to all the people dogpiling the responses against Era's point of
view:
the reason there is not more dissent, whether here or in other
respectable forums (eg scientific research in general), is purely
because of social mechanics (ostracization of dissenters) - not
the inherent unassailable truthfulness of the apparent consensus
point of view. when contrary information is personally and
professionally radioactive, is it a wonder nobody wants to
associate themselves with it?
but here, as in so many elsewheres, "this is not the place." I'm
already pushing the boundary with this meta-post containing no
specific assertions, and will almost certainly put Mike in the
unfortunate position of having to put his foot down in this
thread (sorry Mike).
I'm just pointing out that, anywhere that people's real life
identities are tied to what they are saying, there will be an
artificial consensus around safe, socially sanctioned viewpoints.
so you all essentially get an unrestricted platform to say "lol
we're so informed and naysayers are tinfoil-hat nutters," but if
somebody made a good-faith effort to respond to any of your
points, messages would start getting deleted and the thread would
be locked. and far from exceptional, that happens EVERYWHERE.
I don't expect any of you /respectable, rational/ people to read
it, but for the shy dissenters among us, here's a short little
essay on the circularity of scientific peer review (I am not the
author):
https://www.reddit.com/r/accountt1234/comments/5umtip/scientific_circular_reasoning/
