REDDIT’s SUBREDDIT r/PhilosophyofScience BLOCKED MY POST

As my first post in that group, I shared the abstract of my philosophy presentation “Institutional Degeneration of Science” given at Estonian Annual Philosophy Conference 2017 (Tallinn Technical University). I also added a link to my corresponding paper later published. Accidentally, it was published in a Chinese philosophy journal with the representation in NY — because other philosophyContinue reading “REDDIT’s SUBREDDIT r/PhilosophyofScience BLOCKED MY POST”

ONCE MORE ABOUT DEMAGOGUERY CONCERNING CONSPIRACY THEORIES

The definition of conspiracy theory is systematically poorly handled even among many philosophers. To my mind, approximately the following short definition is appropriate: Conspiracy theory is a theory explaining some events, assuming that an individual or group of individuals or an organization, institution or state is (or was) conspiring — doing something secretly or hidingContinue reading “ONCE MORE ABOUT DEMAGOGUERY CONCERNING CONSPIRACY THEORIES”

THE POST-LIES ERA

I challenge the widespread view that together with Donald Trump and Brexit, such an era began, when scientific investigations were suppressed because of ideological and political reasons. Long ago there have been well-documented cases when some scientists have complained that scientific investigations of some kind have been suppressed because of ideological and political reasons.

Why not to consider a utilitarian justification of the inquisition, if our present practices are correct.

From some information having negative consequences it in no way follows that this information is false or that it has been obtained using non-scientific methods.

BELARUSIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2020: Has it been Publicly and Convincingly Proved that the Results were Extensively Faked?

Has it been Publicly and Convincingly Proved that the Results of Belarusian Elections were Extensively Faked?

UK Psychologists Suggest Suppressing Dissent Views On Climate Change and Coronavirus

UK scholars suggest suppressing dissent views in science to avoid cognitive bias.

Unfortunately, suppressing the arguments of one side of the dispute itself generates cognitive bias.