Comments on: Bad Faith Criticism of Science

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:09:17 +0000

The consensus. Of science. So the term is like “junk science” or “real science”.

By: Desertphile

Desertphile — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 13:53:52 +0000

In reply to Kay Brown. This attack on consensus science.... Okay, I will ask. What is "consensus science?"

By: Kay Brown

Kay Brown — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 03:51:00 +0000

This attack on consensus science, with strong evidence, using the Serengeti Strategy (great simily) occurs in the most unexpected places. It occurs when the implications of the science are unwelcome by a group sophisticated enough to attempt to use the normal mechanisms of science and academia to its own, unethical end. We usually think of this coming from monied or traditionally privileged interests. But it can and does come from the tranditionally unempowered, if they feel what power and previlege they do have is threatened by the science and its implications, should they have been lying to obtain that previlege, howeer meager. This is what happened ten years ago in the transgender community, when a university professor wrote a book aimed at the general reader, explaining the growing evidence for a two type taxonomy for male-to-female transsexuals, which had been known and largely accepted in the sexology community for decades. That professor was singled out for the Serengeti attack by a small group of very sophisticated “activists” as a way of intimidating both the scientific community, and other transfolk, into silence, lest the public learn of the implications of this well replicated science. Its a chilling tale. And one that every scientist and academic should know: https://sillyolme.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/what-the-next-wave-of-transgender-activists-need-to-know/

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 18:18:47 +0000

I do see what you are saying, Andy. You are still missing the point. You are missing two points. One is about what I think of it all (and no I won’t explain it again, you’ll just never know that I suppose) The other is that the Serengeti strategy is about going after mainstream consensus science by attacking key individuals. Soon is not a key individual in any arena, and he is not practicing mainstream science. He is a kook. In this case he is a kook who has left himself open to criticism for his ethics. This is about criticizing his ethics. It is appropriate to do that.

Personally, as I’ve said, I don’ think this is something to get fired over. Having said that, it is also true that petitions are not dictum. The authorities in charge, however, will be able to use it if so moved, so maybe that is a good thing. If I had written the petition I would have called for “investigating” rather than whatever word they used (they did not say “fire” but they said something like that).

Andy, you are trying to make a false equivalence here. And, frankly, the petition is the kind of action that asks for that inadvertently.

By: Andy Mac

Andy Mac — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 17:26:30 +0000

Yup, read them both. You really don’t see the issue with talking about attacking individuals in this article, and attacking an individual scientist in your petition promotion?

Ah=gain, my irony metre is flashing and making quite loud noises.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 01:40:52 +0000

In reply to Andy Mac. First, as I have expressed, i have mixed feeling about calling for firing people. (And i don't take it very seriously btw.) But more importantly, please do read the text you are comparing. On one hand we have attacks on science, and attacks on scientists for the science they do. that is wrong. On the other hand we have a scientist clearly violating ethics, entirely aside from his rather bad science. That you don't see that easily discerned distinction suggests that you only skimmed the posts. Or only read the titles, perhaps.

By: Brainstorms

Brainstorms — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 00:55:04 +0000

The 1% got the dividend. The rest of us got the shaft. Of course!

By: Desertphile

Desertphile — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 00:43:41 +0000

In reply to Craig Thomas. I often think of the trillions spent on Iraq and imagine the amazing benefits that would have ensued had that money been spent on something (or many things) worthwhile. Remember the "peace dividend" that Reagan-Bush1 promised us? What ever happened to that?

By: Brainstorms

Brainstorms — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 00:30:27 +0000

It’s worse than that: After spending trillions *destroying* things, there’s the need to spend trillions more to *rebuild* in the wake of the rubble.

The 100’s of thousands of lives that were lost can never be restored. Think of what humanity has lost because of this “family war”…

By: Craig Thomas

Craig Thomas — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 00:18:18 +0000

I’m with you Desertphile, I often think of the trillions spent on Iraq and imagine the amazing benefits that would have ensued had that money been spent on something (or many things) worthwhile.