[Oarch]

No loss. Whinging about politics and non-mainstream opinions.

Is there genuine curiosity (even dare I say wrongthink) left in the RS or is it just another polite social club for people to gather and feel smug about the consensuses they've formed.

[tristramb]

The Royal Society is important because it is where the UK government go when they need good advice on scientific issues. Many people in the US might think that their government doesn't need good advice on scientific issues but, as they will find out, they are wrong.

[tgma]

If so, why would one automatically assume Musk has the bad advice and the rest of them have good advice? It's awfully ironic as science is literally the process of demonstrating the widely-accepted wisdom (preeminent theory) wrong.

Do you want to take a risk of going down the history as the society who estranged Galileo? Even the haters secretly know that the likelihood of Musk being remembered in history books is higher than a random FRS. In fact, that's likely why they are jealous and eager to write such letters.

[n4r9]

> why would one automatically assume Musk has the bad advice

I don't think any of this is automatic. It's a considered response to the bias that Musk has recently demonstrated when discussing scientific topics.

[dennis_jeeves2]

It's generally the latter.

[mdp2021]

"How do you know" teaches us something; "how do you perceive it" does not.

[gambiting]

>>non-mainstream opinions

It's a society of scientists - why would it admit or tolerate liars? Spreading obviously and easily provable misinformation online isn't "non-mainstream opinion" - it's just lying. Why would that be tolerated?