Why do you think people deny science?

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
You deny the findings of the IPCC, which has been repeatedly cited in this thread, so it would seem the source is irrelevant to you unless it agrees with your beliefs
i think the IPCC is exaggerating, using (deliberately) flawed data and drawing unsupported conclusions based on their agenda.

and no, wikipedia is NOT a credible source since any asshole can make wikipedia say anything they want in minutes.

google "Willys on wheels" for more information.

i quoted IPCC 5, direct from the source and yet your wikiwisdom gave an entirely different opinion, which you claimed was authoritative on the IPCC's own fucking report.

 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
"It is no secret that the ranks of scientists and engineers in the United States include dismal numbers of Hispanics and African-Americans, but few have remarked about another significantly underrepresented group: Republicans.

No, this is not the punch line of a joke. A Pew Research Center Poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans; 55 percent are Democrats, 32 percent are independent, and the rest "don't know" their affiliation.

This immense imbalance has political consequences. When President Obama appears Wednesday on Discovery Channel's Mythbusters (9 p.m. ET), he will be there not just to encourage youngsters to do their science homework but also to reinforce the idea that Democrats are the party of science and rationality. And why not? Most scientists are already on his side. Imagine if George W. Bush had tried such a stunt—every major newspaper in the country would have run an op-ed piece by some Nobel Prize winner asking how the guy who prohibited stem-cell research and denied climate change could have the gall to appear on a program that extols the power of scientific thinking.

Yet, partisan politics aside, why should it matter that there are so few Republican scientists? After all, it's the scientific facts that matter, and facts aren't blue or red.

Well, that's not quite right. Consider the case of climate change, of which beliefs are astonishingly polarized according to party affiliation and ideology. A March 2010 Gallup poll showed that 66 percent of Democrats (and 74 percent of liberals) say the effects of global warming are already occurring, as opposed to 31 percent of Republicans. Does that mean that Democrats are more than twice as likely to accept and understand the scientific truth of the matter? And that Republicans are dominated by scientifically illiterate yahoos and corporate shills willing to sacrifice the planet for short-term economic and political gain?

Or could it be that disagreements over climate change are essentially political—and that science is just carried along for the ride? For 20 years, evidence about global warming has been directly and explicitly linked to a set of policy responses demanding international governance regimes, large-scale social engineering, and the redistribution of wealth. These are the sort of things that most Democrats welcome, and most Republicans hate. No wonder the Republicans are suspicious of the science.

Think about it: The results of climate science, delivered by scientists who are overwhelmingly Democratic, are used over a period of decades to advance a political agenda that happens to align precisely with the ideological preferences of Democrats. Coincidence—or causation? Now this would be a good case for Mythbusters.

During the Bush administration, Democrats discovered that they could score political points by accusing Bush of being anti-science. In the process, they seem to have convinced themselves that they are the keepers of the Enlightenment spirit, and that those who disagree with them on issues like climate change are fundamentally irrational. Meanwhile, many Republicans have come to believe that mainstream science is corrupted by ideology and amounts to no more than politics by another name. Attracted to fringe scientists like the small and vocal group of climate skeptics,Republicans appear to be alienated from a mainstream scientific community that by and large doesn't share their political beliefs. The climate debacle is only the most conspicuous example of these debilitating tendencies, which play out in issues as diverse as nuclear waste disposal, protection of endangered species, and regulation of pharmaceuticals.

How would a more politically diverse scientific community improve this situation? First, it could foster greater confidence among Republican politicians about the legitimacy of mainstream science. Second, it would cultivate more informed, creative, and challenging debates about the policy implications of scientific knowledge. This could help keep difficult problems like climate change from getting prematurely straitjacketed by ideology. A more politically diverse scientific community would, overall, support a healthier relationship between science and politics.

American society has long tended toward pragmatism, with a great deal of respect for the value and legitimacy not just of scientific facts, but of scientists themselves. For example, survey data show that the scientific community enjoys the trust of 90 percentof Americans—more than for any other institution, including the Supreme Court and the military. Yet this exceptional status could well be forfeit in the escalating fervor of national politics, given that most scientists are on one side of the partisan divide. If that public confidence is lost, it would be a huge and perhaps unrecoverable loss for a democratic society.

