/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15407650
>It is (1) because they are ideologically driven to ask certain questions but ignore other, logically-related ones, and why they probe at these questions from certain angles but not others, thereby gathering data with a systematic bias (or disingenuously manipulating the data in order to support their racist hypotheses)
No doubt, this occurs, and history will embarrass all liars.

>(2) the ignoble conclusions they try to support with this data due to their underlying personal support of tribalism.
There is no place for (ig)nobility to temper scientific, rational discussions in themselves. I thought this was established eons ago. Ignoring the fact that you probably can't prove your bias is any better, you are outnumbered. This immediately outsources (even more) power over knowledge production to people who don't even nominally care about it. The fact that the scientific community, and any community of thinking people, is slipping again into tolerating censorship, merely because the majority therein has different values, is sad and pathetic. Even during the condemnations of the 13th century, this behavior was not so widespread, right at the beginnings of its formal history.. The longer you continue to allow this, you will keep losing- do you think the politically motivated care about how you describe yourself; that you recognise race, but are not a racist, bla-bla-bla in the hundreds of pages? They don't. They never did. They never will. You won't be able to claim double truth, either.