in Psychology and the social sciences. Where the results of statistical studies are presented in debates as objective truths, with zealous aplomb.
We are losing the ability to compare and contrast, see similarity and difference. Handle the aporia of uncertainty. There must be an objective truth to everything and everything is knowable to humans. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago
Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton, |
""They were worried of how we are entering into the dark ages of how science is conducted and how that science is about to have a open debate for and against something.
They added where nowadays it means if you disagree you would most likely to get censored."
How is science entering the dark ages I don't understand?
And who is being censored exactly the scientists? "
There were plenty of well respected scientists being censored by other scientists during covid,social media platforms shut down accounts of others for reporting data that was factually correct,the BBC still have an editorial policy of not having guest speakers (scientists,immunologists,not cranks) on who would/might talk about vaccine side effects.It is subtle censorship,not overt editing of work,the "suggestion" that funding might be withdrawn if you say this or that,the project closed,colleagues refusing to work with others etc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Science, as I will always remember it, was an endeavour that was always peer reviewed before being published, it took years, many theories and tests before coming to the answer.
Nowadays, there’s too many people with Dunning Kruger shouting louder than those who’ve dedicated their entire lives to the research of a particular area.
It’s why the science world and indeed the rest of the world, is in a dire shit show right now. Only got to look at the comments above and forthcoming to see this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""They were worried of how we are entering into the dark ages of how science is conducted and how that science is about to have a open debate for and against something.
They added where nowadays it means if you disagree you would most likely to get censored."
How is science entering the dark ages I don't understand?
And who is being censored exactly the scientists?
There were plenty of well respected scientists being censored by other scientists during covid,social media platforms shut down accounts of others for reporting data that was factually correct,the BBC still have an editorial policy of not having guest speakers (scientists,immunologists,not cranks) on who would/might talk about vaccine side effects.It is subtle censorship,not overt editing of work,the "suggestion" that funding might be withdrawn if you say this or that,the project closed,colleagues refusing to work with others etc"
You have evidence of this kind of censorship though? Has any well published research group come out and said this paper wouldn't publish our work due to censorship? Or are people blaming censorship to cover the fact their science isn't up to scratch?
There are loads of science groups in all fields that disagree with each other big time. Yet all these groups get their work published.
Even if one scientific journal wouldn't publish their work, there will be ones that do, as long as it's scientifically sound. They themselves are in competition which one another to publish people's work due to revenue.
So though I don't doubt there are issues in science I don't believe in all these conspiracy theories.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems to me some science is 'pushed' to make money. Even if it's not quite true."
Whilst I do agree there are big pharma companies that are. People tend to forget that there are considerable amounts of scientists working away in university lab, working on wild and wonderful things. Seriously if people want to find out what the majority of science looks like, go to your local science fairs and meet the academics or go to university open lectures. The vast majority of the public would be surprised what they find out. But I guess it's easier to believe what they watch on the internet that research themselves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Surely science is about theory and fact.
A scientist hypothesises about something, the theory. They then run experiments to either prove or disprove the hypothesis, the fact. "
I agree theory, and then the quest to prove or disprove, higs boson particle (excuse the spelling) was thought not to exist, but was proven to be true it took about 50 years to get there.
Radiation another theory proved right and so many others.
If they were suggested now and there was political damage if the theory was proven, we would see a campaign to disprove cause division and cancel culture at work.
science seems to be losing its independence and open debate as it moves back to pre Oppenheimer times.
which is such a shame. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Surely science is about theory and fact.
A scientist hypothesises about something, the theory. They then run experiments to either prove or disprove the hypothesis, the fact. "
Not always to be honest. Sometimes we hypothesize something and we research it, do a whole heap of experiments and we still can't prove something one way or the other. We still publish that work saying we tried all this and we're still no closer to finding out in the hope someone else reads our paper and picks up the baton and finds the answer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aitonelMan
over a year ago
Travelling |
To be fair, throughout history science (wrong and correct) science has always been censored to a degree, even within the scientific community.
Those with new ideas, theories, and findings are sometimes shot down and pushed under the rug because it doesn't align with what is already known. Sometimes it turns out they are just hack scientists thst had a wild theory (conspiracy or not) and sometimes it turns out that they are right and their new science is still censored.
It is not a new way of things, been happening for thousands of years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
A personal example of my science journey is.
Matter and anti matter, in many is fi programmes and films antimatter and mater are used to control a energy reaction thus giving spaceships endless amounts of power to explore space.
I saw this as a story device to improve belief in a fictional story a story plot device.
However I was watching Click on the BBC yesterday and found that a scientist has made anti matter out of hydrogen thus proving that this can be man made and could provide power sources for the future which is clean but has its dangers.
