Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 235

Thread: Science Denial Runs Red and Blue

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    74,705
    Thanks
    30,623
    Thanked 20,324 Times in 15,909 Posts
    Groans
    21,225
    Groaned 3,621 Times in 3,442 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    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.
    Mott, do yourself a favour and read what Michael Shellenberg has to say, you might just learn something.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...00#post2920100
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  2. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    7,493
    Thanks
    96
    Thanked 3,924 Times in 2,951 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 229 Times in 217 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    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.
    I think the absurdity is in those that have painted the extremes. For the Climate... the left paints anyone who disagrees or is unconvinced that man is the PRIMARY driver of the changes in the climate as 'climate deniers' and then pretend that anyone who disagrees/questions that man is the primary driver believes that the climate hasn't changed. They then pretend that the climate hasn't been changing for billions of years. They then pretend not to notice the non stop 'adjustments' of data to force it to fit the models they want.

    As for the anti-vax crowd... are they really against ALL vaccinations or do most of them simply question the huge jump in the number of vaccines given to children? We went from the big 7 or 8 vaccines in the 70's and 80's to over 24 now. Add in the CDC recommendations on flu shots and other repeats and kids are now getting 50-60 shots by the time they are 2.

    GMO is a fear mongering tactic like the AGW crowd. Most of them chant talking points that ignore actual data.

    Add in studies on DDT etc... that the fear mongers went so far to the extreme that the near elimination of malaria in the 60's/70's in Africa has now turned back into millions being infected and dying every year. All because the idiots went to the extreme to ban it for everything (a partial ban would have made more sense, especially in developed nations).

    The left ignores basic genetics when discussing abortion. They can't seem to stomach having the legal discussion, so they ignore science and pretend the life is something other than a life.

    Side note... the science of gun violence???? please elaborate.

  3. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Superfreak For This Post:

    anonymoose (03-05-2019), Bigdog (03-05-2019), Havana Moon (03-05-2019), Truth Detector (03-05-2019)

  4. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    15,928
    Thanks
    2,369
    Thanked 8,640 Times in 5,514 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,157 Times in 1,944 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Mott, do yourself a favour and read what Michael Shellenberg has to say, you might just learn something.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...00#post2920100
    'favour'?

    learn English in England perchance comrade?

  5. The Following User Groans At reagansghost For This Awful Post:

    Havana Moon (03-05-2019)

  6. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    74,705
    Thanks
    30,623
    Thanked 20,324 Times in 15,909 Posts
    Groans
    21,225
    Groaned 3,621 Times in 3,442 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reagansghost View Post
    'favour'?

    learn English in England perchance comrade?
    I am English, you dopey twat!!
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Havana Moon For This Post:

    Truth Detector (03-05-2019)

  8. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    15,928
    Thanks
    2,369
    Thanked 8,640 Times in 5,514 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,157 Times in 1,944 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    I am English, you dopey twat!!
    oh, that makes perfect sense wanker!

  9. The Following User Groans At reagansghost For This Awful Post:

    Havana Moon (03-05-2019)

  10. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    74,705
    Thanks
    30,623
    Thanked 20,324 Times in 15,909 Posts
    Groans
    21,225
    Groaned 3,621 Times in 3,442 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfreak View Post
    I think the absurdity is in those that have painted the extremes. For the Climate... the left paints anyone who disagrees or is unconvinced that man is the PRIMARY driver of the changes in the climate as 'climate deniers' and then pretend that anyone who disagrees/questions that man is the primary driver believes that the climate hasn't changed. They then pretend that the climate hasn't been changing for billions of years. They then pretend not to notice the non stop 'adjustments' of data to force it to fit the models they want.

    As for the anti-vax crowd... are they really against ALL vaccinations or do most of them simply question the huge jump in the number of vaccines given to children? We went from the big 7 or 8 vaccines in the 70's and 80's to over 24 now. Add in the CDC recommendations on flu shots and other repeats and kids are now getting 50-60 shots by the time they are 2.

    GMO is a fear mongering tactic like the AGW crowd. Most of them chant talking points that ignore actual data.

    Add in studies on DDT etc... that the fear mongers went so far to the extreme that the near elimination of malaria in the 60's/70's in Africa has now turned back into millions being infected and dying every year. All because the idiots went to the extreme to ban it for everything (a partial ban would have made more sense, especially in developed nations).

    The left ignores basic genetics when discussing abortion. They can't seem to stomach having the legal discussion, so they ignore science and pretend the life is something other than a life.

    Side note... the science of gun violence???? please elaborate.
    The Silent Spring, written by that arrogant bitch Rachel Carson, caused the deaths of millions of children in Africa and Asia. Yet the left learns nothing, each generation is more extreme and ill informed seemingly than the last.
    Last edited by Havana Moon; 03-05-2019 at 03:42 PM.
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Havana Moon For This Post:

    Bigdog (03-05-2019), Truth Detector (03-05-2019)

  12. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4,327
    Thanks
    1,577
    Thanked 3,298 Times in 2,066 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 105 Times in 91 Posts
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    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).
    consensus[kuh n-sen-suh s]noun, plural con·sen·sus·es.
    majority of opinion:
    Example.: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
    general agreement or concord; harmony.
    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consensus
    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.

