So when attacked for their de facto soft censorship, they fall back on "but I'm just in defense of high standards/rigorous science". You can watch this over and over in peer review where findings in support of disfavored ideas gets various extra scrutiny (e.g. more reviewers).
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Good points Emil. And not just "raised requirements", but more insidiously, a carefully engineered atmosphere where their subjective goalposts can be shifted at will, and we'll accept that without question. . Quite clever actually, but I'm seeing cracks.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
There's been some attempts and discussion, but not as much as needed. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1185/03007995.2011.624090 … https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/01/18/are-science-journals-politically-biased-editor-chief-acs-journal-refuses-discuss … https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663163/ …https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicans …
- 1 more reply
-
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.