It doesn't seem plausible that the dearth of Republican scientists has the same causes as the under-representation of women or minorities in science. I doubt that teachers are telling young Republicans that math is too hard for them, as they sometimes do with girls; or that socioeconomic factors are making it difficult for Republican students to succeed in science, as is the case for some ethnic minority groups. The idea of mentorship programs for Republican science students, or scholarship programs to attract Republican students to scientific fields, seems laughable, if delightfully ironic.

Yet there is clearly something going on that is as yet barely acknowledged, let alone understood. As a first step, leaders of the scientific community should be willing to investigate and discuss the issue. They will, of course, be loath to do so because it threatens their most cherished myths of a pure science insulated from dirty partisanship. In lieu of any real effort to understand and grapple with the politics of science, we can expect calls for more "science literacy" as public confidence begins to wane. But the issue here is legitimacy, not literacy. A democratic society needs Republican scientists."

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/12/lab_politics.html
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member

Rrog

Well-Known Member
Many argue simply to argue. It's a chance to make themselves feel good using big words. An ass with a thesaurus is not a replacement for professional, educated research.
 

ghostdriver

Well-Known Member
He wants to start a holocaust for people and claims he is sane...


NWO worshipper?
Your ramblings reminds me of the Georgia Guidestones

==Inscriptions on stones ==
A message consisting of a set of ten guidelines or principles is engraved on the Georgia Guidestones in eight different languages, one language on each face of the four large upright stones (see photograph of the face with the English version right). Moving clockwise around the structure from due north, these languages are: [[English language|English]], [[Spanish language|Spanish]], [[Swahili language|Swahili]], [[Hindi]], [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]], [[Arabic language|Arabic]], [[Chinese language|Chinese]] and [[Russian language|Russian]].
# Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
# Guide reproduction wisely— improving fitness and diversity.
# Unite humanity with a living new language.
# Rule passion— faith— tradition;— and all things with tempered reason.
# Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
# Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
# Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
# Balance personal rights with social duties.
# Prize truth— beauty— love— seeking harmony with the infinite.
# Be not a cancer on the earth— Leave room for nature— Leave room for nature.



Yup Anti Christ stuff. Holocaust revelations kill all the Christians ramblings..
 

heckler73

Well-Known Member
It's for reasons like this, I am always on my guard with respect to science. It may also be a reason why some turn a back (albeit, stupidly) on the subject.

 

Rrog

Well-Known Member
Scientific discoveries of consequence generally are reproduced many times. The reproducibility is a key component.

That's why science rules.
 

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
It's for reasons like this, I am always on my guard with respect to science. It may also be a reason why some turn a back (albeit, stupidly) on the subject.

I love the phone call at the end, hilarious. Big picture, it seems that the bloggers and commenters have become part of the peer review process. Even upon the rare occurrence a fraudulent paper slips by the reviewing peers, a blogger can catch it and the publisher must retract the erroneous findings. This should tend to embarrass those reviewing peers to be more thorough next time around...
 

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
He wants to start a holocaust for people and claims he is sane...


NWO worshipper?
Your ramblings reminds me of the Georgia Guidestones

==Inscriptions on stones ==
A message consisting of a set of ten guidelines or principles is engraved on the Georgia Guidestones in eight different languages, one language on each face of the four large upright stones (see photograph of the face with the English version right). Moving clockwise around the structure from due north, these languages are: [[English language|English]], [[Spanish language|Spanish]], [[Swahili language|Swahili]], [[Hindi]], [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]], [[Arabic language|Arabic]], [[Chinese language|Chinese]] and [[Russian language|Russian]].
# Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
# Guide reproduction wisely— improving fitness and diversity.
# Unite humanity with a living new language.
# Rule passion— faith— tradition;— and all things with tempered reason.
# Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
# Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
# Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
# Balance personal rights with social duties.
# Prize truth— beauty— love— seeking harmony with the infinite.
# Be not a cancer on the earth— Leave room for nature— Leave room for nature.



Yup Anti Christ stuff. Holocaust revelations kill all the Christians ramblings..
Nevaeh, this puppet account won't fair any better in this sub-forum. How does a creationist evolution denier with zero science education even have access to this sub-forum? At least this post wasn't peppered with scripture...
 

Rrog

Well-Known Member
Right. There is more and faster scrutiny than previous. Junk science is seen as such pretty quickly.
 

heckler73

Well-Known Member
I love the phone call at the end, hilarious. Big picture, it seems that the bloggers and commenters have become part of the peer review process. Even upon the rare occurrence a fraudulent paper slips by the reviewing peers, a blogger can catch it and the publisher must retract the erroneous findings. This should tend to embarrass those reviewing peers to be more thorough next time around...
Right. There is more and faster scrutiny than previous. Junk science is seen as such pretty quickly.
Hold on, though.
How many journals are there now compared to just 20 years ago? How many more papers are being submitted and who are these "peers"?
I don't believe fraud is any less now, in fact, it could very well be worse as per the Golden Chopsticks, simply because of the capabilities in technology to aid in obfuscation or outright manipulation, coupled with desperation induced by grants.
Not only that, systematic errors can propagate through experiments the more technological links are added in a chain, but how many "peers" have the patience to dismantle the process to such a degree these errors can be identified?
Take the B-mode "gravitational" waves stuff that recently created all that hoopla re: cosmic expansion.
A visual distortion (probably caused by microwave transmissions of water molecules on Earth) is going to lead to breakthroughs and Nobel prizes? Yet that damn paper made it through the peer-review process!

Then consider the laymen and/or policymakers...
Take Pada for example; he has a deep trust in the process by which science is disseminated, yet how can he distinguish fact from fiction when he can't read the papers in the first place? How can someone like him know the difference between an interpretation and empirical fact? He's relying on these "peer-reviews" and abstract interpretations to give him the truth. This is how shit like "consensus science" arises!

My argument may be a little disjointed, but looking at this from several angles, I see more opportunity for mistakes (or fraud) getting through now relative to 50 years ago, simply because the numbers are larger and the technology more complexly involved.
 

Rrog

Well-Known Member
People run with a shred and use that as a reason to doubt everything and see manipulation everywhere.

I'm more concerned with BS science that is heavily marketed by the likes of the Koch brothers. Despite the fact that the science community at large knows it's BS, the $$ gets the junk science in front of (voting) folks. Nothing new.
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Science is viewed as the enemy [...], it's even expressed on a daily basis on [...] RIU. The arguments always stem from the denial of facts not reason or logic.
I'm just quoting this for the sake of quoting it and pointing out that goes for the grow forums as well. Carry on.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
I think the answer to why people deny science is pretty obvious; because the answers that science provides either makes them uncomfortable or contradicts their preconceived worldviews. The answer to the question of what we should do about it is much more complicated..

It seems we're in somewhat of a difficult spot.. the scientifically minded among us who understand what science is, how it works and how it's applied are labeled "bullies" when they state scientific facts that contradict, more often than not, traditional or religious beliefs, when nobody in their right mind would label a mathematician a "bully" for saying 2+2=4..

How do you think we should treat these people?

IMO, they should be publicly shamed, no different than holocaust or climate change deniers
Why do the simple minded pretend they're smart? " the scientifically minded among us who understand what science is," A blogger's fake survey is not science, you don't understand shit.
 

skunkd0c

Well-Known Member
scientists are like vulcans they can't lie
but some do except bribes to be economical with the truth
 

heckler73

Well-Known Member
People run with a shred and use that as a reason to doubt everything and see manipulation everywhere.

I'm more concerned with BS science that is heavily marketed by the likes of the Koch brothers. Despite the fact that the science community at large knows it's BS, the $$ gets the junk science in front of (voting) folks. Nothing new.

The BS science you talk about swings both ways, though. That aside, can you provide an example of the Koch Junk you are referring to? Something recent would be preferable.

My skepticism comes from science itself. The more I learn, the more skeptical I become, simply because I have a greater awareness of what is required in "proof".
For example, when should one be content with a chi-square and not need a reduced chi-square to check the veracity of a model?
When does one choose the Std. Dev. of the mean over just the the standard dev.?
These little things can have large repercussions when misapplied, yet how many "peers" look at these issues? I've read umpteen papers over the years where "profound conclusions" were drawn, yet looking at things like the Chi-square tell me their work is so loosely contrived, it's impossible to derive such conclusions definitively (but I'm sure you know how the "Chinese telephone" game works).


Here's an example of how errors can fool you: I just did some classic experiments this week rolling heavy plates on a perpendicular axis, down a ramp to try and calculate the acceleration due to gravity (I believe Galileo did it that way, too, using his heartbeat as a timer).
My value derived from experiment (and modelling) came out to ~7.8 m s^-2. Only 20% less than the accepted value of 9.81.
You'd think that's a grand fuck-up, yet my chi-square came out to less than one (before reduction). That in general means "Yup, it's a good fit!". Yet it is obviously not correct.
So what does one do in light of that? In my case, I know that frictional forces are in play (otherwise the motion would have been translational, not rotational), but does that account for even 10%?
How about my methodology? I used a stopwatch...right there I introduce ~0.18 s of error due to reaction time.
How about my measurement of distance? I marked a path of 60 cm for the mass to roll on. My error there is no more than 1mm, though; however, it still counts in the overall error wave I use for the model.
Is that still enough to account for the error?

Then there are the masses. Even though they don't matter in the model, they are still a component of inertia. So by not accounting for masses of the axis of rotation or the radial wheels I attached to the axis (to increase the contact radius), I am overlooking another ~2% error.


These are known unknowns though, and together they tell me "ahhh...perhaps my errors are too large hence the reason for such a good fit".
How much of "cutting edge" research is loaded with unknown unknowns, though? The diversity of experiments has made it more difficult to find falsified comparisons. You'll be lucky to find 3 studies on a particular experiment, these days. More often than not, there is only one study (with maybe a review of literature).
I'm not even talking about the dubious realm of "climate science", here. I'm talking about the overall state of scientific work.
It has become increasingly complex and specialized such that the peer-review process has become less effective (and perhaps more biased).
To not be constantly skeptical means one isn't practicing science.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
You have yet to cite a single source that isn't a politically or financially motivated individual/organization

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-8.html

https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/application/pdf/cop19cmp9_opening_ipcc_pachauri_powerpoint.pdf

"CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since preindustrial times from fossil fuel emissions and net land use change emissions."

"Human influence on the climate system is clear."

...
So it went from less than 0.03% to less than 0.04%. This is what your whole bullshit theory comes down to. Almost nothing. Yacking about "huge" gains that actually are miniscule. Yet it seems the majority of people can't seem to grasp this. Dreamers with no common sense who think they are "smarter" than those who point out their Chicken Little predictions of disaster are grounded in useless data and wishful thinking.
 

heckler73

Well-Known Member
So it went from less than 0.03% to less than 0.04%. This is what your whole bullshit theory comes down to. Almost nothing. Yacking about "huge" gains that actually are miniscule. Yet it seems the majority of people can't seem to grasp this. Dreamers with no common sense who think they are "smarter" than those who point out their Chicken Little predictions of disaster are grounded in useless data and wishful thinking.
That reminds me of this "chemtrail" doc I watched last night (I'm not going waste anyone's time by posting it).
Throughout the whole thing, the interviewees were waving their hands about what could be in the "spray", yet where's the evidence? However, the way it was presented, I can see someone less aware just going with the flow and assuming it is empirically sound.
But what stood out and made me guffaw at the whole thing was a part where a scientist (geologist or meteorologist... can't remember exactly) started saying the "pH of the soil around here is normally ~5.6...well, we've seen an increase in alkalinity of 20%"... WTF does that mean? Does that mean 20% of 5.6? Or does it mean 20% of some delta?
Was he talking about the amount of hydrogen ions directly?
It's crap like that which leads the public astray into tin-foil.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
That reminds me of this "chemtrail" doc I watched last night (I'm not going waste anyone's time by posting it).
Throughout the whole thing, the interviewees were waving their hands about what could be in the "spray", yet where's the evidence? However, the way it was presented, I can see someone less aware just going with the flow and assuming it is empirically sound.
But what stood out and made me guffaw at the whole thing was a part where a scientist (geologist or meteorologist... can't remember exactly) started saying the "pH of the soil around here is normally ~5.6...well, we've seen an increase in alkalinity of 20%"... WTF does that mean? Does that mean 20% of 5.6? Or does it mean 20% of some delta?
Was he talking about the amount of hydrogen ions directly?
It's crap like that which leads the public astray into tin-foil.
An increase of 1.0 is a tenfold increase in alkalinity. So a 20% increase meant it when from 5.6 to 5.8 Pretty much not worth mentioning EVEN IF true.
 
Top