> "questions that even remotely disagree with the popular Science opinion"
Yes, but we don’t know when they formed that view. Did they hold it before or after the professor scolded them?
We accept that the professor scolded them, and that now they hold the view they are asserting.
I think it’s just as likely that the professor caused their current view as the other way around.
It’s very easy to go from being unfairly scolded by a professor who wrongly views you as dishonest, to then being influenced by the popular idea that "any politically motivated topic you can't ask questions that even remotely disagree".
If they didn’t think that before, the professor’s behavior would be a great way to make them think it now, and we simply don’t know how they thought about it before the professor’s action.
Even if the poster was sea-lioning, which frankly you cannot know, the professor definitely acted inappropriately in such a way as to engender further distrust, thus failing in their role as a science educator and betraying the authority of their position.
Even if the poster worded the question the way it seems - “with red flags”, it is a bad faith act to assume they have ill intent. It’s perfectly possible for someone to be using language they have picked up from popular culture that they haven’t refined, without themselves having bad faith.
Plus I don’t accept your position “questions that disagree”, are always bad faith. It’s possible to ask a question that is based on a premise that differs from the assumptions of the person you are questioning. This would imply disagreement in view, but it doesn’t imply bad faith.
E.g. “Are there any other sources of carbon emissions other than human industry?”
Is there disagreement here? From your view, the answer would be ‘yes’, because the implication is that this is relevant to climate change, which you think it is not.
The professor could have simply used the question as an opportunity to teach about scientific thinking.
E.g. “It’s a valid question from a geological point of view, but it isn’t relevant to the issue of climate change because there are no natural phenomena that coincide precisely with the industrial revolution.”
Yes, but we don’t know when they formed that view. Did they hold it before or after the professor scolded them?
We accept that the professor scolded them, and that now they hold the view they are asserting.
I think it’s just as likely that the professor caused their current view as the other way around.
It’s very easy to go from being unfairly scolded by a professor who wrongly views you as dishonest, to then being influenced by the popular idea that "any politically motivated topic you can't ask questions that even remotely disagree".
If they didn’t think that before, the professor’s behavior would be a great way to make them think it now, and we simply don’t know how they thought about it before the professor’s action.
Even if the poster was sea-lioning, which frankly you cannot know, the professor definitely acted inappropriately in such a way as to engender further distrust, thus failing in their role as a science educator and betraying the authority of their position.
Even if the poster worded the question the way it seems - “with red flags”, it is a bad faith act to assume they have ill intent. It’s perfectly possible for someone to be using language they have picked up from popular culture that they haven’t refined, without themselves having bad faith.
Plus I don’t accept your position “questions that disagree”, are always bad faith. It’s possible to ask a question that is based on a premise that differs from the assumptions of the person you are questioning. This would imply disagreement in view, but it doesn’t imply bad faith.
E.g. “Are there any other sources of carbon emissions other than human industry?”
Is there disagreement here? From your view, the answer would be ‘yes’, because the implication is that this is relevant to climate change, which you think it is not.
The professor could have simply used the question as an opportunity to teach about scientific thinking.
E.g. “It’s a valid question from a geological point of view, but it isn’t relevant to the issue of climate change because there are no natural phenomena that coincide precisely with the industrial revolution.”