Another thought I had about your post: There is a political spectrum. It starts on the far left with extreme communism - totalitarian control with the rights of the individual secondary to the rights of the collective and progresses in degrees to the far right with extreme fascism - totalitarian control with the rights of the collective completely secondary to the rights of the individual especially a monarch or dictator. All people on the left of the spectrum are not a single minded group any more than people on the right are a single minded group. All of the people on the spectrum are prone to human inadequacy including biases, emotional convictions, the tendency to stereotype, values for which they feel there is no compromising about. People on the spectrum all have their concern that will get them on the street protesting or forming organizations or a myriad other types other dissent behaviours. Recently we have seen "the left" or more specifically "people who are concerned about freedom of religion" protesting regarding the immigration ban. Are there any concerns that might bring "the right" out into the streets or cause other dissent behaviours? Historically we have seen "the right" or more specifically "people who are concerned about nationalism" form a birther movement to question the nationality of President Obama. We have often heard people say that if the government were to take away their guns it would have to be done over their dead body. So it seems that the common point here is that when a right protected by the constitution is threatened people across the spectrum will respond with dissent behaviours. The tendency today as politics become more divisive is for stereotypes to form in which the political spectrum is no longer a spectrum but a set of extremes in which there is no center, no compromise, no common values. Each side is a tribe with opposing values. This is not a "successful experiment". It's a recipe for disaster in which both sides will be the loser. Partisan politics are the enemy, not the fabricated stereotypes of left or right.
Not yet. It is still alive, but with hardly a semblance to the original. I don't know what 'scientists' do. I can vouch for the scientific method, as a tool of discovery. Too bad it isn't used as much, these days. Britain was hardly a representative democracy in 1215. Most modern euro socialist countries are elitist run, with voters (aka, useful idiots) choosing from a limited pool of candidates. 'citizen representatives' is not the norm, anywhere in the world, now. You got a mouse in your pocket, Kimosabe? Who is the 'we' you speak of? it is obviously a subjective opinion. Think of it as premises for debate. It is a broad post, with many factors to support the basic premise of 'fake science'. If you have a rebuttal, you can take each one on, or address the whole. I see them as intertwining factors, & evidence of the trend toward 'fake science'.
good post. I agree. Now, about the charge of 'fake science', especially as a tactic with the progressive left, do you see this as invalid? You see no evidence for this charge? My post here is not a partisan, group think loyalty setup. I am claiming SPECIFIC things as tactics with those of a certain ideology. Do you not believe that there are those who use distortion, half truths, lies, & propaganda to promote their 'cause'? Have there not been those things used by ideologues in the past? How does pretending that they are all the same help anyone? Can we not distinguish between truth & falsehood, or has relativity consumed any concept of that, as well? If i noticed some 'fake news' from russia, promoting some propaganda that was empirically false, how can i treat it the same as a credible source? If i were listening to Hitler, declaring his peaceful intentions, yet invading czechoslovakia at the same time, should i not doubt his stated intentions? In the same way, if i hear obviously 'fake science', with someone making wild, unsubstantiated claims, why should i not question his motives, or look for a hidden agenda? And, when those are found, why not expose it as 'fake science' as a political, ideological agenda, & not about science at all? I don't know about your 'spectrum'.. that seems a little simplistic to me, or an attempt to parse truth from an array of lies. Or, it is an attempt to say, 'they are all the same!', when there can be major differences within the ideology. I look for Truth. If it is not there, or is overstated, i can make some allowances, but i cannot compromise truth to fit some agenda. When i see lies, distortions, & partial truth being used to distort Truth, i can only suspect a hidden agenda.. an ideologically motivated desire to manipulate for political or ideological reasons. My answer is to expose it as 'Fake Science'. And while i agree that stereotypes can be an enemy, i consider lies & distortions to be much worse. I would prefer rudely presented Truth to smooth, comforting lies. So i am not concerned greatly with 'left vs right' polemy, but 'truth vs lies'.
