You can have a belief that this is wrong result based on nothing. If you want to say that this is fraudulent then you have to prove that this is fraud. There is a difference as I said in my comment.
Thats not how anything in science works. You should be able to express your beliefs without having absolute proof and get fined if a court doesn't agree with you.
Saying “this is wrong” is very different from saying “this is fraud”. Why is it so hard for you to tell the difference?
You never even need to engage with the question of whether something is fraud when disputing something.
If you say that there are 75 million people living in Germany I don’t need to call you a lier or a fraud to say that you are wrong and dispute your statement. That‘s just not necessary. I can just point at this website https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Popula... and say you are wrong. What do I care whether you simply misremembered, go wrong information from someone else and believed them or are actively lying.
Actually if we are talking about science and not freedom of speech. Technically you are wrong, to work in science you have to follow scientific method and publish your conclusions with your methods, data and models.. etc. You can say whatever you want within this framework. A significant portion of the publications in any field is found wrong later sometimes by the authors themselves. But claiming that a work is fraud is not ab opinion. Actually even disagreeing between actual scientists usually comes in form of other work proving the other work is wrong.
Right, as is fining them millions of dollars for disagreeing with you. I’m honestly fine with that, my complaint is the hypocrisy of conflating political actions with science.
I really wonder if you read the article or not. This is not about disagreement or opinions. This is about fraud claims
> with skeptics claiming Mann manipulated data. Investigations by Penn State and others found no misuse of data by Mann, but his work continued to draw attacks, particularly from conservatives.
As an example. You solved a problem and I see that you solution is wrong (whether I am correct or not ia irrelevant) I would say you are wrong because you did this and that. I will not say that you are wrong because you have cheated unless I have a proof that you actually cheated (i.e data manipulation)
Don’t be coy. This isn’t about one academic falsely accusing another of faking a specific measurement. This is a political activist calling an entire field of research fraudulent because its conclusions don’t conform to his political beliefs. Its outrageous and indefensible but living in a free country means people are allowed to believe and express outrageous and indefensible things.
Are you unaware/pretending to be unaware that words are tools that can be used to commit crimes, or do you sincerely believe that any words that can be possibly strung together are or should be protected free speech that supersedes all other rights of others and legal responsibilities of yours? What is it about saying the word "politics" that erases all of that?
