| > The "mass media" is not one organization. I haven't seen any news reports redefining what science is, feel free to provide evidence of that. You really want to tell me that you never heard something along the lines of "Science says ..." or "the science"? Not buying it. The usage of science in mass media is a different one than the one you want to hammer home. > Finally it's not a game of definitions because science has a specific meaning. You can't just change that meaning (even if you add a captial S) then be critical about it. This is mostly self-soothing I suppose. Just denying reality outright. > You're critical because some organization in the government lied? Nothing to do with science Motte and bailey. You just mean the hard definition. As long as you deny that a soft definition exists, it's a bit hard to argue with you. > You're mad because some scientist committed fraud? Nothing to do with science. You should look up motte and bailey maybe. You seemingly don't know it, but you're playing that fallacy. (Also: stop projecting) > Peer reviewers aren't properly checking papers, that's their fault and or their university/company. Nothing to do with science. So you want to tell me that the actual scientific process in action has nothing to do with science. > If you aren't an expert in a field or willing to put massive amounts of time in researching something but you have to make a decision doing whatever the majority of people in a field say is the most logical course of action Who makes the election of what the majority of people in a field say? That's where the mass media (that is not one organization) comes into play. This is basically The Science™ meme in action. |