Hacker News Reader

Comment by fwungy | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Of course there's ideology on all sides - almost everything we do is informed by one or more ideologies. The real question is which ideology is correct, or at least more correct? There's one side, which seems to rely on tenuous arguments based on poor interpretations of select evidence, or the other, which is based on a massive expert consensus centered on a mountain of evidence which all seems to lend itself to a single general conclusion. And then there's people like you, whose refusal to meaningfully engage is very convenient for continuing the status quo, a position that suits the first side just fine.

Unfortunately what we learned in the pandemic is that "science" is a thing that happens behind closed doors and is then forced down the public's throat without allowance for public discussion or dissent.

Good science can stand questions and discussion, that's how it's done. Given anthropogenic climate change is a real factor there are a lot of possible courses of response to it. Shutting down conversation by shaming is not going to build trust, and trust is vital for a meaningful climate change response.

Add to that the fact that 30% of physics and chemistry can't be replicated.

Science is not an unbiased and altruistic endeavor these days.

It's not surprising the sugar industry funded science demonizing fat, cigarette companies "proved" that they didn't cause cancer, etc

Reply on news.ycombinator.com