On Wednesday, 11 March 2020 at 20:30:12 UTC, Anonymous wrote:
to all the people dogpiling the responses against Era's point
of view:
the reason there is not more dissent, whether here or in other
respectable forums (eg scientific research in general), is
purely because of social mechanics (ostracization of
dissenters) - not the inherent unassailable truthfulness of the
apparent consensus point of view. when contrary information is
personally and professionally radioactive, is it a wonder
nobody wants to associate themselves with it?
but here, as in so many elsewheres, "this is not the place."
I'm already pushing the boundary with this meta-post containing
no specific assertions, and will almost certainly put Mike in
the unfortunate position of having to put his foot down in this
thread (sorry Mike).
I'm just pointing out that, anywhere that people's real life
identities are tied to what they are saying, there will be an
artificial consensus around safe, socially sanctioned
viewpoints. so you all essentially get an unrestricted platform
to say "lol we're so informed and naysayers are tinfoil-hat
nutters," but if somebody made a good-faith effort to respond
to any of your points, messages would start getting deleted and
the thread would be locked. and far from exceptional, that
happens EVERYWHERE.
I don't expect any of you /respectable, rational/ people to
read it, but for the shy dissenters among us, here's a short
little essay on the circularity of scientific peer review (I am
not the author):
https://www.reddit.com/r/accountt1234/comments/5umtip/scientific_circular_reasoning/
What, you're saying continents can move and that there's no
phlogiston and no ether around? Dinosaurs did not gradually
disappear and washing ones hands could avoid childbed fever? and
that stomach ulcer are of bacierial origin?
Heretic, to the pyre.
More seriously: these were all examples of career killing
"consensus scientific truths"™ that have been slowly showed to be
not that truthful (after a lot of funerals).
So, a little bit of caution on the consensus opinion is required,
especially if that consensus enables billion/trillion big
industries (global warming, pharmacology, etc.).