How politics will interfere in this as ways to make it improve is anyones guess.
politics and science is not a good mix IMO. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Surely science is about theory and fact.
A scientist hypothesises about something, the theory. They then run experiments to either prove or disprove the hypothesis, the fact.
Not always to be honest. Sometimes we hypothesize something and we research it, do a whole heap of experiments and we still can't prove something one way or the other. We still publish that work saying we tried all this and we're still no closer to finding out in the hope someone else reads our paper and picks up the baton and finds the answer. "
Thats my view of science a quest for the truth, without the need to demean the process, as it is not politically viable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The scientific method is about testing theories using evidence. If there's evidence, there's no debate for cancellation.
Research evidence can be published and is typically subject to debate, even when something seems cast iron. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Please do explain what you’re on about. The thought of science entering the dark ages makes no sense when you take into consideration technological advances that are part of our present lives allowing scientific discoveries that would not have been possible in earlier times. For example in terms of modelling, without present day technologies former models of certain things were limited and not full in scope with our modern world in earlier times and earlier models.
Additionally, who is being censored? Are you saying scientists are? How so? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eliusMan
over a year ago
Henlow |
"The problem is we have a country full of idiots that think they aren’t dumb. So they misinterpret data and studies
Then they exist in an echo chamber where only things that support their view is listened too, everything else is fake news
Covid was a perfect example. People that couldn’t do fractions where d*unk in their garden and arguing with scientists and doctors "
Yep! And add 5G and flat earth to that as well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The scientific method is about testing theories using evidence. If there's evidence, there's no debate for cancellation.
Research evidence can be published and is typically subject to debate, even when something seems cast iron. "
Quantium Physics is a theory without any evidence, just a person who noticed something and theorised.
The theory may never be proven but debated and researched anyway.
Same for string theory no evidence, but there is an effect on nature that cannot be seen, but the effects are noticed.
Higs Boson Particle was a theory with no evidence at first, but was proven, the theory of everything was not welcomed but now is a base for all science.
Fascinating. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think the political side of science, or the peer review system, could do with an update.
Too often new concepts and ideas from the younger generations are put back to be discovered later by more established piers.
It’s been happening a while. Who discovered the double helix structure of DNA? Watson and Crick? Or was it Rosalind Franklin?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
"Couldn’t agree more! No such thing as a debate anymore unfortunately. It’s just about your point of view until the other person stops talking apparently
Mr "
Yes, you are right there and same here, there are no debate anymore, it makes you wonder why they dont want it, it might be because they cant back it up with facts |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
"Opinions matter even about the science on here. Sex is science after all.
Loves a good debate but covid was debated news that was censored if you spoke the truth you were classified as fake news. "
Hi becs and same here. I also love a good good debate and yes, covid is a good example of how censoring was used too |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Opinions matter even about the science on here. Sex is science after all.
Loves a good debate but covid was debated news that was censored if you spoke the truth you were classified as fake news. Hi becs and same here. I also love a good good debate and yes, covid is a good example of how censoring was used too "
I wonder that if there was a backlash to censoring, would it still be a thing?
Is it because we accept censoring that is a thing and will it continue to grow and infect all sides of life, as long as we accept it.
I remember when it wasn't a thing, when Maggie censored or tried to censor the IRA political wing, the BBC just dubbed their voices with English versions so the truth still came out.
So this thing is recent and somehow accepted by some. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
"Opinions matter even about the science on here. Sex is science after all.
Loves a good debate but covid was debated news that was censored if you spoke the truth you were classified as fake news. Hi becs and same here. I also love a good good debate and yes, covid is a good example of how censoring was used too
I wonder that if there was a backlash to censoring, would it still be a thing?
Is it because we accept censoring that is a thing and will it continue to grow and infect all sides of life, as long as we accept it.
I remember when it wasn't a thing, when Maggie censored or tried to censor the IRA political wing, the BBC just dubbed their voices with English versions so the truth still came out.
So this thing is recent and somehow accepted by some."
Yes. I also think it is a more recent thing and I wonder that too. I think that they get away with censoring as the majority of people believe their version of it, here is a interesting take on it, a conspiracy is only a conspiracy theory until those who belive it decides not to belive it anymore, then and not until then those who never believed it are not a conspiracy theorist anymore, take the lab leak for example, now it is ok to mention it, that is good that you remember the time when it wasnt a thing like with the ira too |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Opinions matter even about the science on here. Sex is science after all.
Loves a good debate but covid was debated news that was censored if you spoke the truth you were classified as fake news. Hi becs and same here. I also love a good good debate and yes, covid is a good example of how censoring was used too
I wonder that if there was a backlash to censoring, would it still be a thing?
Is it because we accept censoring that is a thing and will it continue to grow and infect all sides of life, as long as we accept it.
