Science is a process of acquiring knowledge, jurisprudence of acquiring justice, both of which benefit ALL OF US. Each system deserves reverence and respect because of their value to society. Both invoke fairness of opportunity but no guarantee of result. Some ideas fail in the science arena just like some parties fail in the court room.
Since our best knowledge is reflected in the scientific consensus, we agree to respect that authority. In jurisprudence, we agree to respect the rule of law. Anyone is free to garner consensus for alternate ideas if they think the ideas within the existing consensus are lacking. Simply provide the physical evidence to shift the consensus to the new ideas within the scientific arena. Within the legal system, there are legal appeals processes.
We should all feel profoundly angered when someone tries to weaken or corrupt the integrity of either of these successful and august systems.
If someone tries to convince you the existing scientific consensus is wrong, tell them to take their argument to the scientific arena and garner a new consensus. That person isn't doing so because his idea has either already failed there or isn't worthy of introduction in the first place. If the consensus hasn't been convinced, there's no reason for you to be. You are being victimized.
Conca has yet another blog post which reflects on his lack of scientific integrity. The errors in his blog show he doesn't understand the consensus health physics of the last 60+ years (I posted in the comments as "Anon"). That's not good, but even worse, he shows contempt for scientific enterprise by abdicating his responsibility to support the consensus, even if he doesn't understand it. This is scientific misconduct.
You should be outraged at his attempt to victimize you. Don't temper that outrage just because you pity him for being relegated to a business magazine blog.
If anyone has questions on the scientific consensus, I'll try to explain it, but I won't debate it.
No comments:
Post a Comment