dewittlebook@lemdro.idtoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•Any recommendations for "positive" science debunking sites or creators?English
1·
1 year agoIf she’s arguing for … crap then she should probably stick to Science.
tldr/w: I probably should’ve only doe this bit here and on her being a physicist versus a science communicator
Humorously enough, she also has a video for that Basically she talks about:
- Why “doing your own research” should be poked at
* Topics she doesn’t have a PhD in and has been told she shouldn’t talk about
* On being a physicist versus a science communicator
- Main video points
- When not to do your own research (When there isn’t enough research) 2.(?) Reasonable expectations (Why she doesn’t talk about UFO’s, a plug for support to do a video on ‘Experts’, limits of Google/internet, what is relevant for understanding? )
- Be honest with yourself (Acknowledge what you dont understand, erroneous mental short cut example)
- Acknowledge biases
Rest of video not as relevant to your point
Do your own research. But do it right. [Video] Now where’s that bot at…?
I think we can agree that Nazi’s are not something we want to assocuate with. Help me understand, what would you do? How would you limit the service to
prioritize[s] privacy in order to protect human rights defenders, journalists, and everyday users who value their privacy
but then also filter out Nazi’s? How would this be different from TOR?