Science Denial Runs Red and Blue

[Darth Omar]

Well let me ask you this, how often have you experienced that dilemma in your clinical experience?

Never, that I’m aware of. But in my instance if I don’t need to know I don’t want to know. If a patient has avulsed their glenohumeral ligament, that’s literally all I need to know about them. How they did it might be interesting but that changes nothing in my world. Unless a patients gender affects what we’re getting ready to do it’s unnecessary information.

If a given patient is some form of transgender that information is considered irrelevant *unless* they have had transgender surgery and whatever we are doing is going to involve an affected part of the anatomy. Though we are supposed to avoid referring to them as male when they identify as female and vis a versa.

But it stops there. Other than than that, gender is binary from top to bottom in the medical world. For example, general practitioners aren’t required to do prostate exams on female patients who identify as male. I’m not sure how that’s handled though lol.

Maybe they smile and say ‘no, you’re good, you don’t need one this one time’.

 

[Oneuli]

I'm fairly liberal and I'm a biologist. Though intersex births do occur, they are rare, less than 1% of births.

See my comments above, regarding how we're talking about a spectrum even among those not labeled intersex. Name a primary or secondary sexual characteristic, from hormone levels to breast or penis size, to gonad output, to build, etc., and you'll find a pretty smooth continuum. Some feel a strong emotional need to pretend sex is a binary matter, but, in scientific terms, it isn't. You can create a binary definition, allowing you to categorize everyone into one group or another. But that's like saying I can create a definition for "tall" that I can then use to characterize everyone in a binary way as either "tall" or not.

We also know that gender identity is not a social construct. The body of evidence points to the fact that a persons gender identity, whether they subjectively feel male or female, is the result of prenatal hormonal exposure

Again, that points to the spectrum. We're all exposed to a cocktail of hormones prenatally. It's not like it's either precisely X level of testosterone or precisely Y level of estrogen. It's both estrogen and testosterone for all of us, in various ratios. And whether it's because of that hormone stew or for other reasons, there's a fair amount of variation in how people identify, in terms of gender, and also towards whom (and even whether) they feel sexual attraction.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

See my comments above, regarding how we're talking about a spectrum even among those not labeled intersex. Name a primary or secondary sexual characteristic, from hormone levels to breast or penis size, to gonad output, to build, etc., and you'll find a pretty smooth continuum. Some feel a strong emotional need to pretend sex is a binary matter, but, in scientific terms, it isn't. You can create a binary definition, allowing you to categorize everyone into one group or another. But that's like saying I can create a definition for "tall" that I can then use to characterize everyone in a binary way as either "tall" or not.



Again, that points to the spectrum. We're all exposed to a cocktail of hormones prenatally. It's not like it's either precisely X level of testosterone or precisely Y level of estrogen. It's both estrogen and testosterone for all of us, in various ratios. And whether it's because of that hormone stew or for other reasons, there's a fair amount of variation in how people identify, in terms of gender, and also towards whom (and even whether) they feel sexual attraction.

Yet the vast majority have a sex/gender identity that are binary. Please reconcile this.

 

[cancel2 2022]

This says it all.

 

[Oneuli]

Yet the vast majority have a sex/gender identity that are binary. Please reconcile this.

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say when you say "please reconcile this."

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say when you say "please reconcile this."

Reconcile the reality of what one observes, not predominantly but an overwhelming majority of people in which both sex and gender are binary, with the mosaic hypothesis.

 

[Oneuli]

Reconcile the reality of what one observes, not predominantly but an overwhelming majority of people in which both sex and gender are binary, with the mosaic hypothesis.

I still don't get what you're saying. The existence of a mosaicism of chromosomes in some individuals isn't an hypothesis; it's an observed fact. As for reconciling that with observations of the overwhelming majority of people, the overwhelming majority don't have mosaic chromosomes, so how would that be possible?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

This says it all.

View attachment 8888

so you're saying science has become the new faith?......

 

[Superfreak]

The Y chromosome has around 59 million base pairs; the X has ~155 million.

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/X
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/Y

Thanks. So it has not changed. Thus, the claim it had almost no genetic information is not correct.

 

[cancel2 2022]

so you're saying science has become the new faith?......

It is pointing out the difference between Science and Scientology.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Thanks. So it has not changed. Thus, the claim it had almost no genetic information is not correct.

You are right. It does contain genetic information. It is also more subject to genetic drift, an interesting subject all on its own.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
The Y chromosome has around 59 million base pairs; the X has ~155 million.

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/X
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/Y

no wonder women are so fickle.......

 

[gfm7175]

Not going to use my time to respond comprehensively to this word salad.

I don't agree with his explanation of how science works, and I don't agree with his bit about the Theory of Evolution, nor his idea that science somehow 'proves' things... He IS correct about science not being consensus, however...

