Questioning the orthodoxy, forming hypotheses and testing them is not the domain of the Church of Science. It is the domain of the scientific method. There are many topics people are not allowed to research and question, precisely because the Church of Science has caused a state of perception and thinking in people that makes them rabid defenders of the orthodoxy, shouting down any dissenting opinions or inquiries.
I have seen it referenced before, but never bothered to read it. It was a good read. I was trying to describe what he described so well, in 12 pages. "Consensus science" as he describes it is the "Church of Science."
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
8 comments
9 cannibaloxfords 2016-04-08
Of course they deleted because it creates the "anti-gmo" argument against their precious non-toxic glyphosate
2 [deleted] 2016-04-08
[deleted]
3 cannibaloxfords 2016-04-08
/ s
4 911bodysnatchers322 2016-04-08
Science is what popular opinion of people who don't actually know or understand science think it is. Duh!
4 thinkB4Uact 2016-04-08
Questioning the orthodoxy, forming hypotheses and testing them is not the domain of the Church of Science. It is the domain of the scientific method. There are many topics people are not allowed to research and question, precisely because the Church of Science has caused a state of perception and thinking in people that makes them rabid defenders of the orthodoxy, shouting down any dissenting opinions or inquiries.
3 Sjwpoet 2016-04-08
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf Read this when you get a chance. Incredible essay that sheds light on what's wrong with "science" today. Ignore the title, it's misleading.
1 thinkB4Uact 2016-04-08
Thanks for posting that.
I have seen it referenced before, but never bothered to read it. It was a good read. I was trying to describe what he described so well, in 12 pages. "Consensus science" as he describes it is the "Church of Science."
3 ragecry 2016-04-08
Heh I know /u/TheYogi ... nice to see he's still kicking the hornets nest. Of course /r/science is compromised. They're likely drinking the RoundUp.
0 AutoModerator 2016-04-08
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
3 Sjwpoet 2016-04-08
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf Read this when you get a chance. Incredible essay that sheds light on what's wrong with "science" today. Ignore the title, it's misleading.