But doesn’t the fact that Nature was willing to publish criticism of methods and that the authors were (probably) not accused of being “tools of the right” (and worse) for doing so just demonstrate James’ assertion that the sciences are more self-regulating and falsifiable?
-
-
I don't call for a ban, and have explicitly argued against doing so in various venues. Most of my work presents moral arguments that I hope people will find persuasive. I'm not sure what measure you are using for 'winning this argument' though I must say
-
It’s just as well you don’t call for a ban, shall we say.
-
I'm really not sure what this comment as saying ... it feels vaguely threatening, but perhaps I am misreading it
-
Your argument would be much weaker if you did call for a ban, but as it is the moral arguments are probably only persuasive to people who are half-way to being on your side already (like me).
-
That is precisely the audience I am writing for; I have no illusions that I'll somehow convert every last person to my point of view; I am also always willing to reconsider & adjust my point of view in response to those who disagree with me (as I have done iteratively over time)
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.