I remember when it wasn't a thing, when Maggie censored or tried to censor the IRA political wing, the BBC just dubbed their voices with English versions so the truth still came out.
So this thing is recent and somehow accepted by some.Yes. I also think it is a more recent thing and I wonder that too. I think that they get away with censoring as the majority of people believe their version of it, here is a interesting take on it, a conspiracy is only a conspiracy theory until those who belive it decides not to belive it anymore, then and not until then those who never believed it are not a conspiracy theorist anymore, take the lab leak for example, now it is ok to mention it, that is good that you remember the time when it wasnt a thing like with the ira too "
Thank you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think the political side of science, or the peer review system, could do with an update.
Too often new concepts and ideas from the younger generations are put back to be discovered later by more established piers.
It’s been happening a while. Who discovered the double helix structure of DNA? Watson and Crick? Or was it Rosalind Franklin?
"
I'm interested how do you think the peer review system can be updated? How do you think it should change?
We have in biology not sure about other sciences BioRxiv which is a preprint repository, which isn't peer reviewed. So it's ideal place to publish your work if other journals won't publish it. Plus it stops others claiming your work as their own. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I was listening to a program about it and it was interesting.
They were worried of how we are entering into the dark ages of how science is conducted and how that science is about to have a open debate for and against something.
They added where nowadays it means if you disagree you would most likely to get censored.
Who else thinks like me and miss a real passionate debate for and against something, like with the climate change hysteria?
What is your view and in what way do you think that the science is heading towards? "
If I understand correctly I think it seems a valid point.. Witnessed by the so called "debate" which covid and the vaccines and deaths put in the public domain.
I confess I know very little about the methods of proper science. But I did witness the deification of anyone with science in their title and the complete hysteria when anyone dare to challenge or ask a common sense question. I am not comfortable at all with scientists being a self governing tribe. Nor also the way certain science is funded that arrives at a preordained outcome because otherwise funding would be pulled. That said... The tefal heads do some good stuff too. We should all be able and encouraged to ask the stupid questions though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
"You just gotta accept the world has changed because of the internet , communication has changed and you cannot go back.
What latter post-truth is how people feel, not what the facts are."
Yes, it seems that it is a new age of "science" where there wont be a debate about it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
"You misunderstood me.
My point was that part science was shared, a public body of shared understanding whose content was open for investigation and scrutiny.
Nowadays a lot of science is under NDA because a lot of it makes money. There's the private stream funded by business, who will not share their findings, and the public stream who will.
Because of this money lockdown, science will not move as fast towards progress as we would've otherwise seen."
Yes, you are right there, it is all about the profit too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The problem is we have a country full of idiots that think they aren’t dumb. So they misinterpret data and studies
Then they exist in an echo chamber where only things that support their view is listened too, everything else is fake news
Covid was a perfect example. People that couldn’t do fractions where d*unk in their garden and arguing with scientists and doctors "
please say this is a Tory burn. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There seems a level of snobbery also from many... How dare you question me when you're not even a PhD? The arrogance sometimes is really actually rank stupidity. Good things should always be challenged. And just because someone doesn't have bsc after their name doesn't mean they don't have a brain or life experiences that relate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ensualMan
over a year ago
Sutton |
Scientific debate, as someone said earlier, has always been censored. They gave the example of Galileo. Religion rather than politics is the main censor of science. That and those applying "common sense" to technical issues.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There seems a level of snobbery also from many... How dare you question me when you're not even a PhD? The arrogance sometimes is really actually rank stupidity. Good things should always be challenged. And just because someone doesn't have bsc after their name doesn't mean they don't have a brain or life experiences that relate. "
How many PhD holders have you come across who genuinely have that attitude though? Mind I'm happy to admit to my astrophysicist mate I know bugger all about space stuff. What I will admit that with the more I've learnt, the more I realise I don't know. And that's really an interesting and exciting place to be. Even the best brains in the world don't have the answers to everything. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If religion is the main censor of science is science the main sensor of religion. Or like me open mindedness allows you to enjoy both. What I’ve discovered is science confirms my faith and love to discuss with others how that works. Furthermore, does an understanding of intellectual matters make you sexually appealing or not??? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If religion is the main censor of science is science the main sensor of religion. Or like me open mindedness allows you to enjoy both. What I’ve discovered is science confirms my faith and love to discuss with others how that works. Furthermore, does an understanding of intellectual matters make you sexually appealing or not???"
Yes, it does make appealing intelluctual tendancies to want someone more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If religion is the main censor of science is science the main sensor of religion. Or like me open mindedness allows you to enjoy both. What I’ve discovered is science confirms my faith and love to discuss with others how that works. Furthermore, does an understanding of intellectual matters make you sexually appealing or not???"
Not necessarily the understanding of intellectual matters. But the ability to debate, which to me means talking and asking questions to people you don't necessarily agree with, does. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ensualMan
over a year ago
Sutton |
"If religion is the main censor of science is science the main sensor of religion. Or like me open mindedness allows you to enjoy both. What I’ve discovered is science confirms my faith and love to discuss with others how that works. Furthermore, does an understanding of intellectual matters make you sexually appealing or not???"
I do have to counter your first sentence in regard to the Abrahamic religions in Western Europe and U.S.A. in the last 1800 years (in Europe and 400 years in the USA) it has challenged science that has disproved accepted religious positions (I did not mention dinosaurs). Religion still does with its insistence on prayers and a requirement for belief in miracles. We won't get onto the position of churches on
contraception as banal as condoms.
Do I have an issue with faith, no, go fill your boots. Do I have issues with the imposition of a belief in the supernatural in our daily life and it to be given equal validity to the scientific method, then frankly I do have an issue. We have had less than 50 years of free thought and the churches are aggressively fighting back against reason.
Unfortunately the rational cuddly Anglican vicar trope does not work in light of the modern fanaticism of radical Islam, radical Catholicism, and Born Again back to the Bible revisionism.
As an afterthough, there are religious arguments against swinging and naturism, and almost none (provided you careful) in science.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There seems a level of snobbery also from many... How dare you question me when you're not even a PhD? The arrogance sometimes is really actually rank stupidity. Good things should always be challenged. And just because someone doesn't have bsc after their name doesn't mean they don't have a brain or life experiences that relate.
How many PhD holders have you come across who genuinely have that attitude though? Mind I'm happy to admit to my astrophysicist mate I know bugger all about space stuff. What I will admit that with the more I've learnt, the more I realise I don't know. And that's really an interesting and exciting place to be. Even the best brains in the world don't have the answers to everything. "
The more we learn,
the more we know.
The more we know,
the more we forget.
The more we forget,
the less we know.
So, why learn? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There seems a level of snobbery also from many... How dare you question me when you're not even a PhD? The arrogance sometimes is really actually rank stupidity. Good things should always be challenged. And just because someone doesn't have bsc after their name doesn't mean they don't have a brain or life experiences that relate. "
No, but we also have to be honest that someone with a PhD in a subject is likely to know more about that subject than someone without one, no matter how intelligent the lay person is. We need to value expertise - Bob from Facebook's opinion is not equal to a Professors in whatever subject we're talking about. That's not snobbery, just realistic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ames-77Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"I was listening to a program about it and it was interesting.
They were worried of how we are entering into the dark ages of how science is conducted and how that science is about to have a open debate for and against something.
They added where nowadays it means if you disagree you would most likely to get censored.
Who else thinks like me and miss a real passionate debate for and against something, like with the climate change hysteria?
What is your view and in what way do you think that the science is heading towards? "
Climate change is a very good debate id love to share views and ideas with people on here but everyone always has to turn to mocking and insulting |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There seems a level of snobbery also from many... How dare you question me when you're not even a PhD? The arrogance sometimes is really actually rank stupidity. Good things should always be challenged. And just because someone doesn't have bsc after their name doesn't mean they don't have a brain or life experiences that relate.
How many PhD holders have you come across who genuinely have that attitude though? Mind I'm happy to admit to my astrophysicist mate I know bugger all about space stuff. What I will admit that with the more I've learnt, the more I realise I don't know. And that's really an interesting and exciting place to be. Even the best brains in the world don't have the answers to everything.
The more we learn,
the more we know.
The more we know,
the more we forget.
The more we forget,
the less we know.
So, why learn?"
This is an awesome question, love it!
For me personally, learning has been a weird thing. I'm dyslexic and from a farming background. So was told at primary school age onwards that I wasn't very bright and I would not succeed. But I loved reading books especially about animals and science. So I kept reading. There was a big dose of fuck you with my initial learning to prove people wrong.
Then eventually I found out I was really good at questioning things, and with that comes having to learn so that I could answer those questions. To me life would be pretty dull without learning something new. But I do appreciate not everyone is like that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This is something that relates to Ailsa and her work. Some science is becoming increasingly politicised. Stray from the general consensus and you risk having your funding pulled. It pushes some research into an echo chamber. Scientists are people too. They don’t generally risk their livelihoods and reputations. This happens a lot with climate science, archeology, physics, and especially within the NHS (slightly different but the same ballpark). Uncomfortable facts get swept under the carpet in favour of what is politically expedient. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Dunning-Kruger effect is very evident. It used to be restricted to Dave down the pub. But now social media is an easy outlet for these people. "
Agree with that.. Self awareness is not popular |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
