re: When other opinions are not allowed...

Current Events » in reply to When other opinions are not allowed...

re: When other opinions are not allowed...

DL — 5/3/2005 3:22:17 PM (archived)

"The very nature of scientific enquiry for over 400 years is to foster debate and to examine all sides of an issue, not just the ones some agree with."

While true in spirit, scientific standards have always shaped the context and arena of debate. Papers have always stood for review before publication, Scientists have awlays been subjected to Tenure and Promotion review, and not anyone can get up and speak at a conference. Its what makes scientific journals science, and not the Current Events board.

You pretty much shot yourself in the foot the minute you dragged in the word 'Opinion'. You can have opinions about anything you want, but if they are not founded in scientific practice, then they are not worth a hole in the ground- and certainly not worth publication in a journal.

And that doesn't make science Dogma, it makes it not bullshit.

Davin L.

The whole thread (56 posts)

Global warming, a small update. - Tom Brosz - 5/2/2005 6:53:00 AM
- To paraphrase Will Rogers... - Fox - 5/4/2005 4:13:58 PM
  - re: To paraphrase Will Rogers... - Tom Brosz - 5/4/2005 7:26:59 PM
    - No - Tony - 5/4/2005 7:57:31 PM
      - re: No - Tom Brosz - 5/4/2005 9:05:16 PM
- How does one become a science "authority"? - Alan G. Archer - 5/3/2005 12:53:43 PM
  - Science "authority"? See Tech below. (n/t) - alcaray - 5/5/2005 4:17:02 PM
  - Easy - Fox - 5/4/2005 5:15:42 PM
    - No No No! - SDAI-Tech1 - 5/5/2005 11:28:40 AM
      - Yes, I know... - SDAI-Tech1 - 5/5/2005 7:25:37 PM
        
        Can't even post in the right order... ;-) (n/t) - SDT1 - 5/5/2005 7:27:28 PM
      - Out of practice, Tech1? - Fox - 5/5/2005 2:28:41 PM
- BTW... - et - 5/2/2005 4:55:00 PM
  - AH HA... The old "you posted on the wrong webpage" fallacy. - Scott Evil - 5/4/2005 2:34:43 PM
- ...a small warm pile... - et - 5/2/2005 4:47:02 PM
  - When other opinions are not allowed... - Larry J - 5/2/2005 8:46:38 PM
    - Science versus dogma - Tony - 5/3/2005 3:39:09 PM
      - More - Fox - 5/4/2005 2:33:59 PM
      - Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? - Larry J - 5/4/2005 12:23:19 AM
        
        civility isn't your strong suit, is it? - Tony - 5/4/2005 4:24:02 PM
        
        Nor yours... - Larry J - 5/5/2005 12:25:39 AM
        
        Faux outrage at slight that was neither intended, nor in fact, existing - Tony - 5/5/2005 11:12:51 AM
        
        A familiar ring - Fox - 5/4/2005 3:45:51 PM
        
        re: A familiar ring (HTML repaired) - Fox - 5/4/2005 4:19:50 PM
        
        The issue - E.P.Grondine - 5/4/2005 1:27:08 AM
      - Its called 'Gulf War Syndrome' - Davin L - 5/3/2005 4:04:34 PM
    - re: When other opinions are not allowed... - DL - 5/3/2005 3:22:17 PM
    - Science isn't about "opinions". Especially those poorly supported by emperical evidence. - et - 5/3/2005 2:49:48 PM
      - No...But you are the one who is believing in "creationism" here. - Scott Evil - 5/4/2005 2:18:16 PM
        
        You're a nut, and an ignorant one at that. Let's bring this to the science page. (n/t) - et - 5/4/2005 4:45:16 PM
        
        Where is that page? No...really? - SDAI-Tech1 - 5/5/2005 10:51:16 AM
      - Nice try, people. - Tom Brosz - 5/3/2005 4:10:25 PM
        
        re: "The comparison with the creationism flap doesn't stand up for a second." - Fox - 5/4/2005 5:06:14 PM
        
        Fox, look at the percentages. - Tom Brosz - 5/4/2005 7:29:09 PM
        
        Percentages, perschmentages. - Fox - 5/4/2005 10:30:19 PM
        
        Bias. - Tom Brosz - 5/4/2005 10:57:14 PM
        
        Oh, I see now... - Fox - 5/5/2005 1:05:31 AM
        
        Follow the money. - SDAI-Tech1 - 5/5/2005 12:31:15 PM
        
        re: Fox, look at the percentages. - et - 5/4/2005 9:00:29 PM
        
        re: the percentages. - Tom Brosz - 5/4/2005 9:07:55 PM
        
        Read the paper, then we'll talk. - what me frET? - 5/5/2005 2:03:33 AM
        
        I think he was making the argument that Oreske is a rightwing buttmonkey - Scott Evil - 5/4/2005 10:17:39 PM
        
        re: Nice try, Tom. - Tony - 5/3/2005 5:53:11 PM
        
        So what's Oreskes' educational background? - Tom Brosz - 5/3/2005 6:44:01 PM
        
        In case you missed the point, she isn't a climatologist either. Does it matter? (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 5/4/2005 7:30:37 PM
        
        See post below - Tony - 5/4/2005 7:59:00 PM
        
        read the space thread - Tony - 5/3/2005 7:44:04 PM
        
        Wait, there's more! - Sam F. - 5/3/2005 5:21:53 PM
        
        Yes, we're SOOO pathetic..... - et - 5/3/2005 5:01:35 PM
      - Clearly, ET - Davin L. - 5/3/2005 3:17:23 PM
- The Sky is falling! The sky is falling! - A. Leftleaner - 5/2/2005 2:22:16 PM
  - no it isn't - E.P. Grondine - 5/4/2005 1:32:56 AM
    - If you ever talk to my wife that way again the only impactor you'll know will be your face hitting my fist. - Scott Evil - 5/4/2005 2:07:02 PM
      - Trivialize the impact hazard again, and expect more of the same (n/t) - E.P. Grondine - 5/4/2005 7:10:04 PM
      - Aw, come on. She can take him. - et - 5/4/2005 5:05:54 PM
  - No, it's not sinner. - Betty Farrightenstein - 5/2/2005 4:51:30 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (56 posts)