Rajqawee wrote:I think right now it would apply pretty well to this forum...
On the one hand, it is right on the subject, on the other hand it will perhaps make you discover the chain of this gentleman, which is really nice.
I see speakers, on this forum, who end up leaving "disgusted" for not having been able to "convince" the other.
Rather, rejoice to have interacted with someone who does not have your way of seeing things, it can broaden your horizons!
Rajqawee wrote:I think right now it would apply pretty well to this forum...
On the one hand, it is right on the subject, on the other hand it will perhaps make you discover the chain of this gentleman, which is really nice.
I see speakers, on this forum, who end up leaving "disgusted" for not having been able to "convince" the other.
Rather, rejoice to have interacted with someone who does not have your way of seeing things, it can broaden your horizons!
Science in pandemic mode:
the strange case of the Swiss National COVID-19 Science Task Force
The Swiss National COVID-19 Science Task Force, a group of experts supposed to enlighten decision-makers on the scientific evidence in the coronavirus crisis, continues to enjoy extraordinary visibility and to influence the daily lives of the Swiss in unprecedented ways. A debate on its legitimacy and its role appears more necessary than ever.
Above all, it is high time to take a critical look at the quality of its scientific work.
https://www.re-check.ch/wordpress/fr/sc ... ask-force/
Rajqawee wrote:I think right now it would apply pretty well to this forum...
On the one hand, it is right on the subject, on the other hand it will perhaps make you discover the chain of this gentleman, which is really nice.
I see speakers, on this forum, who end up leaving "disgusted" for not having been able to "convince" the other.
Rather, rejoice to have interacted with someone who does not have your way of seeing things, it can broaden your horizons!
ABC2019 wrote:what is the answer to do?
ABC2019 wrote:- “Luke, I'm Ampere”!
- E12A9C7A-056A-467F-9EB2-4E3D5330D211.gif (788.43 Kio) Consulté 2704 fois
How, from the ravages of tobacco to the denial of climate change, we use science to deny ... science. A dizzying investigation into the black holes of research and information.
Why did it take decades to officially admit that tobacco was dangerous for your health? How to explain that a large part of the population still believes that human activities have no impact on climate change? Are neonicotinoid pesticides really responsible for the excess mortality of bees? Why has the recognition of bisphenol A as an endocrine disruptor only motivated timid bans? Through these "textbook cases" which, from laboratories to social networks, all result from battles planned with millions of dollars and euros, this investigation straddling Europe and the United States reveals the outlines a little-known offensive, yet launched in the 1950s, when research revealed that tobacco was a factor in cancer and cardiovascular accidents. To counter a disturbing truth, because it could lead to increased regulation at the cost of heavy financial losses, the industry then secretly imagines a particular form of disinformation, which is becoming widespread today: to arouse, by financing, among other things, abundantly competing scientific studies, a thick cloud of doubt that feeds controversies and misleads public opinion.
Agnotology
This instrumentalisation of science for deceptive purposes has generated a new discipline of research: agnotology, literally, the science of "producing ignorance". In addition to some of its recognized representatives, including the American historian of science Naomi Oreskes, this investigation gives voice to leading actors in the fight between "good" and "bad" science, including the fascinating "discoverers" of misdeeds. bisphenol A. It thus exposes the hidden mechanisms that contribute to delaying, sometimes by decades, vital decisions, such as rigging protocols, or even the ad hoc manufacture of transgenic rats to guarantee the desired results. Finally, it explains, as close as possible to research, why our so-called "information" societies adapt so well to collective inertia which, in doubt, favors business as usual and unbridled consumption.
Back to "Society and Philosophy"
Users browsing this forum : Macro and 237 guests
