Why has Science Become Politicized?

Well, there are limits to everything. I mean while I see plenty of evidence that intelligence is often inherited, I also see exceptions. I know several families with very intelligent parents, and all their kids are geniuses. But I also know of some very smart parents whose kids didn't get lucky, and are a bit "slow". Also, just as it is possible for two rather plain or "unappealing"-looking parents to have a beautiful child, it's also possible for not-so-bright parents to have a very smart kid. But in my experience/observation that is more rare than the children taking after the parents intellectually.

Now, if somebody wants to take offense at that, they are the ones creating "offense".

 

Thank you. I just go into satire mode most of the time because I figure everyone in their gut knows, they're either on the take or can't do anything about it. But the world is filled with people on the fence looking for answers because the TV doesn't make sense, and it's good to keep breaking it down for them.

 

I studied quite a lot of science. Starting in General science and into physics and chemistry, etc and etc, I never was taught in college that the science I was being taught was some kind of consensus. Funny how that worked out.

 

maybe I was being a little to hyperbolic. Sorry if it was uncivil of me to do so. But, when I say attitude, I don't mean what they literally say word for word. I mean the attitude or meaning behind what they say. If you watch shows like Bill Maher for example, there are tons of examples of people that give off this attitude of thinking that all science is set in stone and anyone who questions it is stupid. That is what I am talking about.

 

There's a tendency on this forum to interject partisan non-sequesters as some form of political point scoring. Yes, the fact Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize essentially for being black was ridiculous and discredited the entire institution.

That doesn't improve the standing of Koch Industries, and at least Obama wasn't in charge of appointing the members of the Nobel committee- although, one could argue that just makes the committee look all the worse.

 

The scientific term theory means that the science has been tested and proven to be correct by the testing.

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Part of the politicization is because people don't understand the meaning of the scientific terminology.

 

fair enough

 

I have checked the Koch brothers out over the years and find they get beat up by posters who never took the time to know the companies.

Only Democrats beat up on the Koch Brothers. must be some sort of reason. But it is not due to the Koch brothers actual acts, it is some sort of delusion against the Koch brothers.

 

In most lower-level college science courses they usually hand you the textbook and you're expected to treat it for all intents and purposes as gospel. They don't talk about scientific consensus because the primacy of what they're teaching undergrads is implicit.

 

BTW can you check your inbox, I sent you a message

 

Science is ALWAYS skeptical because that is part of the scientific process. Only when something is tested and proven is it considered to be factual pending anything that come up in the future that changes those tested and proven results.

The politicization is the disinformation being spread about science fallaciously alleging that it is a "religion" as an attempt to discredit it. That is coming from the science deniers for their own nefarious reasons.

 

I haven't looked into it very much beyond the headlines, so I wouldn't know.
But I would also not find their companies themselves as very reliable sources either.

Both the left and right have their figurehead targets lauded as evil bad guys, and there is an element of truth to it. I think mainstream Democrats encourage it because of how much money the Koch brothers have put into the Republican party.

 

And when I studied climate for FAA exams, I do not believe they inserted AGW into that either.

 

Why would they put cash into the Democrats? I quit that long ago.

 

It would probably depend on what year you were in college, since most of the climate research has been done 2000's-present.

 

I said they put cash into the Republican party, and that's why Democrats attack them.

 

FAA exams were in 1980. I have debated climate since the 1990s. Then Democrats were positive me and my fellow man were controlling climate. Deliberately running climate into the ditch. They were wrong then, wrong today.

 

Democrats have their Soros to fund them. And they really have an abundance of the rich who support them.

 

The vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is primarily man-made. Most of the debate among specialists has moved beyond whether human activity influences climate and into whether the amount of climate change is relevant.

Yes, and the right attacks Soros as an evil billionaire in their turn.

 

I would expect to find Kochs and Soros having dinner and laughs at our expense. That seems to be the way of things these days.

 

The smart ones are getting out, and disavowing, as the ceiling is falling. How are you going to keep it up?

Judith Curry
https://americaswatchtower.com/2017...es-in-order-to-keep-her-scientific-integrity/

Terry Hughes
https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/20751/

An actual government document dictating the wants of the conspiracy:
https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/StateDepartmentNov95.pdf

 

Nah I'm pretty sure they hate each-other.

 

Mmmmmkay to Soros

Nope to the claims the vast ......

look, do you want to admit man controls climate then?

I am saying that if he does not, this topic over man made warming is a total waste of time. We have no proof that humans know now to warm the planet.

Are you saying those campfires and other wood stoves all over the globe warm the planet?

 

Let me be of help