Hacker News Reader

Comment by stillbourne | Hacker News Reader

You miss the point. "Scientists" literally lied about the nutritional issues, as well as the smoking. They were "bought off" by companies. Now, I'm sure you have 100% confidence that the "current administration" is 100% by the book and honest in all of their dealings. While, you might have had less than 100% confidence that the previous administration was. My point? You trust one group, but not another. I might trust the other, not your group. These "groups" (I mean political, business, whatever is controlling the narrative) will lie, cheat and steal to get "their" agenda across.

That last point is 100% undeniable!!! History has absolute clarity that political forces will force the narrative to their desired viewpoint, and say what you will, deny that to your own peril and ignorance.

So, do I "trust the science?". I have an MSEE (not a scientist, but educated). I trust the science, I just don't trust who controls the narrative, and historically this has a larger affect on what "science" concludes, than, uh, the actual science.

So, be as ignorant to the forces that control the narrative as you like. I'll remain skeptical, and look at both sides.

Oh, and, when the "forces that control the narrative" decide they must censure "one side", I'm hella suspicious of that.

Major Kudos to the Brits for recognizing this. Most sane thing I've heard out of anyone in a while.

My statement was made without position on politics nor did I mention an administration or my own personal predilection to a given affiliation. Believe it or not I voted for George W Bush. But you might want to be careful before you drown in that pool of hypocrisy you just waded into. You see in our country there is this little thing called the first amendment, and while science journals have governing bodies they are not in the purview of the governed. There is nothing to say that what anyone prints is true, your party made sure of that when they eviscerated the fairness doctrine. Additionally, science journals and businesses paying for printing articles is a tradition as old as time and one that respectable science journals have worked around using a system of rating known as impact factor. Far be it from me to inform you that pay for play journalism is one of the factors that lead to bad ratings from the scientific community. However, everyone is entitled to a free press and that includes pay for play shady journals owned by big tobacco. But do NOT lay the blame for that at the feet of science. We've done what we can to ensure journalistic integrity by rates and measures and its not a perfect system but we're not and have not been willfully pushing misinformation out the door. Pay for play is, has been, and will continue to be a blight on science literature because we do live in a society that has freedom of the press. Anyone is entitled to print anything regardless of factual content. Respectable scientific journals at least have a system in place to punish those who abuse the system. So at least educate yourself on the basis of journal integrity while you reply to my comment on a machine that was built entirely on the edifice of science.

I'm not a Christian, but how life emerged is not something that experimental science will ever be able to answer. It's literally outside the domain of science.

Abiogenesis is a burgeoning field with a lot of data and several answers even without a full understanding of the entire field or a concrete holistic answer we can still say with full confidence that it didn't involve magic words spoken only 6000 years ago. We can at least say that with confidence.

Is it though? https://www.npr.org/2021/12/01/1060027395/robots-xenobots-li...

> using frog cells

Yep. Not to discredit their work obviously. Hopefully some good can come out of it for medicinal purposes.

How come atheists always forget to capitalize proper nouns?

And which one was that?

You're supposed to capitalize the names of books (e.g. "Bible").

Reply on news.ycombinator.com