ITT: People who didn't read the quote or watch the video to get context and are lambasting Nye over the OP's blatant misrepresentation.
ITT: People who didn't read the quote or watch the video to get context and are lambasting Nye over the OP's blatant misrepresentation.
You do realize most scientific journals require a subscription. And that as a student or professor you usually get free or reduced prices on them. If you've got a high paying job, $32 isn't worth much. It's worth less than the amount of time you've spent being obtuse in this thread.
I'm not going to re-read all of the posts in this thread in order to prove you wrong. The burden of proof lies squarely on your shoulders to back up that claim.
However I will quote the only post by PRE 9-11 in this thread that conclusively says anything about his opinion that people should be jailed.
Emphasis mine.
It's pretty clear what his opinion is on who should be jailed and why, and contrary to your claim, it has nothing to do with a person's "beliefs".
It seems that out of everyone that has posted, only a handful of people have actually read the article and what Bill Nye actually said.
- - - Updated - - -
The reason isn't that they were wrong. The reason is that they were knowingly spreading false information. Are you unable to understand the difference between those two scenarios?
Originally Posted by spinner981
Such a measure would only empower and solidify "Denial Fraudsters" and their followers. Just as similar measures have solidified Holocaust deniers and antisemitism.
For everyone else there is the peer review process.
EDIT: Oh and growing the fuck up and understanding that even though not every debate ends with anybody necessarily changing their minds about anything it is important for those debates to happen none the less. Especially if one side appears to be talking out their ass. That's important too.
I'm completely okay with that as well. Anyone who is deliberately falsifying data on something this important should very much be punished, as what they're doing is potentially harming everyone on the planet. Doubly so since the only people who stand to gain from lying about it are those trying to save money, which makes it downright criminal. It's just a shame that even if that did come about, it would only be the sleazy scientists who were punished rather than the fat cats who bribed/intimidated them into doing so.
This right here is an example of why people are anxiously awaiting collapse.
To drag litte worm Marxists into the street and shoot them in the face. To rid the US of the same types that brought about Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Castro, and Hitler.
Im not saying that I agree but this type of mindset grows the scary reaction.
.
The thing is, these individuals value the payout rather than science, therefore the peer review process really doesn't matter to them.
The current holdout against climate change and vaccinations are a prime example where peer review process would not stop certain portions of the populace from believing false information.
Originally Posted by spinner981
Not entirely correct - he also suggested that people using "extreme doubt" should be jailed, because are they reducing the quality of life of public citizens. That suggests that the discomfort of hearing troubling things (like "we are destroying the environment") is in itself punishable.
It might be that he meant that the climate deniers (similarly as part tobacco lobby) should be jailed for (knowingly) spreading lies - but he didn't make that clear. If he meant that they should be charged because of the environmental effects indirectly caused by climate deniers he wouldn't have to state that he is a public citizen - because actual damage is a crime even if the victim isn't a citizen.
When I hear the words "extreme doubt" I don't think of climate-deniers, but of philosophers - like Cartesius and Socrates, and allegedly the latter caused discomfort among the public citizens by spreading doubt about the knowledge of others and was executed for that.
Because the peer review process is garbage. Anybody with an internet connection and a few hundred dollars to spare can create a certified online science journal and have their papers published.
I don't believe anything.
I don't believe in vaccination, or non vaccination.
I think climate change is neither real nor not real.
Because there's nothing to go on. It's all broken. It's all fucking broken. I have to pour through all kinds of boring papers and rely on my paltry high 130s IQ to be my guiding light if I want to believe anything.
The whole money in science argument is logically bunk and morally hollow though. There's money on the public end of science too. So if an oil company funds a research project that turns out in their favor it's no different morally than a scientist accepting a public grant to do research on combating climate change.
Again, it doesn't matter who the fuck funds a research project if there is an unbiased and unified world wide peer review process for it to undergo.
Here's a sample system that would work:
Paper submitted to international body for review. It is tagged based on relevant scientific discipline.
Professors in those disciplines must review X number of papers every year to keep credentials.
Paper receives up to 5 stars for getting thumbs up. (Dependent upon ratio of thumbs up)
Thus every scientific paper is rated out of 5.
So there you go. You have a big debate. "I have a 2 star paper that says This." "Oh yeah, well here's 3 five star papers that say otherwise".
Boom. You can add that up and quantify who has the best argument without even needing to listen to scientific crapola you don't understand.