room topic changed to Scientists March on Washington: About marching to support responsible application of science to government. scientistsmarchonwashington.com (no tags)
Twitter: @ScienceMarchDC Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1862739727343189/ Reddit: /r/scientistsmarch To help: https://goo.gl/forms/zAdY02dBEz3Ykii42
@kimholder I like the concept. But I cringed when I saw the sentence "There are certain things that we accept as facts with no alternatives." That's not really how science actually works. A good scientist is always questioning accepted explanations, always looking for discrepancies. This is how science advances.
@kimholder Actually I would recommend people don't fill out the form with all their personal information and send it off to this anonymous site until it looks a little less urgent and rushed. The writer does not seem to understand how science actually works, and spends time explaining that the site has grammatical errors (there are several) instead of just taking 5 seconds to fix them. It looks almost fake to me.
@uhoh I'm not sure how that sentence could be rewritten. What they seem to be saying is that global warming and evolution are real, and they aren't going to give equal time to alternative theories. In the United States, giving equal time to other ideas about how life arose, particularly ones inspired by religion, is a real battle in some states.
Equally, there is an ongoing drive to discredit the science of global warming. There are some reasonable voices who say more data needs to be collected in order to understand how the climate will react to the increase in greenhouse gasses. But the issue is that there are people who want to say the whole thing should be reexamined, and want to use that to buy time and cast doubt.
I can see your point that it could be said better, something that reflects the open mind, without including the deluded mind.
@kimholder Oh I know all of that - I've watched this kind of debate i the US my whole life. I'm only cringing at the use of the word "fact" like that. I usually hear that kind of absolute certainty without question coming from people who don't believe so much in science. They say there will be an improved "mission statement" and look to the site in a day or so, I'm just suggesting not to send them personal details until there's a clearer picture who is generating this particular site.
the only data they are looking for is name, email, and location (not address, just location), and background, which can be equally vague. That seems okay.
And that is only if you use the goo.gl form to say you want to help.
OK - I see. I stopped at the first link (the blog) and didn't go back to look at all the other sites (reddit, facebook, etc.) OK - ya everything I said was based on only that page. This is obviously a "real thing"!