Science is a set of falsifiable theories; that's ALL science is. It is not a consensus, a method, a university course, etc... The Theory of Evolution is not science. It is a religion. It is not falsifiable, as we don't have the means to test its null hypothesis. We don't have time machines to go back in time to see what actually happened. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. Science is also incapable of proving anything... It is an open functional system. Only closed functional systems such as logic and mathematics make use of proofs. Science doesn't even make use of supporting evidence; it only makes use of conflicting evidence.

Your opinion about scientific consensus is wrong.

No, he was quite correct about that bit. Science is NOT consensus. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

I work directly with scientists, aka ecologists, earth scientists, oceanographers, geophysicists who know what scientific consensus is, what it represents, and the role it plays in advancing human knowledge.

I don't believe you. You will find that credentials are meaningless on internet forums...

There is no such thing as a "scientific consensus"... A consensus is NOT science.

I really can't spend the time in a futile effort to convince an obscure message board poster that they do not have a clear understanding of the role and significance of professional consensus.

Science is NOT consensus, Cypress... It is a set of falsifiable theories. That's ALL science is.

 

[gfm7175]

The right-wingers have been told repeatedly by their handlers that the 97% figure is based on a single study that looked at the question of what percent of papers that have taken a position on climate change took the mainstream position. What those wing-nut propaganda sites don't tell them, though, is that's just one of many different studies, each using different methods, each of which comes to a pretty similar number.

Specifically, the talking point the right-wing sources have told their minions to parrot is in response to a research paper by Cook. But there's also a landmark study by Doran & Zimmerman that found a 97% consensus among active climate researchers, and there's an Anderegg study that found over 97% of climate experts who'd supported or rejected the existence human-caused global warming had come down on the supporting side, and there's an Oreskes study that found no rejections of the climate consensus among 928 study abstracts, and so on. There's also a 100% consensus among the 33 national academies of sciences that have taken a position -- which includes all the major academies.

Depending on the exact way you ask the questions, and the exact group of scientists you're asking (e.g., are you sticking to tar-sands petroleum geologists in Alberta, or leading global geophysicists and climatologists?), the numbers can come out different. But, the general picture is this:

(1) A large percentage of experts agree with the IPCC position in its broad outlines,
(2) Agreement is higher the more expert the group you're consulting (e.g., higher among climatologists than meteorologists, and higher among people with advanced educations than people with no education past high school).
(3) Agreement has been growing more common over time among scientists.

So, whether we say the consensus is 91%, 97%, or 100%, it's certainly more than strong enough that any reasonable person regards it as sufficient basis for setting policy with the assumption the consensus is more or less correct:

Not interested in your hateful bigotry...

Science is NOT a consensus, Oneuli... It is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[evince]

I don't agree with his explanation of how science works, and I don't agree with his bit about the Theory of Evolution, nor his idea that science somehow 'proves' things... He IS correct about science not being consensus, however...

Science is a set of falsifiable theories; that's ALL science is. It is not a consensus, a method, a university course, etc... The Theory of Evolution is not science. It is a religion. It is not falsifiable, as we don't have the means to test its null hypothesis. We don't have time machines to go back in time to see what actually happened. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. Science is also incapable of proving anything... It is an open functional system. Only closed functional systems such as logic and mathematics make use of proofs. Science doesn't even make use of supporting evidence; it only makes use of conflicting evidence.


No, he was quite correct about that bit. Science is NOT consensus. It is a set of falsifiable theories.


I don't believe you. You will find that credentials are meaningless on internet forums...

There is no such thing as a "scientific consensus"... A consensus is NOT science.


Science is NOT consensus, Cypress... It is a set of falsifiable theories. That's ALL science is.

you are an idiot dupe


what you "think" is meaningless to the rest of the world


you are not king


Oh and by the way science has PROVEN the connection between GW and mankinds actions



and the evolution thing?


denying that is like saying you don't believe the world has an atmosphere


suck that putin cock

its the only thing you are good at

 

[evince]

no wonder women are so fickle.......

there goes that claim of yours that you are female

 

[evince]

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.

The biggest myth about vaccine deniers: That they’re all a ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/...

Mar 14, 2019 · But really, political ideology didn’t have a large overall impact on vaccine denial in the study. The study found that the really big contributor to distrusting or disliking vaccines was not political ideology ideology at all, but rather, having a conspiratorial …

 

[gfm7175]

Hello anonymoose,

I will respond anyway, since I have information to add...

I believe your perception is inaccurate.

He is quite accurate about science not being a consensus.

Deniers are always demanding proof.

YOU have the burden of proof, since YOU are the one making the claim that it is happening. YOU need to show that it is. YOU need to present acceptable data, or even show how currently standing laws of science have been falsified...

Evidence is offered but not generally claimed to be proof.

Evidence is not proof. They are two completely different things.
Evidence is any statement which supports an argument.
Proof is an extension of foundational axioms.

It is the demand for proof which is absurd.

