I know. If fact, I suspect I know a good deal more about the subject than you do. That doesn’t answer the question: Where did you get the idea that this was an important conference?
No, I think I got the point quite well. The point was to deflect criticism of an ideologically driven conference of dubious academic merit by casting the criticism as part of ‘cancel culture’.
Oh, I remember that he’s felt free to disagree with the scholarly consensus in a field in which I am an expert.
Now I’m going to drop this subject and get back to trying to understand why some people get sick with Ebola virus and some don’t.
Oh dear no, sorry. Mainstream scholarship has been coming around to our view on a number of issues.
None of those are considered crackpot ideas anymore, they’re all considered mainstream. So your pathetic tu quoque is irrelevant.
What nonsense.
Yes, challenging them to publish their evidence and have it peer reviewed, as I did. Let me know when you and other ID creationists join that club.
Maybe it’s not an important conference; maybe other conferences on the subject would do a better job. But the reasons given by those who have tried to sabotage it are dangerous ones. That is my point.
Even if that is correct, what is your view on the larger issue raised by the article? Is the “cancel culture” a healthy thing? Are you defending this current tendency? If we are disagreeing only about this one conference, that is fine, but I was trying to raise a larger issue about modern thinking, about the way issues are debated and settled. And I find that on this site there is an alarming willingness to assume that there is nothing to worry about, that there is never any intellectual bullying or tyranny going on anywhere in our universities or our society. It would nice if someone responded to the article, “Well, I’m not sure that this conference is the best way of addressing the problem, but I agree with the author of the article that the problem is a serious one.” But that is never the pattern here. The pattern is always rejection of any criticism of the status quo, on almost any subject whatever.
The question is if this organization is really interested in the reproducibility of scientific studies or is more interested in casting doubt on good science. The same tactic was used by tobacco companies to try and cast doubt on the many scientific studies linking cigarettes to lung cancer, and we are seeing the same tactics being used by groups funded by fossil fuel companies and climate change. In fact, the fossil fuel industry has hired the same PR firms that try to run interference for tobacco companies:
What people are trying to fight back against is corporate propaganda.
I spoke of Christians, not of “mainstream scholarship,” much of which is written by Jews, agnostics, atheists, and other non-Christians. But even granting your point about changes of opinion on some issues, but the religion as a whole is still regarded as crackpot. I don’t see any signs of a large influx of new joiners. Do you? What’s the world population of the sect? Even as large as 100,000?
The people who you see as coming around to your point of view are not becoming Christadelphians. They are remaining what they were before.
The Christadelphians can hardly take credit for originating the doctrine of infant baptism, by the way. It is a widespread doctrine within Protestantism, and has been for centuries, since before Christadelphianism existed. That view is not regarded as “crackpot.”
Which many critics of the climate change consensus have done. And we know from the Climategate emails that some of the defenders of the consensus were kicking around sneaky ways of making sure that critics would not be able to find any journals in which to publish their views. In other words, they were immorally and unprofessionally trying to block professional criticism from their peers from appearing in print.
Citation please. Keep in mind that stopping the publication of flawed papers is not the same as silencing dissent.
For climate change, they get thousands of expert climatologists together to comb through all of the data and work on a consensus opinion.
When you can’t win on scientific merit, play the persecution card.
Judith Curry has as much scientific merit as anyone who wrote the IPCC report. She’s massively published in the area. Plus, she was originally hostile to climate change skeptics, and opposed them. She changed her mind due to evidence. And she, having been on the inside, and knowing full well how she used to think, is aware of the groupthink. That is not “playing the persecution card.” You are using a rhetorical phrasing to obscure the intellectual issue, i.e., that competent experts disagree over the degree of contribution of CO2. But I’m not going to argue global warming here, because there isn’t single friggin’ person here with anywhere near the competence to discuss the models in detail. I’m arguing for a general principle that academic dissent is healthy and that the way to handle it is dialogue with the dissenters. But the worship of consensus here is so great that no one wants to defend that kind of freedom of debate.
And I’m speaking of mainstream scholarship by Christians.
Evidence please.
No I don’t, because people are staying in the groups where they already are, when the beliefs of those groups change. We don’t require people to join us just because they believe the same as we do.
You really aren’t reading me at all. We do not claim to have originated the doctrine of infant baptism. If you had read what I wrote you would have realized we oppose the doctrine of infant baptism. You’re not even trying to read properly.
And their claims have not been found convincing, because they didn’t have the necessary body of evidence to overturn the consensus. So what’s the problem here?
Then why not talk about the science instead of playing the persecution card?
This is:
How do you have dialogue with people who can’t be swayed by evidence? How do you battle corporate propaganda, and the non-scientific community that falls for the propaganda and parrots it in public?
Especially when the nefarious tactics of the AGW deniers and the ID-Creationists are virtually identical.
The IDC community, the AGW deniers, the smoking lobby, they all used the same strategy; teach the controversy. The Holocaust deniers did it first.
Good question. I have presented irrefutable evidence that some ID proponents accept evolution, and some people here are still denying that, or trying to alter the everyday understanding of “evolution” to put themselves in the right and make Denton as anti-evolution as Nelson is. I wish you would take your concern to these people.
The irony is too much.
Maybe if you tried something besides the “Eddie is right because Eddie says Eddie is right” gambit you might have more success getting someone to agree with your assertions.
She does. So does McKittrick, and many others. If you choose to dismiss the technical criticism of competent mathematical modelers, that’s up to you. But it’s scientific disagreement, not ideology, that they have offered.
Why don’t you?