Hacker News Reader

Scientific discourse is based on the assumption that all parties have the basic reading comprehension to look at the primary data.

I'm not really worried about creationism or climate stabilism competing given those conditions. And if those aren't the conditions, it's not scientific discourse.

View on HN

Others are not so discerning in what they think is scientific discourse.

If anyone who feels that way would like to suggest a neologism for the sort of discourse I describe, I'd be open to using it - I do feel the term 'scientific discourse' has been watered down a fair bit.

My point wasn't that I necessarily have a different view on what scientific discourse is; my point was that someone who is less discerning might see a discussion of one of the views you listed and see valid scientific discourse.

The issue is not that scientists, or discerning non-scientists, will take those views seriously, it's that others might (or will, or do). Hence the issue is not with defining scientific discourse, it's with educating a population to be able to apply that definition (or formulate their own functional individual ones).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com