After all, what is a scientific theory but, to put it most simply, a scientific consensus about the best current explanation for a natural phenomenon? Here’s the original post, for reference. 4/https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/hostility-towards-scientific-consensus-a-red-flag-identifying-a-crank-or-quack/ …
-
Show this thread
-
Of course, questioning the consensus is often necessary in science. Indeed, it is critical to scientific advancement. 5/
1 reply 0 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
However, there is a huge difference between questioning a current consensus and producing the data and experimental evidence to show that there is a real scientific reason to question it, and JAQing off about science. 6/
1 reply 2 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
Raising spurious or already answered questions about a scientific finding or theory one doesn’t like, belongs to the province of cranks and denialists, like creationists, antivaxxers, quacks, and climate science denialists. 7/
1 reply 2 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
When you have an actual scientifically valid reason, based on science, evidence, experimentation, and observational evidence, to think that the current scientific consensus about something is in error, then it is appropriate to challenge the scientific consensus. 8/
2 replies 1 retweet 25 likesShow this thread -
When you don’t, then it isn’t. Guess which category antivaxxers, creationists, quacks, and climate science deniers fall into? 9/
1 reply 0 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
Basically, you have the “right” to “challenge” any scientific consensus you like, but scientists are under no obligation to take you seriously if you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. 10/https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/on-the-right-to-challenge-a-medical-or-scientific-consensus/ …
2 replies 2 retweets 28 likesShow this thread -
Think of it this way: What’s more likely to be closer to the truth, a scientific consensus based on mountains of evidence, or the rantings of an antivaxxer, creationist, quack, or climate science denier? 11/
2 replies 1 retweet 33 likesShow this thread -
I’ll conclude with a quote from Michael Shermer: “For every Galileo shown the instruments of torture for advocating scientific truth, there are a thousand (or ten thousand) unknowns whose ‘truths’ never pass scientific muster with other scientists.” 12/12
2 replies 0 retweets 30 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @gorskon
I'll remind a quote by Carl Sagan: "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yep. I was going to use that one too, but I thought the Shermer quote more appropriate, even at the risk of taking some heat for quoting him.
-
-
That was a bad decision. There must be dozens of people who said similar things.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.