When you disagree with science, the answer is to come up with better science — not to prosecute the science you disagree with.
@tristansnell just a minor quibble. Academics might want to go a little interdisciplinary and study modern mass marketing (which uses the same principles as propaganda) because swaying a mass audience is different than teaching students who paid to be in class and need a good grade
@tristansnell Dare I ask - is this a reference to something crazy someone said on the bird app? I haven’t been following what’s going on because it’s genuinely got too toxic / spammy over there.
@Howard Heh. You don't even want to know.
@tristansnell Oh gosh... You know what, I'm glad my friends introduced me to Mastodon lol.

@tristansnell @LarryOgden

I read this as an indictment against ideologs (aka - people who formulate opinions not based in fact, but nevertheless attempt to force this unscientific logic onto others).

Not sure if that's what you were thinking, but I get it either way, and I agree. – #Steeds

@tristansnell Given a choice between the scientific method and a method of madness, I'll take my chances with science. It has a much better track record.
@bluerootsradio @tristansnell or the science that makes you uncomfortable

@plinth @tristansnell

Being uncomfortable can often be solved by understanding the part you don't know at the moment.

@bluerootsradio @tristansnell exactly - or using the procedure to try to reproduce the results.

@tristansnell I do think questions of faith need to be answered before we can ask questions of reason, because faith will determine the reasons we're prepared to accept. Have faith in as few things as possible, but no fewer. And fanaticism is the result of an undersupply of faith, not an oversupply.

Once you've got faith figured out though, yeah, science, math, and philosophy are the way to go.

@tristansnell scientists disagreeing with science is how we get scientific breakthroughs 👍🏻