Science Denial Runs Red and Blue

[Mott the Hoople]

Still not accurate. From the article I quoted:

"Intersex is defined as a congenital anomaly of the reproductive and sexual system. An estimate about the birth prevalence of intersex is difficult to make because there are no concrete parameters to the definition of intersex. The Intersex Initiative, a North-American based organization, estimates that one in 2,000 children, or five children per day in the United States, are born visibly intersex. (36) This estimate sits within range; from genital anomalies, such as hypospadias, with a birth prevalence of around 1:300 to complex genital anomalies in which sex assignment is difficult, with a birth prevalence of about 1:4500. (37) Many intersex children have undergone medical intervention for health reasons as well as for sociological and ideological reasons. An important consideration with respect to sex assignment is the ethics of surgically altering the genitalia of intersex children to “normalize” them. "

In addition, there are several other genetic gender anomalies discussed in this article.

I realize that your point is to dismiss the belief by some that there is a rainbow of genders other than male and female, in the political and societal sense. That being said, you did mention science so I thought it was worth pointing out that science does not agree with the binary gender idea. The more we learn about our own genetics/DNA, the more we discover XY chromosome differences between individuals. Granted these are fairly rare, but they still exist.

Yet the vast majority are binary. Please reconcile this. You’re conflating rare phenotypical variation with the phenotype. You’re also agreeing with my point by observing that these phenotypical variations are rare. If you see my point?

Sex and gender are not as fluid or mosaic as those who are arguing social contructs would leave you to believe.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Hermaphroditus

and how often does that occur?

 

[Micawber]

The same argument seems to be played out with race as a social construct versus science.
The right tends to cleave more towards definite races, and the left more amenable to a spectrum.
Our concept of race evolved without the genetic information we have today. It was based upon
outward observed traits that was basically used to lump people together or separate them.
You could probably do away with the concept and substitute in degrees of dna similarity
and come up with better names for groups of people using migration patterns and 23 and me.

I am aware of some who say "there is no such thing as race" I'm not sure if they are making a semantic
or scientific point, or both.

 

[Micawber]

and how often does that occur?

I was being whimsical but ended up saying what Owl did without the eloquence or knowledge or reading her post beforehand.

Rare, I'm sure. I tend to agree with you on tat, in the main. Is there, or is there not pretty defined areas. xx xy or xxy, the last rare

Jamie lee curtis?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I was being whimsical but ended up saying what Owl did without the eloquence or knowledge or reading her post beforehand.

Rare, I'm sure. I tend to agree with you on tat, in the main. Is there, or is there not pretty defined areas. xx xy or xxy, the last rare

Jamie lee curtis?

Even in rare cases of xxy, due to hormonal influences during gestation, the sex/gender of that individual is still binary in most cases. It’s not completely about genetics.

Take Skidmark for example. Despite his being the biggest pussy on JPP his sex/gender, albeit of the celibate variety, he’s still arguably male.

 

[Cypress]

So I'd define "scientific consensus" as a majority of opinion on a scientific matter which has yet to be tested with predictable results. An opinion is something that has yet to be proved or it wouldn't be an opinion.


Once an Observation or Hypothesis is tested with predictable and repeatable results the Hypothesis becomes Theory. Once the Theory is proven beyond all doubt, Theory becomes Scientific Law. As one who is educated and trained in science, I would think you understand this.
I find that most on the left do not understand this but believe that "consensus " is proof and I'd argue that some laymen actually believe scientific consensus is Scientific Law. Nothing could be further than the truth.

Your premise is wrong.

The scientific method is a set of procedures to frame a scientific question, identify plausible hypotheses, and test the hypotheses through observation and experimentation.

The point of doing the procedures of the scientific method is to expand human knowledge. Human knowledge is expanded by the establishment of theories which attain widespread support and agreement, aka consensus, through repeated testing and rigorous scientific scrutiny.

