Difference between revisions of "Talk:Scientific fascism"
From Conservapedia
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:As a personal term a Senator came up with as a sound byte for his planned speech or protest, is this worth making an actual article out of? Personally I feel it comes off as a little anti-science. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 08:38, 9 December 2009 (EST) | :As a personal term a Senator came up with as a sound byte for his planned speech or protest, is this worth making an actual article out of? Personally I feel it comes off as a little anti-science. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 08:38, 9 December 2009 (EST) | ||
::It just might be that, which is why I asked for examples of similar incidents outside of Climategate. But I think it would be a dis-service to science in general not to expose these allegations. Imagine if an astronomer has found evidence to confirm a certain theory, and someone else tries to stop him from publishing the data or sharing his views with others. I think scientists - whether we disagree with them or not - should be free to do their work and publish their data without being hampered or restricted by anyone. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:04, 9 December 2009 (EST) | ::It just might be that, which is why I asked for examples of similar incidents outside of Climategate. But I think it would be a dis-service to science in general not to expose these allegations. Imagine if an astronomer has found evidence to confirm a certain theory, and someone else tries to stop him from publishing the data or sharing his views with others. I think scientists - whether we disagree with them or not - should be free to do their work and publish their data without being hampered or restricted by anyone. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:04, 9 December 2009 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::Oh I agree that going public about allegations of inappropriately is appropriate (as long as people remember that one is innocent until proven guilty), I am just not happy with the phrase in general, although as a sound byte I am not surprised at its use, as that's politics. I think everyone agrees that someone's research on their hypothesis should stand or fall based on the quality of their research and evidence. Fortunately even if someone may be quashed initially when actually having the evidence that a theory is right (or wrong), others will produce the same results and come to the same conclusions over time, because real evidence itself cannot lie, and eventually those who stand in the way will be discredited when that evidence becomes too overwhelming. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 17:41, 9 December 2009 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 22:41, December 9, 2009
For the record, this is a personal term created by a Congressman within the past couple of weeks, which means it's probably going to be considered opinion unless there are other examples of scientists engaging in this sort of behavior beyond Climategate. In my opinion on the subject, there has to be the application of some form of force, intimidation, or coercion by one group upon another to be considered scientific fascism. Any thoughts? Karajou 02:30, 9 December 2009 (EST)
- As a personal term a Senator came up with as a sound byte for his planned speech or protest, is this worth making an actual article out of? Personally I feel it comes off as a little anti-science. --BMcP 08:38, 9 December 2009 (EST)
- It just might be that, which is why I asked for examples of similar incidents outside of Climategate. But I think it would be a dis-service to science in general not to expose these allegations. Imagine if an astronomer has found evidence to confirm a certain theory, and someone else tries to stop him from publishing the data or sharing his views with others. I think scientists - whether we disagree with them or not - should be free to do their work and publish their data without being hampered or restricted by anyone. Karajou 14:04, 9 December 2009 (EST)
- Oh I agree that going public about allegations of inappropriately is appropriate (as long as people remember that one is innocent until proven guilty), I am just not happy with the phrase in general, although as a sound byte I am not surprised at its use, as that's politics. I think everyone agrees that someone's research on their hypothesis should stand or fall based on the quality of their research and evidence. Fortunately even if someone may be quashed initially when actually having the evidence that a theory is right (or wrong), others will produce the same results and come to the same conclusions over time, because real evidence itself cannot lie, and eventually those who stand in the way will be discredited when that evidence becomes too overwhelming. --BMcP 17:41, 9 December 2009 (EST)