The demand is for acceptable data or the falsification of currently standing laws of science...

Especially when waiting for proof could be waiting too late to take appropriate measures.

Pascal's Wager Fallacy. You seem to REALLY enjoy this one...

Simply the possibility that we might affect our climate, coupled with the likely need that we should do so are enough for us to take the very wise precaution of trying to manage it.

Continued Pascal's Wager Fallacy... What if NOTHING will happen if we don't "take action"??

It's called hoping for the best while being prepared for the worst. You're covered either way. Your way, if we guessed wrong we're screwed. Our way, we have at least done everything we can do. Worst case is we got more efficient with energy and got less pollution. Besides. New technology creates new jobs.

No, it's called the Pascal's Wager Fallacy. It is an error of logic.

Have you become a Christian yet?? You would be "smart" to become one in order to avoid the possibility of eternal damnation in hell, right??

 

[evince]

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/


The psychological studies that have attempted to unravel the causes of transsexuality, on the other hand, have largely failed to gain traction in modern times. For many years, psychologists characterized transgender identity as a psychological disorder. Some, for instance, believed it was a coping mechanism to “rectify” latent feelings of homosexuality, or the result of environmental trauma or “poor” parenting. No studies have been able to demonstrate this, however, and these “findings” are considered outdated and have been highly criticized for their discriminatory implications. Other psychologists have attempted to differentiate groups of transsexuals based on factors such as IQ and ethnicity; similarly, these theories have been overwhelmingly rejected due to poor study design and issues with ethics.
And so, while the list of causes for transgender identity continues to grow, it has become quite clear that it is not a conscious choice – similar to what has been described for the “reasons” behind sexual orientation. Still, at least 63% of transgender individuals experience debilitating acts of discrimination on a regular basis, including incarceration, homelessness, and physical assault. When about 1.7% of the population is in some way affected by cases of ambiguous genitalia at birth, these findings seem staggering.
So, where do we stand on transgender issues? Science tells us that gender is certainly not binary; it may not even be a linear spectrum. Like many other facets of identity, it can operate on a broad range of levels and operate outside of many definitions. And it also appears that gender may not be as static as we assume. At the forefront of this, transgender identity is complex – it’s unlikely we’ll ever be able to attribute it to one neat, contained set of causes, and there is still much to be learned. But we know now that several of those causes are biological. These individuals are not suffering a mental illness, or capriciously “choosing” a different identity. The transgender identity is multi-dimensional – but it deserves no less recognition or respect than any other facet of humankind.

 

[Cypress]

I don't agree with his explanation of how science works, and I don't agree with his bit about the Theory of Evolution, nor his idea that science somehow 'proves' things... He IS correct about science not being consensus, however...

Science is a set of falsifiable theories; that's ALL science is. It is not a consensus, a method, a university course, etc... The Theory of Evolution is not science. It is a religion. It is not falsifiable, as we don't have the means to test its null hypothesis. We don't have time machines to go back in time to see what actually happened. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. Science is also incapable of proving anything... It is an open functional system. Only closed functional systems such as logic and mathematics make use of proofs. Science doesn't even make use of supporting evidence; it only makes use of conflicting evidence.


No, he was quite correct about that bit. Science is NOT consensus. It is a set of falsifiable theories.


I don't believe you. You will find that credentials are meaningless on internet forums...

There is no such thing as a "scientific consensus"... A consensus is NOT science.


Science is NOT consensus, Cypress... It is a set of falsifiable theories. That's ALL science is.

From an obscure and anonymous message board poster:

gfm7174: "There is no no such thing as a "scientific consensus"... A consensus is NOT science!"


From the nation's foremost prestigious science organization:

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences: We seek, facilitate, and publish scientific consensus reports

National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council

About Our Expert Consensus Reports
What is an Expert Consensus Report?

It's a report produced by a committee of experts convened by the National Academies (most often in the name of the National Research Council, but also in the name of the Institute of Medicine, the Transportation Research Board [another division of the National Research Council], the National Academy of Engineering, and occasionally the National Academy of Sciences) to study a specific scientific or technological issue of national importance.

These experts bring the range of expertise and balance of perspectives to address the issue. They serve pro bono and are screened for conflicts of interest to ensure that the committee is able to provide impartial and objective advice.

Through these committees, the Academies produce about 200 to 250 consensus reports each year. These reports are viewed as being credible and authoritative because of their independence and the unique ability of the Academies to recruit the world's top experts to serve on these committees and because of the unique study process.

As a final check on each study's quality and objectivity, all Academies consensus reports undergo a rigorous peer-review by independent experts. As a result, these reports not only represent the consensus view of the committee, but also have a formal Academies sign-off indicating that the report adequately addresses the statement of task, doesn't go beyond the task, and that all important issues raised in the peer-review have been adequately addressed.

http://dels.nas.edu/global/Consensus-Report