Why is there a hostility towards science?

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  gordy327  •  one month ago  •  396 comments

Why is there a hostility towards science?
"Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" --- Albert Einstein

One thing the Covid crisis has shown us is the apparent hostility the general populace has towards science. This is (a simplification) demonstrated by people refusing to social distance or wear face masks, despite scientific guidelines and evidence showing their efficacy. Or when people directly contradict science by saying masks do not work, Covid is a hoax, or some similar nonsense, even though they have no valid evidence to support such assertions, let alone refute actual science. To be fair, some of that hostility may stem from either ignorance and/or uncertainty surrounding science and its findings. When Covid hit, it was an unknown. As time progressed, science learned more about and changed its recommendations and guidelines accordingly. That's how science operates and is an inherent strength of science. However, implementing new guidelines and necessary behavior changes has been much slower.

But the negative stance against science is not limited to Covid. There is a history of hostility towards science. We see this in past attempts to remove evolutionary theory and/or introduce creationism and intelligent design into public schools. We see this when people reject medical findings and treatments in favor of (instead of supplement to) unproven or unresearched alternative therapies. We see this in the lack of promotion or adequate funding of science programs and education. We see this when people try to push flat eartherism or deny climate change. The list goes on.

The questions become why are people hostile towards science? For what reason? And to what end? I suspect one reason is emotional comfort, as people may not be able to tolerate the reality that science discovers. Such mentality and hostility toward science boggles the mind. One thing is for sure, be it the Covid crisis or some other crise, it will probably be science that gets us out of it.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Gordy327
1  author  Gordy327    one month ago

When it comes to discovery and solving problems, science will lead the way. Anything else will hold us back.

 
 
 
MUVA
2  MUVA    one month ago

Put your mask on and marshal on my contradictory friend. I

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  MUVA @2    one month ago
Put your mask on and marshal on my contradictory friend.

I always wear a mask in public. I try to be considerate of others like that.  And contradictory how?

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.1  MUVA  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1    one month ago

Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of the truth now I bet you get it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  MUVA @2.1.1    one month ago

We only need wait until the "science" says something the left doesn't like.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.3  MUVA  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    one month ago

Like there are only two sexes now there are 5.

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1    one month ago

Personally I have no trouble with that either.    If I don’t want to wear a mask where requested I simply don’t go there.    And I have made that decision many times the last few months.    Just like many other people have.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  MUVA @2.1.3    one month ago
Like there are only two sexes now there are 5.

Oh, BULLSEYE!

target-2070972_960_720.png

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.6  author  Gordy327  replied to  MUVA @2.1.1    one month ago
Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of the truth now I bet you get it.

Nope. Go ahead and elaborate.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.4    one month ago
 If I don’t want to wear a mask where requested I simply don’t go there.    And I have made that decision many times the last few months.    Just like many other people have.

Fair enough. But the problem is people who do go out in public places without a mask or refuse to wear one in such places.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.8  author  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    one month ago
We only need wait until the "science" says something the left doesn't like.

Let's not make this political.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.8    one month ago

Isn't it a little late to not make science political?

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.10  author  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.9    one month ago

Not on my thread.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.11  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    one month ago
We only need wait until the "science" says something the left doesn't like.

That has already been going on for some time. Look at the hysteria on the Left over scientifically proven-safe GMO foods or the way they simultaneously complain about carbon emissions while running in panic from a perfectly clean alternatives like nuclear power or hydroelectricity.

Since the 60s, several scientific voices have warned of the drawbacks of raising children in single-parent households, yet the Left repeatedly denounces these assertions as racist or religiously biased.

Do children in two-parent families do better?

They also embrace the possibility of genetic influences in qualities like sexual orientation but not for a myriad of other human qualities from violence to jealousy to math skills or spatial skills. And don't get me started on diet recommendations.

More recently, we have seen the apparent belief that thousands of people marching in the streets or congregating around statues does not spread Covid-19, but going to church or demonstrating to reopen the economy will lead to the deaths of millions.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.11    one month ago

Can we add "facial recognition technology?"

Who would be against that?

Science is improving our lives!

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.13  MUVA  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.11    one month ago

How dare you come here with a cogent argument. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.14  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @2.1.3    one month ago
Like there are only two sexes

Science doesn't say that.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.15  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.11    one month ago
we have seen the apparent belief that thousands of people marching in the streets or congregating around statues does not spread Covid-19,

Science hasn't said that, either.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @2.1.13    one month ago

'How dare you come here with a cogent argument. 

When/where?

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.17  author  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.12    one month ago
Science is improving our lives!

That much is true.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.18  author  Gordy327  replied to  MUVA @2.1.3    one month ago

I think you're confusing sex with gender.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.19  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.18    one month ago

Most likely.  But even in reference to biological sex, it's not as simple as XX=female and XY=male.  There are intersex individuals who I'm sure wish it were always that simple.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @2.1.1    one month ago
Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of the truth now I bet you get it.

An aficionado of science would never believe based on authority.   Belief based on authority is the antithesis of science.   Science is based on evidence;  religion is based on belief.

Where do you get the idea that Gordy is suggesting people simply believe based on authority?

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    one month ago

It is the evidence that matters; not who proclaims something in the name of science.

No scientist can merely declare a truth;  all scientists must support their theories with solid evidence and reasoning.   Should a scientist fail to do a proper job in that regard, the balance of motivated, ambitious scientists who would greatly benefit career-wise by proving a theory wrong will eventually do so.

We only need wait until the "science" says something the left doesn't like.

What makes you think science aficionados are all on the left??

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.22  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.21    one month ago
What makes you think science aficionados are all on the left??

If science aficionados are on the left, does that make the right anti-science? jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

Where do you get the idea that Gordy is suggesting people simply believe based on authority?

While I didn't suggest that, I wouldn't be surprised if some people did just that. After all, believing something based on authority means they don't have to think for themselves. Less mental effort and more emotionally satisfying, right?

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.23  author  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.19    one month ago
But even in reference to biological sex, it's not as simple as XX=female and XY=male.

I never said it was black and white. Few things are. This is not one of them.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.24  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.23    one month ago
I never said it was black and white.

I know.  I'm just pointing out the error in Vic and MUVA's positions regarding what science has to say about sex.  It's not as simple as they're claiming.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.25  author  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.24    one month ago
 I'm just pointing out the error in Vic and MUVA's positions regarding what science has to say about sex.  It's not as simple as they're claiming.

I see. Thank you for clarifying.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.26  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.25    one month ago

No problem.  I probably should have addressed explanation directly to one of them.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.27  author  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.26    one month ago

No worries. It's all good. Although, I don't understand why the idea of multiple genders/sex is such a big deal for some people. I mean, who cares, right?

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.11    one month ago
That has already been going on for some time. Look at the hysteria on the Left over scientifically proven-safe GMO foods or the way they simultaneously complain about carbon emissions while running in panic from a perfectly clean alternatives like nuclear power or hydroelectricity.

Science is not based on ideology.   Whether one is right, left or otherwise oriented, it is possible for an individual to deny a scientific finding because it clashes with an ideological and/or religious belief.   

The fact that this happens has nothing to do with science itself nor does it change the fundamental notion that science is not based on authority but rather on evidence.

As Gordy noted, identifying contradictory notions by 'leftists' (when one can do this for all ideological views) is diverging from the intent of his article.   His article is emphasizing that science is not based on authority.  That science is, at its core, one of the most objective systems we have and has demonstrated that it works;  we need only look around us to see what applied science (engineering) has been able to produce.

 
 
 
cjcold
2.1.29  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    one month ago

Science isn't a "thing" it's not a noun. Science is a process engaged in by scientists of a particular discipline from all over the planet. 