It is very difficult to get a majority of scientists to agree to anything in their fields of expertise. Consensus results due to repeated validation of a theory. That is what advances human knowledge. Collective professional judgement can be wrong, but the fact that consensus is reached is a very significant milestone in the scientific endeavor, in the state of scientific knowlege. The current consensus among trained climate scientists that humans are impacting the climate has been attained and supported by repeated testing, multiple lines of evidence, and scientific scrutiny over a period of at least three decades. Interesting questions remain to be studied, but the general outlines are well understood at this point. The Earth is unequivocally warming, and it is known with a very high degree of scientific confidence that this is largely the result of human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gasses.

If you or anyone else thinks the consensus is way off the mark, you are free to make your case, submit your data, and publish in peer reviewed scientific journals. Science is self-correcting, so if you have a valid testable hypothesis, then the burden is on you make your case and change the minds of the climate science community.

 

[anonymoose]

The scientific method is a set of procedures to frame a scientific question, identify plausible hypotheses, and test the hypotheses through observation and experimentation.

The point of doing the procedures of the scientific method is to expand human knowledge.

So far so good.

Human knowledge is expanded by the establishment of theories which attain widespread support and agreement, aka consensus, through repeated testing and rigorous scientific scrutiny.

No, a theory is attained through repeated testing with predictable results, not a consensus. There is no mention of 'consensus' needed to attain a theory in the Scientific Method. Repeated testing with rigourous scrutiny results in... repeated testing with rigourous scrutiny. That's sounds like experimental testing to be published. Nothing more.
Let's take the Theory of Evolution as an example of a scientific theory.
Evolution is proven repeatedly by carbon dated fossiles and corroborated by DNA testing. It goes beyond a "general agreement of a belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge" (definition of 'consensus'). Evolution biologists do not even question the Theory of Evolution. They are unanimous in agreement.

It is very difficult to get a majority of scientists to agree to anything in their fields of expertise.

No. See above.^

Consensus results due to repeated validation of a theory.

That's one possible path to a consensus but not the only one. E.g., a consensus could be attained at a conference of scientists.

That is what advances human knowledge. Collective professional judgement can be wrong, but the fact that consensus is reached is a very significant milestone in the scientific endeavor, in the state of scientific knowlege.

Scientific Consensus
Definition:
The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scientists specialized in a given field.

Source: GreenFacts

More:
Scientific Consensus does NOT mean that:

all scientist are unanimous: disagreements may occur and can be necessary for science to progress,
the position is definitive: the consensus can evolve with the results from further research and contrary opinions.
Therefore, Scientific Consensus is NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth".

But when the scientific expertise to judge a scientific position is lacking, the best choice is to rely on the Consensus
https://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/abc/consensus.htm

.
So even GreenFacts deems scientific expertise is lacking when 'consensus' is used.

The current consensus among trained climate scientists that humans are impacting the climate has been attained and supported by repeated testing and scientific scrutiny over a period of at least three decades. Interesting questions remain to be studied, but the general outlines are well understood at this point. The Earth is unequivocally warming, and it is known with a very high degree of scientific confidence that this is largely the result of human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gasses.

That's an opinion disputed by other climate scientists. Personally I don't know.

If you or anyone else thinks the consensus is way off the mark, you are free to make your case, submit your data, and publish in peer reviewed scientific journals. Science is self-correcting, so if you have a valid testable hypothesis, then the burden is on you make your case and change the minds of the climate science community.

I don't think the 'consensus' is way off the mark one way or another. Like I said, I don't know. I do know this... I've never seen a published scientific paper with the conclusion that humans are the main cause of so called climate change. Never. Not one.
I'll give another example of a consensus that has never been proven.
There's a consensus that dental amalgam is harmful to human health because it's made of an alloy with mercury as an ingrediant. Everybody knows mercury is poisonous.
The problem with the consensus is that there has never been a study published with the conclusion that dental amalgam is harmful. Never. Not one.
Now I wouldn't eat dental amalgam for breakfast but I'd have no problem with it being used as a dental restoration.

Your premise is wrong.

No. It's right.

 

[Darth Omar]

So far so good.No, a theory is attaned through repeated testing with predictable results, not a consensus. There is no mention of 'consensus' needed to attain a theory in the Scientific Method. Repeated testing with rigourous scrutiny results in... repeated testing with rigourous scrutiny. That's sounds like experimental testing to be published. Nothing more.
Let's take the Theory of Evolution as an example of a scientific theory.
Evolution is proven repeatedly by carbon dated fossiles and corroborated by DNA testing. It goes beyond a "general agreement of a belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge" (definition of 'consensus'). Evolution biologists do not even question the Theory of Evolution. They are unanimous in agreement.
No. See above.^ That's one possible path to a consensus but not the only one. E.g., a consensus could be attained at a conference of scientists.
.
So even GreenFacts deems scientific expertise is lacking when 'consensus' is used.That's an opinion disputed by other climate scientists. Personally I don't know.
I don't think the 'consensus' is way off the mark one way or another. Like I said, I don't know. I do know this... I've never seen a published scientific paper with the conclusion that humans are the main cause of so called climate change. Never. Not one.
I'll give another example of a consensus that has never been proven.
There's a consensus that dental amalgam is harmful to human health because it's made of an alloy with mercury as an ingrediant. Everybody knows mercury is poisonous.
The problem with the consensus is that there has never been a study published with the conclusion that dental amalgam is harmful. Never. Not one.
Now I wouldn't eat dental amalgam for breakfast but I'd have no problem with it being used as a dental restoration.No. It's right.

Good post! Especially on the ‘consensus’ nonsense.

Except some aspects of evolution aren’t repeatable lol.

 

[Micawber]

So far so good.No, a theory is attaned through repeated testing with predictable results, not a consensus. There is no mention of 'consensus' needed to attain a theory in the Scientific Method. Repeated testing with rigourous scrutiny results in... repeated testing with rigourous scrutiny. That's sounds like experimental testing to be published. Nothing more.
Let's take the Theory of Evolution as an example of a scientific theory.
Evolution is proven repeatedly by carbon dated fossiles and corroborated by DNA testing. It goes beyond a "general agreement of a belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge" (definition of 'consensus'). Evolution biologists do not even question the Theory of Evolution. They are unanimous in agreement.
No. See above.^ That's one possible path to a consensus but not the only one. E.g., a consensus could be attained at a conference of scientists.
.
So even GreenFacts deems scientific expertise is lacking when 'consensus' is used.That's an opinion disputed by other climate scientists. Personally I don't know.
I don't think the 'consensus' is way off the mark one way or another. Like I said, I don't know. I do know this... I've never seen a published scientific paper with the conclusion that humans are the main cause of so called climate change. Never. Not one.
I'll give another example of a consensus that has never been proven.
There's a consensus that dental amalgam is harmful to human health because it's made of an alloy with mercury as an ingrediant. Everybody knows mercury is poisonous.
The problem with the consensus is that there has never been a study published with the conclusion that dental amalgam is harmful. Never. Not one.
Now I wouldn't eat dental amalgam for breakfast but I'd have no problem with it being used as a dental restoration.No. It's right.

All wrong. Everything Cypress said was perfect. And there isn't a single person here with a creditable opinion about climate science. Not a one. You either adopt the consensus and be rational, or adopt the extreme outlier opinion of experts in denial, and prove yourself to be lying about your opinion for partisan allegiance, personal monetary stakes or are just a crazed lunatic who doesn't understand what I wrote about expertise and consensus.

 

[Micawber]

Your premise is wrong. ..

Correct. He has misdefined consensus. A consensus means a general agreement. a 60-40 split is not a consensus. That is vast
disagreement. Climate scientists have an overwhelming consensus, the population at large does not.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Yet the vast majority are binary. Please reconcile this. You’re conflating rare phenotypical variation with the phenotype. You’re also agreeing with my point by observing that these phenotypical variations are rare. If you see my point?
Sex and gender are not as fluid or mosaic as those who are arguing social contructs would leave you to believe.

I agree, and mentioned that in my response. I merely wanted to point out that strictly speaking, h. sapiens is not 100% sexually binary.

