Jetflag
Elite Member
- Jul 17, 2020
- 2,757 Posts
- 2,196 Thanked
Except that. In lange’s case from what I can tell (trying to stay away from twitter as much as possible) he doesn’t question the scientific methodology.Ooooh that autocorrect is gold!! I’ve had my fill of anti this and anti that with no evidence whatsoever. I face it a lot as an expert in my field. If these nutters turn their own lens on themselves you’d think they’d evaluate their BS as exactly that, but they don’t, because they decided their view then gone searching for ‘evidence’ to support it, and guess what?? Found it in other nutters unsubstantiated ramblings on the internet. The first time I found myself defending peer reviewed science against ‘google’ was pretty worrying. The biggest issue here is it’s not ok to let these people have the loudest voice and start to influence the narrative. The truth is that which is established scientifically, by questioning and testing until satisfactory based on an agreed set of rules, and is testable by multiple independent analyses returning the same result (we do this as a species). And, critically, remains testable and up for scrutiny. In the first paper I got published I made it REEEEEALLY clear what I did and didn’t know for certain, to promote questions and further work. Once we question that method, we are fucked
he questions what comes after
so policies, implementations, corporate speak, hitpieces etc. Many of which (intentionally) misinterpret said peer reviewed research to push a corporate or political agenda.
a great fairly innocent example of this that you might like as a fellow space nerd is the whole shitstorm regarding the Alcubierre paper
Scientific conclusion of the paper:
- it is, within the bounds of general/special relativity mathematically possible to go ftl.
the press (and even nasa)
- STAR TREK WARPSPEED TRAVEL TO OTHzeR PLANETS POSSIBLE WITHIN FEW DECADEs!!!!
(facepalm)
and this is basically why we can’t have nice things.
Not only is a lot of most published research wrong post hoc... People with vested interest will abuse said papers for their own gain without going through the motion of actually checking or understanding said paper. This goes for both “nutters” and “institutionalists”
Last edited: