Just a heads up, our department at uni received a mail saying we should all sign a document stating that we agree with a number of statements in climate change. Eg that it's super bad, we are baddies, orange man bad etc etc.
Now here's the catch : we are chemists. Neither I or any of my colleagues have any knowledge on any of the subjects or statements we are supposed to vouch for.
So next time you see "99% of scientists agree" remember that those are mainly psychologists, woman's studies etc.
I always seen the 99% of scientists agree as a shameless appeal to authority like their entire writing hinges on their agreement instead of being factually correct though the people won't care.
Elijah Allen
Well, you are a chemist and you practice the scientific method so technically you are a scientist. So, they are not doing anything wrong here.
>So next time you see "99% of scientists agree" remember that those are mainly psychologists, woman's studies etc.
Loads of bullshit. The premise does not follow to the conclusion
Justin Hughes
>The premise does not follow to the conclusion Because nothing follows the conclusion. It’s at the end, that’s why it’s called the conclusion.
>you practice the scientific method If I sign a paper claiming the statements are correct without having tested them myself I am a fraud, not a scientist.
Brayden Allen
Do you realize that your average sub 90 IQ American can't even do basic mathematics right? This shameless "appeal to authority" is the best way to convince the average scientifically illiterate person.
Because it's done in good faith most of the time. Imagine if you were talking with some user here about how shills operate or something. Scientists operate in a pretty specific field of research. This is why the 99% of scientists agree about global warming pilpul is so disingenuous. It's like asking all tradesmen if they think you should use a water heater or a heat on demand system for your hot water system.
Joshua Hernandez
Pal review is no longer done in good faith. It's done to get your friends the (((grant money))) they deserve. This is not the 1960s, friend.
Bentley Bennett
Are you going to sign or make a stand?
Matthew Moore
It's more about trust in the community. For example when they put out a statistic claiming "97% consensus on the trend of global warming by climate scientists" it was discarded by climate deniers as "Untrustworthy' as "climatologist are all biased" but I get your point.
Logan Sanchez
>breitbart
JFL
Isaiah Baker
>Thanks I knew what ya meant. I was just poking fun..
Add V.C. to the beginning or the end of your signature, to invalidate it.
Dylan Sullivan
When you can only lie, censor, and manipulate to 'get people to listen', your entire point of view and argument is illegitimate.
Xavier Ross
What does it mean? And not going to sign btw
Nolan Hughes
V.C. is latin for "Vi Coactus" (under duress). It is a secret code that means you were forced to do so, so the signature is invalid. Its presence in a conjoint document could likely invalidate all the rest of signatures.
