1. gender as applied to social and cultural differences is what the expansion of the choices is driven by. Nobody is suggesting that biologically there are "other parts" aside from male or female. 2. there is no homosexual gene (or correlating sequence) yet identified. If its a choice then its one that all of humanity has been making since we left our caves. And even if it is a choice, its a free country ain't it? 3. GMO crops are safe. We have been modifying genomes through breeding since the dawn of agriculture. Genetic manipulation is a natural technological extension of this process. Higher yields, greater pest/drought resistance, higher nutritional values, fast growth - the future of humanity sustaining food production. 4. Science states that a fetus has the potential to be a human being. Even god thinks ya gotta stay alive for 30 days to qualify - at least according to the bible. I agree science is never truly "settled" unless it is a scientific law, of which we have many. OTOH, we have tons of technology and artifacts that exploit our scientific theoretical understanding of particular phenomena. You seem to be arguing that since the very nature of science is to resist "settling" , it can be freely dismissed and unscientifically criticized or derided.
No, I am arguing that the left is just as guilty as the right of being anti-science. The original OP suggested that the belief in religion or ignorance was the main reason for anti-science. I am simply stating that the left is just as guilty as the right. As for climate change, yes it changes daily...as for the dire consequences, too much data manipulation has been shown. And leftist wanting to criminalize dissent is just plain wrong. I'm old enough to remember the next ice age touted by some of the same climatologist that now are espousing global warming.
I'm old enough to remember too....you have faulty or selective memory, that global cooling was never espoused by more than one or two papers, they just got headlines because "cooling" was so much scarier than "warming", even in that period global warming was the consensus it just didn't get headlines...the facts are global warming has always been the dominate hypothesis since the the mid 1800's
Oh, okay I misunderstood. I totally agree that anti science is not a binary partisan phenomenon. I don't know of anyone who wants to criminalize disssent. As to scientific wild arsed guesses (SWAGs), that comes with the territory. Course they don't hold up for long under scrutiny and further scientific investigation. That's how science works.
I agree, but there have been organizations that have suggested criminalization of dissent to global warming. Some scientists petitioned Obama to prosecute skeptics using RICO statutes. That was 2015, you can look it up online, I know Newsweek had several articles about this.
None of any importance. It's not rational to pretend that some random nobody somewhere represents any consensus opinion. In contrast, it generally _is_ consensus opinion from deniers that scientists should be defunded and fired, if they don't toe the Republican party line. It's also consensus opinion from deniers that climate scientists should be prosecuted and jailed. As evidence, I'll ask if any of them here will state that the attempted prosecution of Dr. Mann by the Virginia Republicans was disgraceful and borderline Stalinist. I've yet to find a single one who will say that it was. They all apparently support that attempted prosecution. Not "skeptics". That's a big whopper. You're trying to pretend that any global warming denier could be prosecuted for speaking. The claim was that corporations could be prosecuted for deliberately mounting a propaganda campaign that they knew very well was fake and dishonest. The Tobacco companies were successfully prosecuted under RICO for exactly the same reason. Hence, it's clearly correct legally, and it's also correct morally. The two sides are totally different. The rational side opposes censorship. The global warming denier side favors censorship, because good science is poisonous to their cause. http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/resources/silencing-science-tracker/silencing-climate-science/
I've always wondered how this is a political issue. What do they have to gain by lying about climate change?
I prefer the concept of two genders. Some people are just sometimes too obsessive with traditional gender roles, or go about pursuing gender equality the wrong way. Which is by ignoring science instead of using it to reshape things. I can't see how being gay is a choice as much as having a favorite color is a choice. There is no gay gene, but homosexuality likely has more yo do with the mind than genetics. I have no opinion on GMO crops since I don't know much about them. But they are safe enough since I likely eat something GMO everyday. I'm just waiting on GMO for humans. As for a fetus being human, it teally is irrelevant to my pro-choice stance.
