Site Dedicated to Freedom of Speach Bans Dissenting Views

[Audrey]

Oh well, they do have the right to ban anyone they want. It is not a government funded site.
Libs don't want conservatives on their sites and conservatives don't want leftists on theirs. It is like oil and water and
just screws up threads for what ever the task is at the time.
I can understand their reasoning, but there should not be any use of freedom in their descriptions

There are conservative subreddits. I linked an example earlier.

 

[Grunwald]

To be fair, once you've learned how to read peer reviewed research it can be applied to many fields. E.g., I am better at shooting a rifle than I am a pistol, but I can still recognize the I forgot to close bolt on the pistol and that's why my shot did not fire; I understand how a gun works at a basic use level.

Not really. Even though any real scientist has some knowledge base about other scientific disciplines the overwhelming majority of them are not even remotely knowledgeable to weigh in at the expert level.
Do you really think that Mr Chemistry could have a meaningful discussion with Steven Hawking about the latest developments in string theory?

Additionally limiting the discussion to research published in the last 6 months is absurd. What if my best argument is based on something that was published 10 years ago and in all that time no other scientist was able to disprove it?
In mathematics the concept of pi (pie) has been around since at least ancient Babylon. Does not make it any less useful today even though I seriously doubt that there is a research paper on it, much less one with peer review, within the last 6 months.

 

[Audrey]

Not really. Even though any real scientist has some knowledge base about other scientific disciplines the overwhelming majority of them are not even remotely knowledgeable to weigh in at the expert level.
Do you really think that Mr Chemistry could have a meaningful discussion with Steven Hawking about the latest developments in string theory?

You need to reread why I said. I did not suggest that they would have meaningful insight into a discussion on the topic. I said the moderator was equipped with knowledge that readily allowed him to determine if the posted research met subreddit rules criteria. I did not say anything about a chemist being a climatologist's equal in the arena of global warming or climate change; I quite specifically avoided saying that because that is obviously untrue.

Additionally limiting the discussion to research published in the last 6 months is absurd. What if my best argument is based on something that was published 10 years ago and in all that time no other scientist was able to disprove it?

The /r/science subreddit is structured to promote current research. Why? Is that best? I don't know, but that is the rules.

 

[DMax]

You need to reread why I said. I did not suggest that they would have meaningful insight into a discussion on the topic. I said the moderator was equipped with knowledge that readily allowed him to determine if the posted research met subreddit rules criteria. I did not say anything about a chemist being a climatologist's equal in the arena of global warming or climate change; I quite specifically avoided saying that because that is obviously untrue.


The /r/science subreddit is structured to promote current research. Why? Is that best? I don't know, but that is the rules.

Pretty Clear they want to control the outcome to meet there agenda. Period

 

[rufus]

Pretty Clear they want to control the outcome to meet there agenda. Period

Science !

Or what passes for science these days, where science equals consensus, manipulated or not.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

There's a lot of research $$$$$$$$$$ at stake