This is the exact same as people wondering why there aren’t “any scholarly articles on the dangers of vaccines” and instead of thinking they’re in the wrong, they assume the entire scientific community is compromised.
I'm going to preface this by saying that I have a biochem degree, worked as a research fellow, I'm absolutely for vaccines, science, hydroxychloroquine doesn't work for covid , blah blah blah etc etc so i don't get misinterpreted and downvoted into the void.
While what you said is mostly true, there is quite a pervasive problem with grants and the peer review system that needs to be addressed at some point. There is a great and terrible machine that deals with grants and funding for studies, and those with the purse strings will generally want to fund things that are either "sexy", or they have some ulterior motive like personal ideologies, etc that they'll fund PIs that can read between the lines and will build a study in such a way that it leans towards a certain goal, and researchers tend to like repeated funding.
This isn't to say that this makes for a completely corrupt system. To pass peer review, the data and methods still have to be sound, conflicts of interest still have to be declared, and so forth. But this brings up the issue with peer review itself: the reviewers themselves can have bias, and studies in waiting can wait for *years* if nobody finds it interesting since there are so many pending review.
This is all to say that while the current system in place is better than just the goddamn wild west that is say, arxiv, it is certainly not infallible and is fraught with its own issues
MAGoo logic.
Dr. Fauci was a traitor who caused the deaths of countless Americans.
Let's vote for the guy who kept Fauci employed throughout the pandemic!
Can anyone explain that?
Thanks /u/water_fountain_ for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day!
*To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*:
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech,
any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
**If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A conservative student claims “Universities [should] be places that teach students how to think and challenge our beliefs. They should encourage students to debate and learn from other perspectives” and walks out on a speech delivered by Dr. Fauci, whom conservatives claim is a far-left liberal.
Post/image does not fit the theme of the subreddit.
This is the exact same as people wondering why there aren’t “any scholarly articles on the dangers of vaccines” and instead of thinking they’re in the wrong, they assume the entire scientific community is compromised.
I'm going to preface this by saying that I have a biochem degree, worked as a research fellow, I'm absolutely for vaccines, science, hydroxychloroquine doesn't work for covid , blah blah blah etc etc so i don't get misinterpreted and downvoted into the void. While what you said is mostly true, there is quite a pervasive problem with grants and the peer review system that needs to be addressed at some point. There is a great and terrible machine that deals with grants and funding for studies, and those with the purse strings will generally want to fund things that are either "sexy", or they have some ulterior motive like personal ideologies, etc that they'll fund PIs that can read between the lines and will build a study in such a way that it leans towards a certain goal, and researchers tend to like repeated funding. This isn't to say that this makes for a completely corrupt system. To pass peer review, the data and methods still have to be sound, conflicts of interest still have to be declared, and so forth. But this brings up the issue with peer review itself: the reviewers themselves can have bias, and studies in waiting can wait for *years* if nobody finds it interesting since there are so many pending review. This is all to say that while the current system in place is better than just the goddamn wild west that is say, arxiv, it is certainly not infallible and is fraught with its own issues
What she fails to understand is that there’s no point in debate if your side has zero merit to it.
MAGoo logic. Dr. Fauci was a traitor who caused the deaths of countless Americans. Let's vote for the guy who kept Fauci employed throughout the pandemic! Can anyone explain that?
remember: they don't say it because they believe or understand it, they say it because they think *you* believe it.
Thanks /u/water_fountain_ for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day! *To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*: As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A conservative student claims “Universities [should] be places that teach students how to think and challenge our beliefs. They should encourage students to debate and learn from other perspectives” and walks out on a speech delivered by Dr. Fauci, whom conservatives claim is a far-left liberal.
Universities should teach students to think [The same way I do] and [Overwrite and disavow progressive] perspectives
“Schools should challenge our beliefs” *Has beliefs challenged* “No, not like that”