Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
It would seem all those years of study have been completely wasted as you still don't understand the basics and never bothered with the fundamentals.
Why don't Republican officials accept science? 3 examples..
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
It would seem all those years of study have been completely wasted as you still don't understand the basics and never bothered with the fundamentals.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Bear,
How is panspermia epidemics like the 1918 Spanish Flu any less credible than man causing climates to change?
How is panspermia epidemics like the 1918 Spanish Flu any less credible than man causing climates to change?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The answer to your first question is (very aptly for this subforum) not scientific but political.
I cannot answer your second question because it contains as a premise that science is no longer about questioning. I have not experienced that as a generalized or sea change. cn
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Which scientists have been fired? Is this something else you've made up to support your worldview?
What does politics have to do to with the scientific process? What is it about science which made these people get fired? You still don't seem to understand that science is a process, not a knowledge base, not a political party, not a corporation.
Science is a systematic method of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results. Where do you find fault in that?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Because, much like Akin, Broun and Walsh, they are idiots not fit to work in the field they're in.
Would you think it's sound reasoning to let a person who denies the Holocaust teach a history class? No, you wouldn't.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
"Credible" isn't the criterion. The criterion is "better than any competing hypothesis". The panspermia argument relies on a phenomenon so far undiscovered, which would be any trace at all for evidence of non-terrestrial life.
As for man causing climate change, we have some pretty hard evidence that change is occurring and accelerating. At this time assigning blame to man would be an overextension of reason, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, but to deny that man can be causing this is the worse abuse of reason. My gut read (which withstood test by reason) on AGW is "undecided, but quite suggestive". cn
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Were those who denied the Ether theory idiots? A person's opinions are their own, even if you deny "the"(what about the Armenian genocide or the spanish decimating the South Americans?)holocaust. I consider communism just as vile as you holocaust deniers.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Which is why science is true whether or not you believe in it. It doesn't rely on opinions.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Bear,
Then why do we pay carbon fines (tax) if it's only an overextention?What you accuse me of claiming,government already does. This what makes science dangerous.It's often used to punish people when later we"misunderstood," never would happen w/o govt.
Then why do we pay carbon fines (tax) if it's only an overextention?What you accuse me of claiming,government already does. This what makes science dangerous.It's often used to punish people when later we"misunderstood," never would happen w/o govt.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
I don't believe all the popular "science," not all science. Like Dr. Kynes said, the Dogon was a mistake. I didn't know. Now I won't use that. But those in government use findings too hastily and continue to rule us based on them even after proven false.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Again, you are complaining about politics and not science. For a carbon tax to exist, a legislator must have adjudicated carbon to be taxworthy. That is not science, and neither is the fact that the tax is probably the result of a plurality or majority of voters supporting it because they are convinced AGW is true and an immediate danger. Imo you are making a mistake of category ... you're seeing politics at work, but then blaming the other guy. At least that's how it looks to me. cn
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
This is something we can agree on. Science gets perverted due to political corruption.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Those who denied the ether theory had a solid experiment (Michaelson-Morley) to support their contention. 125 years later, it's still held to be sound. cn
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Bear,
But without scientists to use their findings, they couldn't be used. Science needs to be held responsible when their works are abused. There needs to be a higher standard of acceptance that science agrees on and becomes blame for.
But without scientists to use their findings, they couldn't be used. Science needs to be held responsible when their works are abused. There needs to be a higher standard of acceptance that science agrees on and becomes blame for.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Are you advocating scapegoating? cn
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
No but it's not right when govt funds "scientific study," then uses that it. That's a conflict of interest. What I suggest is just like when car makers know dangers and don't fix them, science needs similar. A panel of scientists needs to peruse those work
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Carmakers make a product (which is then exposed to liability issues). Scientists do not. Gov't funding of science introduces problems, some more subtle, interesting and (in my fears) ultimately more catastrophic than the current petty corruptions.
But at the same time, the deep involvement of gov't in science is a legacy of what our (the winners') side did in order to win the last world war. Eisenhower warned of this, and now we reap the surprisingly invasive consequences.
But cast the blame where it belongs: the military-industrial-legislative complex. Scientists go where the money is. Some is private but most much comes through the NSF ... and most of the NSF's work is pretty sound imo.
I will say that the idea of holding scientists and their organizations to blame for the doing of politicians is distasteful to me. cn
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Why shouldn't scientists who get hired by government be held responsible when they on purpose compromise their ethics for profit? Did Nazi scientists not know? Other ethical requirements need to be used other than the obvious.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Well, ultimately it is usually a selected thing... often tied into political/world view. Man made global warming is probably the best example of it. Sure, maybe (I say with a healthy dose of skepticism). But many many folks claim it's a definitive fact.
The truth is it's such a complicated system that it's really difficult to say what the impacts of the things we do are given the number of other variables involved. And then you see the political angle to the whole issue and it's hard to ignore some of the connections politically between various scientific think tanks as well. Then you see the emails that were leaked. Then you see how data collection centers are in incredibly stupid and inconsistent locations (let's measure temperature by an AC exhaust guys... it will give us accurate data for sure!).
And it's really unfortunate that some of these things have been corrupted because it's quite possible the theory has legs.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
The science is used to push the policy. And the science in that particular field is rather corrupted and mostly junk.