Why Are Criticisms of Revered Scientists Often Discouraged?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IsaacKnewton
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Science
AI Thread Summary
Criticism of prominent figures in science, particularly Carl Sagan, is met with resistance in this forum, leading to discussions about perceived biases and censorship. Users express frustration over the inability to openly critique these "Gods of Science," suggesting that such figures are treated with undue reverence. The conversation highlights a belief that science should not be upheld by infallible personas and critiques the notion that Sagan's legacy is beyond reproach. Some participants argue that criticisms lacking evidence or coherence are rightfully moderated, while others feel that the forum's approach stifles meaningful discourse. The discussion reflects a tension between respecting influential scientists and encouraging critical examination of their ideas.
IsaacKnewton
No "debunking" Gods of Science

How is it that criticisms of any of the Gods of Science, such as Carl Sagan, is not tolerated here? How is that?

Someone mentioned the Sagan Boloney Detector, and I copied the term and commented on it, and pow, thread destroyed.

It's somewhat like 1984 where everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.
Nobody is more equal than Gods of Science, such as Carl Sagan.

Science is not so advanced by pretensions of infallible grandeur.

Oh yes, some of his worshipers would claim "Carl is not around any longer to defend himself."
But if Carl were still alive, he assuredly would not be browsing around this place anyway, so that argument and its corollaries are utterly fatuous.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


I saw your thread and it was silly. The forum censors incoherent, meaningless rantings. It doesn't censor criticism of popular figures (although actually they do when it's just plain crude). Your thread was the former. You just picked a random personality, decided on your own that he is seen as some sort of superhuman character in physics, complained about it, and then with no evidence to support your own claims, challenged everyone else to prove yourself wrong. That kind of garbage doesn't fly around here.
 


Pengwuino said:
I saw your thread and it was silly. The forum censors incoherent, meaningless rantings. It doesn't censor criticism of popular figures (although actually they do when it's just plain crude). Your thread was the former. You just picked a random personality, decided on your own that he is seen as some sort of superhuman character in physics, complained about it, and then with no evidence to support your own claims, challenged everyone else to prove yourself wrong. That kind of garbage doesn't fly around here.

+1 on that
 


Pengwuino said:
I saw your thread and it was silly. The forum censors incoherent, meaningless rantings. It doesn't censor criticism of popular figures (although actually they do when it's just plain crude). Your thread was the former. You just picked a random personality, decided on your own that he is seen as some sort of superhuman character in physics, complained about it, and then with no evidence to support your own claims, challenged everyone else to prove yourself wrong. That kind of garbage doesn't fly around here.

+1 too. Go peng!
 


He's a previously banned crackpot.
 


Evo said:
He's a previously banned crackpot.

Hurray for evo! :biggrin:
 

Similar threads

“The Demon Haunted World”, by Carl Sagan review
Replies
5
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top