Science Denial Runs Red and Blue

Mott the Hoople said:
LOL You'll have to show me a correlation between GMO foods and eating more to validate that hypothesis. ;)
Click to expand...

I have spoken to before about this, the concern is not so much with genetically modified foodstuffs now, but in the future when animal or maybe even human genes are spliced into vegetable DNA. That is when the true Frankenstein scenario is enabled to my mind.
 
President of Venezuala said:
Fuck off idiots rightist

The overwhelming medical consensus is that transgender people exist and are real. You have no authority to contradict the medical establishment with your pseudoscientific theories of trans-denial. There is an established scientific consensus that gender is NOT binary. Find me one legitimate modern scientific source that says otherwise. There are none. Because you are a pseudoscientist fascist.

And by "evolution" I'm sure you mean pseudosciences like evolutionary psychology, which just like social darwinism are attempts to create shields for fascism by combining evolution and social sciences and using that to defend the social status quo. They are all garbage with no scientific validity. You are an enemy of science and should burn your degree. I am an educated computer scientist and I am a thousand times more knowledgable about biology and medicine than you are, you stupid ignorant fascist boomer.
Click to expand...

back-in-my-day-blowing-a-tranny-meant-car-trouble.jpg
 
Mott the Hoople said:
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.
Click to expand...
Mott the Hoople said:
Certainly when the discussion of science denial is brought up it is used pejoratively to accuse conservatives of denying scientific consensus.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with skepticism of scientific consensus since consensus is nothing that has been proven.
In fact I'd argue science denial is far more prevalent from the left in regard to AGW. When I see "The science is settled... 97% consensus..." I have to chuckle. Consensus settles nothing and anyone who states something this absurd show me how ignorant that person is of how science works.
Mott the Hoople said:
Teaching evolutionary theory and climate change are probably the big two hot button topic that most are familiar with.
Click to expand...
Anyone who denies evolutionary theory is equally ignorant. Not necessarily dumb, just ignorant of the science behind it.
Most books by Richard Dawkins would be a good education for them.
 
President of Venezuala said:
Fuck off idiots rightist

The overwhelming medical consensus is that transgender people exist and are real. You have no authority to contradict the medical establishment with your pseudoscientific theories of trans-denial. There is an established scientific consensus that gender is NOT binary. Find me one legitimate modern scientific source that says otherwise. There are none. Because you are a pseudoscientist fascist.

And by "evolution" I'm sure you mean pseudosciences like evolutionary psychology, which just like social darwinism are attempts to create shields for fascism by combining evolution and social sciences and using that to defend the social status quo. They are all garbage with no scientific validity. You are an enemy of science and should burn your degree. I am an educated computer scientist and I am a thousand times more knowledgable about biology and medicine than you are, you stupid ignorant fascist boomer.
Click to expand...
Yea yea...try not to drool so much on the joint Skidmark. There’s no biological facts supporting transgenderism. Sex and gender are binary. That’s a fact. That doesn’t mean that gender dysphoria doesn’t exist or that those who decide to transition shouldn’t be treated with dignity and respect and equal rights. Yet sex and gender are biologically binary and I defy you to provide scientific evidence that they are not.

And who said anything about social Darwinism? Only you. If you don’t understand that evolutionary processes impact behavior than you don’t understand evolutionary theory.
 
President of Venezuala said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well it’s not all genetics. Hormonal influences play a tremendous factor in gender identity which occurs prenatally. You can believe all the social constructs you want but for the vast majority of persons sex and gender are determined at a biochemical level and social constructs provide little evidence to contradict that.
 
anonymoose said:
Nothing wrong with skepticism of scientific consensus since consensus is nothing that has been proven.
In fact I'd argue science denial is far more prevalent from the left in regard to AGW. When I see "The science is settled... 97% consensus..." I have to chuckle. Consensus settles nothing and anyone who states something this absurd show me how ignorant that person is of how science works. Anyone who denies evolutionary theory is equally ignorant. Not necessarily dumb, just ignorant of the science behind it.
Most books by Richard Dawkins would be a good education for them.
Click to expand...
again, as I said, scientific consensus doesn’t mean unanimity or that all questions have been answered but that those questions have been narrowed to a point that available data does not support competing views.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I think this is a good way of discussing the dangers of politicizing science. Certainly when the discussion of science denial is brought up it is used pejoratively to accuse conservatives of denying scientific consensus. Teaching evolutionary theory and climate change are probably the big two hot button topic that most are familiar with.

However my readings on many posters in political message boards and listening and reading political polemicist I've found that science denial often has more to do with a person being, not well informed on science or how to evaluate scientific data is or understanding what a scientific consensus is (it's not a popularity contest, that's for sure). I've also found that it has a lot to do with a persons personal politics being ideologically driven. In that respect I find liberals just as guilty of science denial as conservatives are about evolution, astronomy, climate change, gun violence, etc,.

Don't believe me? Talk to a liberal ideologues about vaccinations, gender, GMO Food safety, the evolutionary basis of social behavior, etc,.

Take Gender identity issues. The social theories on gender identity are simply not supported by science. Both sex and gender are binary. That's an established scientific fact which has scientific consensus. GMO Food Safety - The vast majority of peer reviewed literature and most relevant scientific associations have concluded that GMO Foods are safe. The same is true with vaccinations. The scientific consensus is that the benefits of vaccinations far out weigh the risk. Yet many liberals are hostile to these scientific consensus.

This is why as a person educated and trained in science why I'm careful about politicizing science. Often when that happens the facts and the consequences of those facts are relegated to secondary status to what is either politically popular or politically expedient.
Click to expand...

Of course....its not the bullshit philosophy (theoretical non provable science) attempted to be passed of as Applied Science....its THE PEOPLE that are not capable of understanding.

Why don't you explain a little better to us we peons have trouble with condescension. Why are all supposed liberals (equality for everyone) so quick to point out how great they are and how stupid are those who disagree with the horseshit they are slinging? Just like Obama and The Affordable Care Act......the people just don't know the benefits, they don't UNDERSTAND.


Its simple: Show us through the SCIENTIFIC METHOD the LAW of EVOLUTION. Show through the scientific method how to create life from non-living matter......disprove Pasteur's scientific experiment that proves that LIFE CAN ONLY BE PROCREATED BY EXISTING LIFE WITHIN THAT SAME SPECIES. Proceed. Show us how dumb we are for demanding REAL SCIENCE.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I think this is a good way of discussing the dangers of politicizing science. Certainly when the discussion of science denial is brought up it is used pejoratively to accuse conservatives of denying scientific consensus. Teaching evolutionary theory and climate change are probably the big two hot button topic that most are familiar with.

However my readings on many posters in political message boards and listening and reading political polemicist I've found that science denial often has more to do with a person being, not well informed on science or how to evaluate scientific data is or understanding what a scientific consensus is (it's not a popularity contest, that's for sure). I've also found that it has a lot to do with a persons personal politics being ideologically driven. In that respect I find liberals just as guilty of science denial as conservatives are about evolution, astronomy, climate change, gun violence, etc,.

Don't believe me? Talk to a liberal ideologues about vaccinations, gender, GMO Food safety, the evolutionary basis of social behavior, etc,.

Take Gender identity issues. The social theories on gender identity are simply not supported by science. Both sex and gender are binary. That's an established scientific fact which has scientific consensus. GMO Food Safety - The vast majority of peer reviewed literature and most relevant scientific associations have concluded that GMO Foods are safe. The same is true with vaccinations. The scientific consensus is that the benefits of vaccinations far out weigh the risk. Yet many liberals are hostile to these scientific consensus.

This is why as a person educated and trained in science why I'm careful about politicizing science. Often when that happens the facts and the consequences of those facts are relegated to secondary status to what is either politically popular or politically expedient.
Click to expand...

Anecdotal rubbish. Liberals follow the science on vaccines and they don't deny male and female sexuality exists. We just don't have a problem with gay people, sex changes or dudes who just have tiny shriveled up peckers like Trump pretending to be macho. The rest of your list too. Rural right wing tards
of the religious persuasion are the serious offenders, the rest just support them for the votes, and are apparently willing to sacrifice
others' safety, a sentiment I disagree with also.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yea yea...try not to drool so much on the joint Skidmark. There’s no biological facts supporting transgenderism. Sex and gender are binary. That’s a fact. That doesn’t mean that gender dysphoria doesn’t exist or that those who decide to transition shouldn’t be treated with dignity and respect and equal rights. Yet sex and gender are biologically binary and I defy you to provide scientific evidence that they are not.

And who said anything about social Darwinism? Only you. If you don’t understand that evolutionary processes impact behavior than you don’t understand evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...enial-Runs-Red-and-Blue&p=2921488#post2921488
 
Ralph said:
Of course....its not the bullshit philosophy (theoretical non provable science) attempted to be passed of as Applied Science....its THE PEOPLE that are not capable of understanding.

Why don't you explain a little better to us we peons have trouble with condescension. Why are all supposed liberals (equality for everyone) so quick to point out how great they are and how stupid are those who disagree with the horseshit they are slinging? Just like Obama and The Affordable Care Act......the people just don't know the benefits, they don't UNDERSTAND.


Its simple: Show us through the SCIENTIFIC METHOD the LAW of EVOLUTION. Show through the scientific method how to create life from non-living matter......disprove Pasteur's scientific experiment that proves that LIFE CAN ONLY BE PROCREATED BY EXISTING LIFE WITHIN THAT SAME SPECIES. Proceed. Show us how dumb we are for demanding REAL SCIENCE.
Click to expand...

My good sir...why don’t you try studying it instead of glorifying the profundity of your ignorance.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Good post, Mott. I agree that both sides sometimes use or abuse science for political purposes. I recall during the 60s and 70s how science was distrusted and feared by many on the left. My dad was a scientist and occasionally ranted about this. At that time, the (R)s were the friends of science and didn't skimp on funding for R&D in dozens of scientific areas, including of course space exploration.

I'm going to take issue with your statement here. "Both sex and gender are binary. That's an established scientific fact which has scientific consensus." This is not true. As we know, in some species gender can be transformed depending on the scarcity or abundance of the opposite sex.

"Clownfish, wrasses, moray eels, gobies[2] and other fish species are known to change sex, including reproductive functions. A school of clownfish is always built into a hierarchy with a female fish at the top. When she dies, the most dominant male changes sex and takes her place.[3] In the wrasses (the family Labridae), sex change is from female to male, with the largest female of the harem changing into a male and taking over the harem upon the disappearance of the previous dominant male. " (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_change)

In many reptiles, sex at birth is determined by the temperature of the egg while incubating. It is not an innate XX/XY given.

As for humans:


"Humans are born with 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs. The X and Y chromosomes determine a person’s sex. Most women are 46XX and most men are 46XY. Research suggests, however, that in a few births per thousand some individuals will be born with a single sex chromosome (45X or 45Y) (sex monosomies) and some with three or more sex chromosomes (47XXX, 47XYY or 47XXY, etc.) (sex polysomies). In addition, some males are born 46XX due to the translocation of a tiny section of the sex determining region of the Y chromosome. Similarly some females are also born 46XY due to mutations in the Y chromosome. Clearly, there are not only females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of chromosome complements, hormone balances, and phenotypic variations that determine sex." (Source: https://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html)
Click to expand...
i was referring to our species and mammals in general. Sex and gender as biological phenomena are binary, with few exceptions, as your citation points out, within our species and by few exceptions I mean better than 99-1. Also even with the variation of sex chromosome genotypes you described the result, in the overwhelming majority of times is still binary nor does it consider the profound influence of hormones in prenatal development that also drives sex and gender towards binary results as is empirically observable.

So the biological fact is that for the vast majority of mammals sex and gender are binary. One only needs to look around them to observe this fact.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Excellent question Desh. No it is not. Then again neither is Climate Change for the GOP. They dropped it from their 2016 platform and stated that it's not a pressing national security issue. Which says about as much as it actually being on their platform.
Click to expand...

Not on the platform, just on their programs and bills. Trump has made his ignorant stance clear many times. Don't mitigate the rights damage to the environment with pretending the right and left are the same. A few vaccers, some who are rightys, are not equivalent to science denial of the Republican party.
 
The valuable insight on scientific consensus is that it provides a rational basis to justify a belief
when the subject is one beyond lay understanding and training. If you are honest enough to admit
a subject is one in which expertise is required, and honest enough to admit you lack it, and that same
subject is one in which 97% of the accredited experts who acknowledge each others' expertise by
degree or certification or training and having used it in the field of study, then it is a wholly
irrational act to not put in with that consensus. It doesn't make me an expert in climate science
to put in with the 97%, but it makes me not an idiot.

Further I sayeth not.
 
Nordberg said:
Not on the platform, just on their programs and bills. Trump has made his ignorant stance clear many times. Don't mitigate the rights damage to the environment with pretending the right and left are the same. A few vaccers, some who are rightys, are not equivalent to science denial of the Republican party.
Click to expand...

That is the distastefulness of his opinion, and why ten 'tards immediately clapped like a bunch of Tory's when the Brits
bombed the helpless Faulklands.:palm:

They are tired of being called fools, and Mott just declared in pari delicto. Nay I say.
 
Cypress said:
All good insights.

The thing is, I personally do not even know any liberals who are anti-vaxers, and very few who are anti-GMO. I certainly am not, and I think to the extent that kind of science denial exists on the left, it is not ubiquitous, is relatively rare, and is pretty fringe. I also am not aware of any reputable studies that pins anti-vaxers as being a left wing issue. Are there not anti-vaxers on the reich wing?

When it comes to climate denial, evolution denial, creation science, young Earth - those types of denial are widespread and ubiquitous on the right. So it is really not a fair comparison, or fair analogy to compare anti-vaxers to climate deniers. They are orders of magnitude different in proportion and scope. And proportion and scope matter when one talks about public policy and legislative priorities.
Click to expand...

The only leftist I know of who is an anti-vaxer is RFK's son. OTOH, every leftist I know is anti-GMO. This may just be cultural to the Pacific NW.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
i was referring to our species and mammals in general. Sex and gender as biological phenomena are binary, with few exceptions, within our species.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top