Quote:
Originally Posted by orange4boy
My question is how they managed to avoid passive aggressively attacking anyone in this paper? I thought the purpose of science was to incessantly harass individual people for their opinions. They didn't even falsely attribute support of those opinions to others merely seeking civility. Good thing you guys are here to point out these obvious omissions in the research.
|
In science, if there is a different opinion you present evidence that supports your differing opinion. Something along the lines of "contrary to the work of ... the findings of this study suggest this is not the case" or "in the work of ... they write " ..." however this does not agree with our findings"
I think you underestimate the amount of back and forth argument that goes on in science and science papers, argument is good, it gets you closer to the truth. If you believe that disagreement is harassing then don't be a scientist in a contentious area, academic disputes can and do go on for decades.
orange4boy, if you believe that "passive aggressively attacking" people is an issue and you believe you see lots of it here, you could try leading by example and not doing the thing you see as the problem, "be the change you want to see in the world".