Comment by nilirl

> isn't that what we're supposed to do in science? Listen to the folks who have the expertise?

No. We look at the best model that explains and predicts the most observations.

> Nothing that they've said has appeared to be inconsistent with their claim of expertise, however.

What expertise have they shown? How did you determine they're an expert? This is what they said in their original post: "if it leads to a more focused funding of actual, legitimate science, I'm largely in favor"

That has no expertise required. That's a political stance of what "actual, legitimate science" is.

> If some science doesn't have rigor, it's fair to question its quality

Yes, and I'm saying rigor should be pragmatically determined by operating conditions. All fields cannot instantly achieve the same level of rigor; instrumentation and methodologies need to develop over time. It's fine to say there's a problem with repeatability, it's not fine to say the researchers are illegitimate. Mine is a political stance as well.

> You keep trying to spin it that way, but I haven't seen that indication of that particular intent.

Our interpretation is at odds. You have not argued against it either. What makes their stance apolitical?

> the people doing the science to 'answer these questions' are doing it badly

And I'm saying that's in the nature of tough problems. Do you want to study tribal behavior? Culture? How nation states interact? How slavery has ripple effects across centuries? Tough shit, experimentation is hard. That doesn't make it bad science. That framing is thoughtless.