Well, it became political when some elites would make money hand over fist, in the process of handling carbon taxes, with beaks being dipped into that flow of trillions, and when other elites might make less money, fossil fuel corporations. For there is hardly any line between gov't and big business and the interests of our elites. Of course the right side folks hate taxation and see that as theft, even if they are myopic in their views. And AGW was to be addressed, not by land management, but by....yes, taxation on co2. In fact, adding billions of new flora that would extract co2 has never been on the table. Only carbon taxes. And that makes some people suspect, given the easiest way to at least TRY to address rising co2 would be in worldwide land management and ceasing all rain forest deforestation that is occuring at millions of acres a year. So this lack of action, and only wanting to use carbon taxes shows people like me that we are only concerned with this problem, IF, we can institute carbon taxes. Land management? Forget about it. And so, I have to see this as not being a problem at all, AGW for otherwise we would be managing land and adding huge amounts of flora. There would have been at least a two prong attack on co2, taxes and land management. Yet only one thing has been promoted. Taxes. I guess our elites could not make much money in land management and adding flora, but carbon taxes were a huge way to extract money from the non elites and send it into the hands of the elites. Just another scheme like economic slave labor globalism.
universities where these studies are done allocate funds not governments, these researchers would have jobs regardless of what they find so there is no need to fraudulently manipulate data...just the opposite fraudulent findings would be caught out by their peers and that would hurt the universities reputation and the researchers their jobs... I have a longtime friend a chemist who does happen to work for a government research department, he has no interest or need to falsify his data he only records his findings regardless of what he finds he still has a job...as tells me "I tell them what my research concludes, what they do with it is not up to me"
May I ask why this is an issue, science is complicated now and many people for personal reasons don't bother to have an interest this includes people in power who make decisions. And scientists need to make things easy to understand for lay people when its needed. But do most people need a broad understanding of science knowing about Black Holes and State of the Art Physics especially when it might oppose deeply held beliefs. I'm a lot more interested in science than most people and can't keep up with everything.
I think people need to know enough to be good consumers of science. That includes things like knowing some ways to detect the difference between science and not science. It probably should include some knowledge about statistics. etc.
That would make sense, but why they want to continue studies for something they themselves don't know is true is beyond me.
That is the job of reviewers. Amateurs are in no position to judge professional work. If there are outstanding errors or omissions, other professionals will reveal this. Or, send a letter. But you can't make proper judgments unless you are an expert yourself. What people need to do is to learn to identify the mainstream, respected journals in the appropriate field of study, and look for the number of published papers and the number of attributions. Given that this can be a lot of work, stick to the big names like the Journals Science, Nature, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, etc. If papers are published in these journals, they are as respectable as it gets. If there are problems, there will be responses. Learning a bit of science of help provide context is one thing. To think one who is untrained and doesn't have the proper education, can judge a professional scientific paper, is just crackpottery. And if it isn't published in a mainstream journal as such, then don't even bother. It is just noise. All of this online publication is an ocean with a great deal of garbage. The only real filters are the journals.
Before jumping to odd conclusions, note the following: 1) that the major technological breakthroughs and emphasis on science and engineering was the past century, when religion was a fundamental part of American life (and European life). 2) that the result has been prosperity which in turn resulted in complacency, lethargy, and a desire for easy living. Entertainment is valued over hard work to become a scientist or engineer. That is more applicable to the current Western world (21st century), and is independent of religion. And what is the result: 1) Cultural manipulation 2) Mandates 3) Propaganda is the goal 4) Education is to mold beliefs 5) Conclusions are the result of ideology That describes "progressivism" perfectly.