    Definition of opinion
    1a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
    We asked them for their opinions about the new stadium.
    b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
    I have no great opinion of his work.
    2a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
    a person of rigid opinions
    b : a generally held view
    news programs that shape public opinion
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/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.
    Last edited by anonymoose; 03-05-2019 at 02:18 PM.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to anonymoose For This Post:

    Bigdog (03-05-2019), Truth Detector (03-05-2019)

  14. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    52,877
    Thanks
    14,207
    Thanked 17,585 Times in 12,133 Posts
    Groans
    284
    Groaned 1,113 Times in 1,061 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    This is anecdotal but Marin County is the other side of the Golden Gate Bridge and is a well educated, economically successful, largely white and very liberal area. It is also home to many anti-vaxers. I can’t explain why that is but it just is.
    I come from a family of Chiropractors....most of the folks I know in that circle are anti-vaxers and THEY ARE well educated in science. I have argued with them that when the statistical odds of a vaccine having a dangerous adverse side affect is greater than the statistical probability of risk of a non-endemic virus than it should not be used but other than that the benefits far outweigh the risks....but they go way beyond that and argue myths that have been debunked, such as, an association of vaccines with autism or that vaccines contain formaldehyde, etc.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mott the Hoople For This Post:

    anonymoose (03-05-2019), Bigdog (03-05-2019)

  16. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    52,877
    Thanks
    14,207
    Thanked 17,585 Times in 12,133 Posts
    Groans
    284
    Groaned 1,113 Times in 1,061 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfreak View Post
    I think the absurdity is in those that have painted the extremes. For the Climate... the left paints anyone who disagrees or is unconvinced that man is the PRIMARY driver of the changes in the climate as 'climate deniers' and then pretend that anyone who disagrees/questions that man is the primary driver believes that the climate hasn't changed. They then pretend that the climate hasn't been changing for billions of years. They then pretend not to notice the non stop 'adjustments' of data to force it to fit the models they want.

    As for the anti-vax crowd... are they really against ALL vaccinations or do most of them simply question the huge jump in the number of vaccines given to children? We went from the big 7 or 8 vaccines in the 70's and 80's to over 24 now. Add in the CDC recommendations on flu shots and other repeats and kids are now getting 50-60 shots by the time they are 2.

    GMO is a fear mongering tactic like the AGW crowd. Most of them chant talking points that ignore actual data.

    Add in studies on DDT etc... that the fear mongers went so far to the extreme that the near elimination of malaria in the 60's/70's in Africa has now turned back into millions being infected and dying every year. All because the idiots went to the extreme to ban it for everything (a partial ban would have made more sense, especially in developed nations).

    The left ignores basic genetics when discussing abortion. They can't seem to stomach having the legal discussion, so they ignore science and pretend the life is something other than a life.

    Side note... the science of gun violence???? please elaborate.
    Preventing the statistical analysis of gun injuries and death by public health institutions, such as, CDC.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  17. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    67,054
    Thanks
    78,483
    Thanked 14,113 Times in 11,963 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 2,874 Times in 2,616 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    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.
    STRAWMAN warning. Who is denying science?
    Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.


    Eric Holder: “I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done,” I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy.”

  18. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    67,054
    Thanks
    78,483
    Thanked 14,113 Times in 11,963 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 2,874 Times in 2,616 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    I would have to do some research into that but given the low levels of scientific literacy in this nation I'm not optimistic that you are correct. For example, I believe that the lefts stance on denying the binary facts of sex and gender is just as entrenched, pervasive and wrong as those on the right on Climate Change denial.

    Having said that the climate change issue is certainly a far more consequential issue.
    STRAWMAN alert! Who is denying that the climate has changed?
    Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.


    Eric Holder: “I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done,” I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy.”

  19. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    52,877
    Thanks
    14,207
    Thanked 17,585 Times in 12,133 Posts
    Groans
    284
    Groaned 1,113 Times in 1,061 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    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.
    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
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Mott the Hoople For This Post:

    Cypress (03-05-2019)

  21. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    67,054
    Thanks
    78,483
    Thanked 14,113 Times in 11,963 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 2,874 Times in 2,616 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    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.
    Where does the Constitution say that it is the Federal Governments responsibility to fund R&D in the sciences?
    Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.


    Eric Holder: “I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done,” I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy.”

  22. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    67,054
    Thanks
    78,483
    Thanked 14,113 Times in 11,963 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 2,874 Times in 2,616 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tff View Post
    I don't see .....
    So true; you don't see a LOT.
    Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.


    Eric Holder: “I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done,” I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy.”

  23. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    67,054
    Thanks
    78,483
    Thanked 14,113 Times in 11,963 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 2,874 Times in 2,616 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reagansghost View Post
    that's a ridiculous false equivalency
    which end of the political spectrum is flush with domestic terrorists, climate change deniers, anti vaxers, anti bank regulation dolts, and has an absolute hatred for 'the other' - as in of ALL non-white races?
    hint, it ain't those on the left
    More evidence of your lunacy. Yay you!
    Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.


    Eric Holder: “I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done,” I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy.”

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-26-2018, 07:40 PM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-08-2018, 10:22 AM
  3. BLUE (yes blue) TIC-TACS fucking OWN
    By 12 days in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-20-2010, 04:25 AM
  4. APP - Science Denial on the Rise
    By Never forget Christchurch in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 01-22-2010, 08:09 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •