@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Ignorance would be preferable to what they're doing, which is creating their own paranoid nonsense.
It's like if the Inquisition hadn't just forced Galilleo to recant but they'd also made him rip up his work on ballistics and denounce the telescope as some sort of underground listening machine.
If what you're complaining about is the critiques of science being abused as a political tool, that is the fault of the all the academicians who turned higher education from a place where diverse ideas and opinions could flourish and communicate critically to being a massive group-think-tank for liberal ideology construction and propagation.
Science is good when it's value-neutral or when it is conscious and explicit enough of its own values and interests to question them; but when it becomes part of a large-scale business plan to replace coal with nuclear power, you can tell because there's no discussion of any climate solutions that don't involve economic stimulus.
In other words, you can clearly see that academic science is funded by the government, and that government knows it gets funding by stimulating growth and taxing it, so no one is objective about admitting their biased toward marketing new technologies and against cutting wasteful/unsustainable technology where that reduces economic growth.
