[berdon]

You’re calling a scientific article unscientific? I think there’s a difference in not liking the direction or application of science and whether something is science or not.

Edit: Hm, the article is more of a summary/fluff piece. But I still think your argument is more appropriately disagreeing with the direction of science than it is a lack of the application of science.

[onthecanposting]

What makes something scientific are falsifiable statements supported by careful observation and tests in controlled conditions. Not titles. Not affiliation with institutions. Recognition by the press or government is irrelevant to the truth value of research.

I think the whole scientific edifice is or is about to become a bad caricature of the medieval Catholic Church, and is just as in need of a Martin Luther to remind everyone that integrity and a return to principals is long overdue.

[bugglebeetle]

This is a somewhat ironic analogy, as Martin Luther was a deranged anti-Semite who called for the mass dispossession and murder of Jews. So, as about as irrational as the church he criticized. Protestant factions subsequently won a Europe-wide war, so he’s not remembered this way in the popular consciousnesses, but this is exactly the kind of person I would expect to decry the “scientific edifice.”

[onthecanposting]

That your only criteria for judging a historical figure is whether or not he's an unconditional supporter of your favorite ethnic group doesn't come off as very objective.