I see the spectrum as the opposite of simplicity. Deciding that there are two categories "right" or "left" is overly simplistic. As an example, you talk about hypocrisy of the left because people who speak about peace and love are out committing acts of violence. I'm saying that there are plenty of people on both the left and the right moving across both spectrums who value peace and whose behaviour reflects that evaluation and there are people across the entire spectrum who might easily resort to violence if the things they value are jeopardized. The number of people who are actually acting out violently are small, their political affiliations not necessarily clear and to say "the left" is acting out violently is to categorize the entire group based on the actions of a few. I would even go further to say that the spectrum is not just the one left vs right spectrum of political thought about social matters it is also a birth south one regarding economic values. There is a guy on this forum with a cool avatar from the political spectrum poll website that illustrates that idea. Anyway it's turning into a busy day here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum A political spectrum is a system of classifying different political positions upon one or more geometric axes that symbolize independent political dimensions.[1] Most long-standing spectra include a right wing and left wing, which originally referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament after the Revolution (178999).[1] According to the simplest leftright axis, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite conservatism and capitalism on the right. Liberalism can mean different things in different contexts, sometimes on the left (social liberalism), sometimes on the right (classical liberalism). Those with an intermediate outlook are classified as centrists or moderates. Politics that rejects the conventional leftright spectrum is known as syncretic politics.[2][3]
Can I be the first person to completely miss the point of your graphic and say that it must be completely wrong because it doesn't exactly describe my politics? /sarcasm
If I wasnt so busy today I'd start a new thread in which everyone does the political compass test and posts their results. https://www.politicalcompass.org/test One time on the Metallica.com political forum we had a discussion thread for each question. It was awesome.
That compass has been around for a while. I'm sure there are multiple threads here already. I don't really find it very useful, but it is not the topic, here!
ok, i did a quick search, & here are a few of the results: http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/168805-political-compass-results.html http://www.politicalforum.com/other-off-topic-chat/156165-political-compass-answers.html http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/265756-political-compass-test.html http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/256677-whats-your-position-political-compass.html ..and quite a few more. There has also been a lot of debate about the assumptions, wording, & results of the compass, applying arbitrary labels, but that is also a thread in itself. Anyway, i haven't seen a thread on it for a while, so maybe a repost of this might be of interest to some.
Yup, and science is proven to work, you know why? All the technology people are using to post here, the medicines that have kept them alive, their cars, computers, TVs everything, all known to work, all based on scientific discoveries. And what these people don't get is anybody can publish a book, write a website, print an article in a paper. There is nobody that has to check the work for the most part. Reputable organization will have standards, but look at what many of the anti-science people spread around, websites, blogs, opinion piece, or non peer reviewed garbage from people who benefit from having the false data out there Science requires peer review, where it is closely scrutinized by a group of people unknown to the people submitting the paper, people knowledgable in the field, and they determine if it is worthy of publication. And you have editors of the journals also reviewing its content. Also, fraud is always discovered because scientists continue to check, and everybody caught fudging data has ruined their careers for life. Some are even arrested, as a scientist in Korea had happened for his fraud. The justice is swift. Not so with websites and people writing books or what not, there is no accountability.
I should add, what is there other than science? Your own personal feelings? Your opinions? that's what is right? Nothing else but science works to find the answers, then apply those answers to make new technologies. Absolutely nothing. Religion doesn't make any predictions about the natural world. None at all. It is solely to help a person spiritually and internally The people that say how many times is science wrong, how many times are you wrong? Probably most of the time
I don't think 'science' is wrong, i think humans are wrong. Let me see if i follow your reasoning. If anyone claims, 'science!', they are to be taken at their word, & it should be assumed that their research is pure, validated, & accurate. Humans have never been wrong with a 'scientific' prediction, announcement, or pronouncement. No scientist has any conflict of interest, but always reports the truth, impartially & sincerely. All past discoveries are proof that all current 'science!' is wonderful A belief about the altruism of a group of fallible humans should take precedence over the scientific method The point of the OP is FAKE science, not science. It is a fallacy for you to correlate them as the same. You don't see a distinction between phony science, contrived data, manipulated conclusions, agenda driven research, & truthful, accurate, unbiased SCIENCE? It is real, & you should know that. When has 'science!' ever been the domain of purely altruistic, honest, & sincere seekers of truth? Anything humans are involved in is corrupted by humanity. Science is no exception.