Seems religion still is a fundamental part of american life. I said that anti-science movement appears to be religiously motivated in america. That doesn't mean that all religious people are anti-science by any stretch. You speak to a relatively small % of contemporary society as if it defines that society. That is fallacious. Religion has been a mechanism of cultural manipulation since its invention. Mandates like no defecating in the water hole have been with us for just as long. God is on our side is the ultimate propaganda slogan which was invented about three nanoseconds after religion itself. Education reflects a societies beliefs and values and is DESIGNED to mold the next generation by instilling them in our kids. Been doing that at least the generation that invented the wheel. Conclusions are the result of the application of ideology. Conclusions arise from process.
even when the science is dumbed down for science illiterates they still think they know more than the scientists because they read a blog on the internet written by another science illiterate that told them so... I know nothing of any significance about Black holes or Physics but I don't need to I don't have conspiracy mindset that thinks the deep state is out to get me...I accept what scientists tell me just as I would from my doctor, they have no reason to lie and respect their educational qualifications.... the problem isn't with science and scientists, it's the uneducated dumbies that think they know it all(dunning kruger effect)...
You said nothing that in any way refutes my claim that the better conclusion is the anti-science attitude taking hold of society is the result of "progressivism".
Well, I certainly agree with what you've said here. However, there are a lot of folks who are not prepared enough to read these journals. Plus, the articles are often narrow - for example, results in a single climatology entry in Nature might be about a specific layer in the atmosphere rather than conveying a broader perspective. It can even require some level of understanding to know how important the article is. So, some people do actually need another level of translation. Some can't even identify what science is, or don't have enough statistics or other basic tools to understand confidence levels or what should be required of the authors. Some sites try to provide that level of translation. For example, NASA, NOAA and some others have whole sections that help aggregate the individual findings.
I agree that anti-science is the newtonian reaction to scientific and technological progress. Anti-science is just another manifestation of fear of societal change. Most humans suffer from it to one form or another and to one degree or another.
Disregard for scientists and the scientific method has grown and ripened with the modern conservative movement. From Barry Goldwater's anti-intellectualism, through Ronald Reagan’s sympathy for creationism and Newt Gingrich's passion for science "skeptics," on through the present day, conservatives have shown a marked preference for politically inspired fringe theories over the findings of long-established and world-renowned scientific bodies.
While it's true that some conservatives prefer to disregard science where it's inconvenient for their preconceived notions, the same is true for some progressives. A few random examples are GMO safety, an overestimation of the dangers of nuclear power compared to its benefits, denial of biological processes that lead to sexual differentiation, and the anti-vaccination movement. I have one important positive remark though. The vast majority of scientific discoveries are not on a collision course with neither conservative nor progressive world views. In those cases, acceptance or valid concerns are common. This may be mostly due to disinterest or ignorance, but sometimes fruitful discussions can be had with people outside the field in question too.
When you cut and paste directly from an article, you should provide the link - otherwise that's plagiarism. Barry Goldwater was far from anti-science, he was a USAF pilot, maintained a private pilot license and flew his own plane most of his life, and was an accomplished amateur radio operator all his life starting when he was in his early teen years sometime in the 1920's. In the 1920's, you had to build your antenna, assemble your own radio, and understand atmospherics and electromagnetics, and operation of radio was a high tech skill. Ronald Reagan stated that religion, morality, and creationism should be taught in schools - along with evolution. He stated he had questions about evolution, as many scientists do as well. Reagan also initiated the Strategic Defense Initiative (called "Star Wars" in the media) tasked with developing new technology for defense use, items such as high powered lasers, particle beam weapons, rail guns, electromagnetic bombs, improved electronics. Democrats claimed these things were impossible and called SDI "star wars" in an attempt to ridicule it - but many of the items now exist and are deployed by the military. Newt Gingrich is included in your unreferenced article because he is skeptical of big govt, global warming, and has an open mind and thinks that all subjects should be available for discussion and questioning in education including religion and evolution. Next time, don't just plagiarize without reading the article, and without understanding the people you are accusing.
And there's no reason you should, if they already have you. Had your doctor invested his career in such a fraud as anthropic macroevolution, as some "scientists" have, he'd have plenty of reason to lie. And surely none but barbarous troglodytes would fail to genuflect before a bunch of people who have agreed with each other for a really long time, right? Why, it would be like questioning the Catholic Church. :vapors:
