I personally think it would be better if you could look at the work as whether it is valid or not--the personalities behind it are really not something we can know as true. If you judge all work by the person behind it you will miss a lot.
-
-
A sign of the times and/or a sign that you have attracted a disproportionate amount of ideological followers. Nuance should be seen as positive tho, I wish more people were willing to piss off their audience in favour of honesty.
-
Are you a liberal lefty? You sound like a liberal lefty. If so, this is all aimed primarily at you.
-
Unsure afte previous confusion if this is aimed at me. If it is, I’d say I’m a centre left person. Certainly not far left.
-
Chris--pro-science, tho, means you cannot scientifically determine motives/agendas/biases of the researchers. Just focus on the research. Let it stand. Is it true?
-
That isn’t what being pro-science means. Of course you address the content of research but you don’t have to blind yourself to the agenda of the researchers. Also, as Helen and others acknowledge the hoax wasn’t science it was activism.
-
Perhaps. I find it as a proof that has raises serious questions.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.