[oxAAAFFB]

Since dang exerts his own political beliefs on other people through his role as a moderator, I will have to censor myself here. Because to do otherwise would be “flame baiting.” And I have to preemptively point out that making a personal attack on a moderator, as this will undoubtedly be interpreted, is not flame baiting.

A certain political group likes to use science like a noun. They say that science says this, science says that. They call anyone who disagrees “anti-science” and “anti-intellectual.” This science baiting is almost worse than when people hunted witches or believed in magic. The science brow-beating crowd is almost Omni-present. And I know for a fact that their mob-style brow beating has caused scientific stagnation by preventing people from investigating politicized topics. It’s like these people don’t understand the difference between someone who strays from the consensus because they have good reason to and people who are just dumb.

I know in my heart that if left to it’s own devices, the brow-beaters would not make any scientific progress. That’s the great irony. They worship the science god. Can’t they see the contradiction there?

[cycomanic]

Your post does not really say anything, so it is somewhat difficult to know what exactly you're talking about. However the way this is written is very similar to the usual globalwarming sceptics, skin color intelligence crowd etc.. The general argument is always "we are just questioning the status quo, just want to look at all angles..." the reason why these positions are being called anti-scientific is because they are always politically motivated and try to prove this political ideology, while at the same time ignoring any counterevidence.

Similar to the documentary of those flat earth guys that try to disprove the earth is round, but all results show that it in fact is, so they dismiss their own evidence. That is what is unscientific.

[oxAAAFFB]

Name a single group of skeptical dissenters who you think are right. You can’t. But science is always proving itself wrong and just as it has always been, groups of dissenters will overtake the people who preside over convention, scientifically. So which one is it? Is science “finished?” Has everything been figured out or are you just not able to differentiate between dumb people and legitimate dissenters, as I pointed out above?

[jfoutz]

11186171, so I can't say I agree with every point, at the risk of feeding a troll, I have some suggestions and observations. Take them as free advice, which is, of course, worthless. An opening statement of calling out the mods is never going to be successful. You're cranky and it feels good, but I think deep down you know it's not an effective tactic. I think in this case you're trying to be even handed, that's admirable, but even acknowledging the existence of mods is a faux pas. A lawyer does not address the judge. The judge is there, the lawyer should address the jury. I understand you may not like it, but that's how it is. much like code can't escape the type checker, there are meta-rules to follow. The vague intonation of "certain political group" is a bit confusing. It winds up being something like soothsaying. Take a stand, say what you mean. Anyway, I think we only learn things from mistakes. Science is nothing more than a huge collection of mistakes. Or perhaps, cookbooks for avoiding those mistakes. I'll go with Edward Gemming here, "In god we trust, all others must bring data". You got a good reason, you can prove it, or at least show current models don't reflect reality, or you're dumb. I can get on board with that system. Perhaps, hell probably, some worship science as though it were a god. There are always crackpots. Bring your data, fix the model.

[cycomanic]

Just wanted say that your reply is much better than mine. You just engaged with what the person said, without interpreting the insinuations (like I did). Thanks!

[oxAAAFFB]

I feel personally wronged by people who stagnate science. I have medical problems that fall through the cracks because of it. I have suffered immensely because of it. Tons of people have I bet. I feel so personally wronged. If it weren’t for that, why would I ever bother caring about this? I wouldn’t have so much venom for slackjaws otherwise...

[christophilus]

There’s truth to what you say, but prefixing it with a comment about dang is unnecessary and detracts from your point. I think almost all of us here are sympathetic to and appreciative of dang, so your opening remark does not appeal to me, and thus puts me on the defense against the rest of your comment.

[oxAAAFFB]

Fair and true

[AlexTWithBeard]

This "political group" does science a huge disservice.

At different points in history, different political groups were stuffing their ideas down people's throats claiming it all is based on science, religion or bright ideals of democracy as given to us by the founding fathers.

More often than not it was bullshit. What a pity!

[EDIT: slightly reworded]