• Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    4 months ago

    You have an ideological viewpoint that says that all people with a certain identity are wrong. And you present yourself as moral.

    You sound like a fundamentalist, to me.

    • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      I interpreted it as “You hold beliefs that directly contradict the work you’re performing, therefore, you have a bias that needs to be shown wasn’t a factor in your research by having your research successfully replicated by those who do not share your bias.”

      A Crusade was never launched on behalf of science, people were never burned at the stake because of science, babies are not still being mutilated at birth against their will (circumcision or genital mutilation of young girls) because of science, and AIDs was not spread unchecked across the world due to government’s lack of science.

      It’s religion, it ruins literally everything, especially science.

      • HauntedCupcake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I’m a strong atheist, but you’re kinda pick and choosing the facts. Skepticism isn’t about replacing one dogma with another.

        China had a whole thing with persecuting those with religious beliefs. It’s certainly the minority, but state enforced atheism has created great horrors. Anything can be warped and disfigured into a horrific belief system used to justify anything.

        Those who are religious should be held to the same level of scientific scrutiny as everyone else. There’s no evidence to show that Andrew Wakefield was Christian, and look at the shit show that caused

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t read it as saying they’re wrong. I read it as saying it’s unreliable. If someone has a cacaine addiction, I’m not going to trust them to hold on to some crack and not use it. If they can prove themselves reliable then they may be trusted.

      I don’t think I agree with this person’s opinion, but it’s not what you said it was.

      • TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I think a better way to phrase that might be: I’m not going to trust a cocaine addict who tells me that cocaine is a safe and healthy alternative to my morning cup of coffee. I would like to see those findings peer reviewed and replicated by people that don’t have a vested interest in making access to cocaine easier.