Some of the loudest Proponents of Science — an identity moreso than a descriptor — are scientifically illiterate. If you say stuff like "there's a consensus in the field" or "this has been established for 50 years," and can't go any deeper than that, you're just chanting doctrine
Do you actually believe that it's irrelevant how the consensus around a spherical Earth came to be accepted, or are you just trolling? Serious question
-
-
I’m actually skeptical of the “cholesterol consensus”, as an example. It just seems people are throwing out all science nowadays, and using “skepticism” as an excuse
-
Is it not the case, then, that you can evaluate the means by which a consensus was reached on the shape of our planet and the means by which consensus was reached on various nutritional claims, and conclude — accepting fallibility, ofc — that one is stronger than the other?
- 5 more replies
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.