51
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
51 points (100.0% liked)
Science Communication
885 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to c/SciComm @ Mander.xyz!
Science Communication
Notice Board
This is a work in progress, please don't mind the mess.
- 2023-06-14: We are looking for mods. Send a dm to @fossilesque@mander.xyz if interested!
About
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Be kind and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
Resources
Outreach:
Networking:
Similar Communities
Sister Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !microbiology@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
Plants & Gardening
Physical Sciences
Humanities and Social Sciences
- !archaeology@mander.xyz
- !cooking@mander.xyz
- !folklore@mander.xyz
- !history@mander.xyz
- !old_maps@mander.xyz
Memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Honestly, my first thought at this title was "only 97%?" I kindof wonder what's up with the other 3%. Maybe just weird outliers. Kindof like Michael Behe who is actually a bona fide biochemist but he also advocates for intelligent design.
The other 3% probably aren't all climate change deniers.
I would guess that a large chunk of those are more like 'the data is not sufficient or good enough to be absolutely, absolutely certain'.