Micawber and Cypress had some good points about the scientific method, as well as how race -- like gender fluidity -- is a social construct.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't see as many Dems driving SUVs.

crossovers.....

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Correct. He has misdefined consensus. A consensus means a general agreement. a 60-40 split is not a consensus. That is vast
disagreement. Climate scientists have an overwhelming consensus, the population at large does not.

Maybe pictures help the non-readers? lol

 

[Cypress]

Maybe pictures help the non-readers? lol

In the years before you joined this board, I can attest to the fact that many conservatives actually believed there was a vast, international conspiracy of climate scientists who were faking the data, lying, fabricating results, and perpetrating a hoax on the governments and citizens of the world.

An international conspiracy whose scale and scope really boggles the mind, when you really think about it. There was much fanfare and hope that "Climategate!" would blow the lid right off this nefarious liberal, scientific conspiracy.

These days, a lot of Climate Deniers have either retreated from that preposterous conspiracy theory, or are outright denying they ever promoted that conspiracy. But there is still one person out there peddling that ridiculous conspiracy theory.

"Global warming is a Chinese hoax!"
-Donald Trumpf

 

[anonymoose]

crossovers.....

Dems are gender crossovers???

 

[anonymoose]

Good
Except some aspects of evolution aren’t repeatable lol.

Sure there's disagreement among evolution biologists about what species evolved from other species , e.g. But over time those gaps get filled with more findings thru discovery and research. There will always be questions of that nature. But biologists do not even question the theory.

 

[Darth Omar]

Sure there's disagreement among evolution biologists about what species evolved from other species , e.g. But over time those gaps get filled with more findings thru discovery and research. There will always be questions of that nature. But biologists do not even question the theory.

The point though is that some aspects [indeed, the most interesting aspects] of evolution suffers from the same malady that plagues the climate change hypothesis: the past is unrepeatable.

 

[Superfreak]

Preventing the statistical analysis of gun injuries and death by public health institutions, such as, CDC.

While I have no problem with someone doing an analysis as described, the CDC is not the place. The FBI already compiles the data, you just need to make it to where everyone is reporting it.

Also, statistical analysis is used by scientists, it is not science.

 

[Superfreak]

Scientific consensus is what most scientists in a particular field of study agree is true on a given question, when disagreement on the question is limited and insignificant. Though it does not mean unanimity.

The consensus may or may not turn out to be confirmed by further research. When it is, a hypothesis becomes known as a (lower-case) theory, or, given enough time and evidence, an (upper case) Theory, such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Numerous times in the history of science one theory has been superseded by another as anomalies or counter-examples accrued over time and the scientific community has discarded an older theory in favor of a new theory which accounted for more of the data in a more satisfactory way. This often occurs as the result of improvements in the accuracy of the instruments used to observe, record and measure phenomena.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Consensus does not mean shutting down discussion, proclaiming anyone who dares question the 'consensus' a 'science denier'. That is what the flat earthers did. That is what the churches did regarding the center of the universe.

When the 'scientists' in a field continually 'adjust' their data and do not disclose why they did so and yell 'climate denier' at anyone who dares ask why... that is not consensus, it is a cover up. A fraud.

 

[Superfreak]

AND THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS THAT GENDER IS NOT BINARY

The XX and XY chromosomes are *signalling mechanisms*. They are not *gender*. Every human being has the full genetic code to construct both a woman and a man. The Y chromosome is a stump chromosome with almost no genetic information, it does not contain the genetic code for a penis and such. It is just a signalling mechanism that is supposed to signal the expression of gender changes elsewhere. So the penis becomes a clitoris, the balls labia, as well as a spectrum of possible expression in between those two. IT IS NOT ALWAYS FULLY SUCCESSFUL. That is where transgenderism arises, the failure of this signalling mechanism to force expression of gender changes in the brain and elsewhere in the body.

This is basic science. You are an ignorant cranky fool.

Please link us up to your basic science reference regarding the Y chromosome containing almost no genetic information. Been a few decades since my last class, but there were thought to be about 50-60 million base pairs in the Y chromosome of human DNA back in the day. That has changed???