Why don't Republican officials accept science? 3 examples..

[Canna Sylvan]

Padwan,
I base it on writings all around the world who describe aliens. Enoch describes a black hole.Sumerians describe a wormhole, serpent mated with a pool of water.Aztec space rockets and breathing units like NASA uses.Nazca Plains drawings.All aliens.

 

[Dr Kynes]

dude...

conversely...

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

canna you realize that civilization as we know it could have rose and fallen in a very short time

the dark ages not that long ago, and the world socially was a lot smaller and secretive back then, closed off so to speak

it is not inconceivable that small highly advanced civilizations could have sprung up anywhere any time int eh last oh 30k years of human development

if your first assumption is to aliens then id have to assume you just want it to be that way, there are any number of ways these pieces of information you claim as fact that prove aliens helped humanity, could have been interpreted, re interpreted and reinterpreted always with a new spin, with a different meaning to every culture , i mean some people thought hail bop was gonna take us away . . . . . . . .all the end of year shit that comes up about ever 8 years .. its all superstition and unfounded theologies
\
not to say it not true just that other options are jsut as possible if not more

and to believe in these theories as truth one must ignore other possibilities which is as an obtuse way of thinking as 9k year Christians

 

[k0ijn]

Padwan,
I base it on writings all around the world who describe aliens. Enoch describes a black hole.Sumerians describe a wormhole, serpent mated with a pool of water.Aztec space rockets and breathing units like NASA uses.Nazca Plains drawings.All aliens.

Oh all the writings. Because when something is written down it's automatically inherently true, right?

You sound so delusional I cannot describe it properly.
Your argument has no basis in fact or logic.

I feel like you're just trolling because no one can be that delusional.

 

[Dr Kynes]

canna you realize that civilization as we know it could have rose and fallen in a very short time

the dark ages not that long ago, and the world socially was a lot smaller and secretive back then, clsoed off so to speak

it is not inconsevable that small highly advanced civilzations could ahve sprung up anywhere any time int eh last oh 30k years of human development

Between the time when the oceans drank Atlantis, and the rise of the sons of Aryas, there was an age undreamed of.
And onto this, Conan, destined to wear the jeweled crown of Aquilonia upon a troubled brow.
It is I, his chronicler, who alone can tell thee of his saga.
Let me tell you of the days of high adventure!

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Sam,
Possible. But people who say that are treated as nuts too. I heard stories Nazi scientists had a shit load of advanced "alien" or lost technology but just didn't have enough time to study it. We then confiscated it and forced Germans to help us use it

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

ya i know

there is a lot more grey area

then black and white

to many issues

best to stay objective

the aliens and bigfoot stuff always entertained me, a lot, i even have seen weird things in the sky but i just assume that s the mushrooms flashbacks, or placebo effect visuals

and if they are not, cool . . .who knows a lot of mystery out there

 

[Padawanbater2]

Padwan,
I base it on writings all around the world who describe aliens. Enoch describes a black hole.Sumerians describe a wormhole, serpent mated with a pool of water.Aztec space rockets and breathing units like NASA uses.Nazca Plains drawings.All aliens.

Do you think it's harmful to have a person in a position of political power or influence who believes such things?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Do you think it's harmful to have a person in a position of political power or influence who believes such things?

better they believe that the earth is 9000, 6000 or even 5000 years old than that "marijuana" is a dangerous addictive drug, or that spending huge amounts of money we dont have will lower our deficit and debt.

worse still, they could believe that socialism is a good idea, and any who resist are "counter-revolutionary" and should be sent to gulag.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Padwan,
Not at all. That's why I'm a libertarian. You personally believe and what you must give your constituents are two different things. That's a concept liberals have a hard time understanding.They know what's best, so everyone else must think that too

 

[Padawanbater2]

better they believe that the earth is 9000, 6000 or even 5000 years old than that "marijuana" is a dangerous addictive drug, or that spending huge amounts of money we dont have will lower our deficit and debt.

worse still, they could believe that socialism is a good idea, and any who resist are "counter-revolutionary" and should be sent to gulag.

I didn't ask if it was better, I asked if [CS] thought it was harmful. You just created a strawman argument.

If you do not think it's harmful for someone, let alone someone sitting on the committee of space, science and technology, who holds a political office to believe such things, you're absolutely not qualified to comment on the subject. These beliefs form the foundation of a persons entire life, so one can reasonably assume they will bleed over into the political decisions they make which affect 330,000,000 people, the majority of which do not believe these claims.

Padwan,
Not at all. That's why I'm a libertarian. You personally believe and what you must give your constituents are two different things. That's a concept liberals have a hard time understanding.They know what's best, so everyone else must think that too

No, actually they're not. What a person believes affects the decisions they make.

As mentioned more than a handful of times already, that is the very reason why science is so important, it doesn't matter what you or I believe, science is the most objective way to acquire the truth.

Do you understand that?

 

[Dr Kynes]

I didn't ask if it was better, I asked if [CS] thought it was harmful. You just created a strawman argument.

If you do not think it's harmful for someone, let alone someone sitting on the committee of space, science and technology, who holds a political office to believe such things, you're absolutely not qualified to comment on the subject. These beliefs form the foundation of a persons entire life, so one can reasonably assume they will bleed over into the political decisions they make which affect 330,000,000 people, the majority of which do not believe these claims.



No, actually they're not. What a person believes affects the decisions they make.

As mentioned more than a handful of times already, that is the very reason why science is so important, it doesn't matter what you or I believe, science is the most objective way to acquire the truth.

Do you understand that?

thats not a strawman. it's a rational comparison that sheds light on the argument and offers perspective.

you may find terror in the idea that someone holds or espouses some religious beliefs, but things could always be worse.

the strawman is to propose that someone's personal beliefs must mean they are raving loons with a desire to institute pogroms against any who disagree.

such as, for example, the taliban or the iranian islamic fatwas against any science not directly related to their plan to acquire nuclear weapons or the catholic church's insistence that life begins from the moment a single drop of jizz struggles towards an ovum.

THAT my friend is a strawman.

personal beliefs do influence decisions, but the congress does not do research, or conduct scientific experiments. if they did, then yes, we should only elect eggheads, poindexters and scienticians. unfortunately scienticians make shitty politicians since they dont move on an issue till 5 peer reviewed papers and 3 confirmatory experiments show the theory to be valid. politics is not science, i wish it were. but politics are the domain of the humanities and philosophy. very little math gets done in conggress, and it mostly winds up using irrational numbers and red ink.

it may gall you when a politician talks about how he prays for guidance or what he hears in a sermon, but it is not that troubling to most people unless the sermon comes from a firebrand black identity preacher or a militant wahhabist. or lately a mormon.

religious views may seem irrational, fuck sometimes they ARE irrational but when the rubber meets the road common sense and logic get more traction than even the slickest preacher's words. if you discount everyone who holds religious views then newton, darwin, curie and even tycho brae must be eliminated from your syllabus.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Do you believe it's a good thing or a bad thing for America to have Todd Akin and Paul Broun on the space, science and technology committee?

 

[Dr Kynes]

the constitution allows it
i accept it
that settles it.


just kiddin.

i'd rather see people with solid backgrounds in the sciences in political office but i'd rather everybody in the whole world agreed with me on every issue of importance.

it would make my elevation to God Emperor much smoother.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Still didn't answer the question, in your opinion, would it be good or bad for America to have these people making important decisions on space, science and technology? Things like NASA, medicine, health, etc.

 

[Dr Kynes]

this demands a conclusion and the witness is not an expert on this subject!

since i dont know of any circumstance where they prevented scientific examination of any subject, i have no opinion on their ability to serve as congressmen.

edit: it does anger me when issues of agriculture are decided by jerkoffs who never plowed a field or prayed for rain to save their crop. so i guess upon reflection yeah. they shouldnt be allowed to influence policy on subjects where they have absolutely no expertise. but this presumes they have no expertise on the subject. they may just be religious dudes who hold their faith in their pocket to keep them warm, but let their brains do their thinking.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Did you see that clip of rep. Broun declaring "evolution is from the pit of hell to make people like me and you think we don't need a savior."?

I think they've each demonstrated they're not qualified to influence policy

 

[Heisenberg]

"I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do." -Paul Ryan

" In recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism." - Mitt Romney

"No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." - George Bush

"And that’s the reason, as your congressman, I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that." - Paul Broun

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Padwan,
That's where you and Ayn Rand share the same philosophy, and where I differ. So you're saying judges are inherently not impartial? If so all judges would get disbarred. Some people do what you describe,maybe even most, but not all do,it's arrogant.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Are you claiming that what a person believes has no bearing on the decisions they make?