Mark Richards wrote:
This would be fine except that often the claim is that the 'credible' scientific sources are involved in some kind of conspiricy, or are systematically unable to appreciate the field for some reason.
I see where you're going with this, and I agree with you on a personal level, but we are picking and choosing which sources are 'credible' based on what we believe to be right.
The difference between systemic bias and conspiracies relates to good faith. Active conspirators are fully aware of what they are doing. There is an element of "mens rea" to their activity. Persons who participate in a systemic bias will most often believe that they are doing the right thing. In the slavery era, the slave owners were acting within the socially acceptable norms of their time.
I have a pet linguistic peeve in this debate. Please don't mix up the words "systemic" and "systematic". Something is "systemic" if it has become built into a system. Something is "systematic" if it is done in a structured and organized way.
If we "are picking and choosing which sources are 'credible' based on what we believe to be right" then the debate has just been shifted to one of determining what we mean by "we". The debate has not come to a resolution; it has merely shifted its focus. The "we" that participates in a debate is not the same "we" that takes one side of a particular argument.
Ec