I don't know about "should". But it's definitely something two nations can choose to do. As a Canadian I enjoyed the old days when a person could just drive down to the US and spend the afternoon and drive back. It's still really easy to do but the ease with which we used to do it is being diminished. Now they are asking for your Facebook password and what you think of Donald Trump before you cross the border. They have the right to detain you for no reason. You can be put on a black list at the discretion of a border guard with no possibility of appeal. I read an article a while back about a Canadian who owned property in the USA just over the border. Property value plummets when you cross from British Columbia side to Washington side since Vancouver is way closer to the border than Seattle. So the guy prolly bought a Yankee house for a fraction of what it would cost a ten minute drive away on the Canadian side. I guess the border guard didn't like that this guy crossed the border every day for a couple years so he just threw his name on a black list and revoked his Nexus status. I often wonder why Americans are proud of their freedom because I feel that as a Canadian I am far more free than Americans are. You can be put in jail for unpaid parking tix down there! That amazes me.
Not another body of study has been more wrong and more often than science and yet you believe in it with the fervor of a religious fanatic as though science was infallible. You treat theory by consensus as fact instead of what they really are - articles of faith.
Your definition of Science - Anything you agree with. Your definition of Fake Science - Anything you disagree with. OMG! You and Donald Trump are evil twins. Or are you the Real Donald Trump hopping around these boards disguised as USFAN? Either would explain your avatar pic.
He didn't say that if someone claims "science!" They are automatically right. He said the opposite! He talked about independent peer review. He didn't say humans have never been wrong about science. He said that people who commit fraud are quickly found out due to peer review and their careers are ruined.
Then what was the rebuttal to my post? I am calling for the same thing: Respect for, & elevation of, the Scientific Method. Not elitism. Not 'aguments of authority'. Not logical fallacies or Fake Science. Real Science works. Fake Science is used to deceive & manipulate.
From the OP (my emphasis) The first problem you cite is Mandated Conformity. Yet in your own post # 1002 in your own thread "Fallacies of Evolution" you write about a controversy regarding new findings relating to Neanderthal's. (my emphases) How can new scientific findings be causing controversy in the scientific community if everyone in the scientific community prefers to mandate belief in their decrees? Your two postings in your two different threads directly contradict each other. Yeah, I know. It's just another of ecco's Gotchas.
Good example. they do not contradict, of course, but exactly illustrate the point in this thread. Here is the issue. Neanderthals were once believed to be a separate, distinct species.. an ancestor of modern man. DNA evidence, for over a decade, has debunked this theory, as neanderthal dna has been found to be in modern humans. The compelling conclusion of the evidence: Neanderthals were just another tribe of homo sapien. They could not have interbred with 'modern human' ancestors, otherwise. They are merely a haplotype of the genotype homo sapien. Instead of updating the current talking points, & 'proof!' of human evolution, the same old ones are still visible today, in MOST .edu sites, evolution textbooks, science related web pages, & other sources for evolutionary propaganda. Ergo, 'mandated conformity' takes precedence over empirical evidence. Instead of modifying the talking points, & including neanderthal as a tribe of humans, the old narrative of ancestry is promoted, without & even contrary to the actual evidence. Even though the empirical evidence is pointing away from the narrative, that neanderthal was an ancestor of human evolution, it is ignored in favor of the Fake Science in mandated conformity. If i could poll, right now, the beliefs of people from grade school to old age, who believe in Evolution, most, if not all, would describe Neanderthal as a separate species and ancestor of modern humans. Very few people even know about the genetics studies about neanderthal, & the dramatic implications for the 'theories' of human descendancy. You really thought this was an argument AGAINST my list? Instead, it is a clear example of this very thing. Evidence be damned.. the MANDATES are what is important!
Fake Science...is an...oxymoron Scientific discoveries are not static...they are always open for challenge and new information. We only know what we know at this moment...
Ah, so you don't believe in pseudo science, hoaxes, or conflicts of interest among anyone who claims the 'science!' label? You automatically become sincere, honest, & altruistic, if you put on the mantle of 'science'?
Yet in your own post # 1002 in your own thread "Fallacies of Evolution" you write about a controversy regarding new findings relating to Neanderthal's. If there is a controversy, it means some scientists are challenging the existing mandates. How can new scientific findings be causing controversy in the scientific community if, as you assert, everyone in the scientific community prefers to mandate belief in their decrees? It seems pretty straightforward: Establishment Science has old theory A regarding Neanderthals New Guys have new theory B regarding Neanderthals In Fallacies of Evolution you say New Guys are causing a stir - ("The Neanderthal Problem is getting worse. This was not a popular discovery.") In Fake Science you say New Guys are not allowed to cause a stir - ("it is ignored"). Either 1. or 2. must be wrong.
