2020 Post Election MEGAthread

[hobart]

Originally Posted by douglas1999 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"It was brought to our attention". By who? Are you so incurious you don't care who brought it to their attention, and why? And based on what? People are so enamored and infatuated with scientific jargon. A doofus idiot with no peer review can still be right about something. There are also serious issues with the peer review process, in that a group of people who already have conclusions they want to be true and all agree with eachother peer review eachother's papers. So even if it had the pedigree of peer review, that wouldn't necessarily be meaningful.

Why not actually engage with what is said in the paper, rather than saying "well because of this, I don't have to contend with it at all." while plugging your ears? Give it the benefit of the doubt and actually read what she said. It "has been used" to support "dangerous misinformation". So, other people who are not the author have used it to spread "dangerous misinformation". No specifics at all about what is dangerous or inaccurate, and their gripe isn't even about the paper or the author, but that other people are using it wrongly. Science will never move forward with this kind of paranoid censoring. The vast majority of scientific theories are wrong, the whole point is that they should all be consumed and considered and the right answer eventually teases itself out. Their conclusion that it "spreads dangerous disinformation" could itself be wrong. Maybe it doesn't, maybe it's right. She has serious credentials, it should be seriously considered.

Perhaps it was brought to their attention by someone with more expertise? I assume someone on the faculty?

But let me get this straight... She has her M.A. (probably a policy application degree like mine) and since her point reflects your worldview it needs to be considered? And yet you're so dismissive of actual expertise when it conflicts with your world view.