By using the scientific method every scientist lives to prove all other scientists wrong which is how knowledge progresses. The peer review process keeps it honest. 

The problem starts when the religious community, corporate monsters and the politicians that they own try to shortcut the scientific method and simply deny reality whether over money or ideological idiocies.

The heliocentric solar system, evolution, tobacco dangers, vaccinations, anthropogenic global warming are all scientific realities that have been denied by one non-scientific group or another over time.   

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.30  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.27    one month ago
Although, I don't understand why the idea of multiple genders/sex is such a big deal for some people. I mean, who cares, right?

Agreed.  But some people are uncomfortable with those who don't fit into the neat little boxes they expect.  Masculine men, feminine women, pink and blue with everybody heterosexual.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.31  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.28    one month ago
His article is emphasizing that science is not based on authority.  That science is, at its core, one of the most objective systems we have and has demonstrated that it works;  we need only look around us to see what applied science (engineering) has been able to produce.

Thank you TiG. As usual, you get it! Well said jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.32  author  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.30    one month ago

This is true.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.33  sandy-2021492  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.30    one month ago

To expand on that point:

People have trouble interacting with those who behave unpredictably based on what they've been conditioned to expect.  Women were discouraged from being educated or having careers because it wasn't part of their "sphere" - men were to be providers, and women homemakers.  Male nurses are sometimes still derided, because nursing is "women's work". 

And the idea that one might be attracted to member's of one's own sex?  Scandalous!  After all, sex is only for makin' babies.

Or the idea that the sex into which one is born does not match up with one's identity as a person - too many people can't accept it, because people who possess penises are supposed to be masculine, and people who possess vaginas are supposed to be feminine, and some folks fear and resent those who don't fit in.

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.34  Krishna  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1    one month ago

I always wear a mask in public. I try to be considerate of others like that.  And contradictory how?

Its contradictory to the example some Republican politicians set.

  As well some Republican zealots in the cult of Trump worship! 

Not all but quite a few of Trump True believers are in many ways like a religious cult.... (yes he could literally shoot someone on 5th Avenue and they'd still shower him with adoration). Instead of worships Jesus or Mohammed ...they worship Trump as a God.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.35  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    one month ago

I expect you are prepared to wait a long, long time then Vic?

Progressives accept math and science in the constant search for the truth and explanation of the same.  

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.36  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.11    one month ago
More recently, we have seen the apparent belief that thousands of people marching in the streets or congregating around statues does not spread Covid-19, but going to church or demonstrating to reopen the economy will lead to the deaths of millions.

Not by those in the science community....  I think you are referring to the "talking heads".

An 8th grader in health class can tell you how to prevent Covid spread.  EVERYONE should be taking those same precautions.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.37  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.11    one month ago
'Since the 60s, several scientific voices have warned of the drawbacks of raising children in single-parent households, yet the Left repeatedly denounces these assertions as racist or religiously biased.' 

Whose scientific 'voices'?

They are racist or religiously biased

'Do children in two-parent families do better?'

What the hell does this have to do with it.

Also what about single parents where the spouse left them?  Whose spouse died?  All the other variables?

Those scientific 'voices' are bogus and who have an agenda against the LGBTQ 

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.38  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @2.1.1    one month ago
Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of the truth

Exactly.

That's why so many of Trump's groupie's present such a danger to society.

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.39  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @2.1.3    one month ago
Like there are only two sexes now there are 5.

Not according to Facebook! (Peace be Upon Them):

Here's a List of 58 Gender Options for Facebook Users: (Here's just the first few, much more on the linked site):

  • Agender
  • Androgyne
  • Androgynous
  • Bigender
  • Cis
  • Cisgender
  • Cis Female
  • Cis Male
  • Cis Man
  • Cis Woman
  • Cisgender Female
  • Cisgender Male
  • Cisgender Man
  • Cisgender Woman
  • Female to Male
  • FTM
  • Gender Fluid
  • Gender Nonconforming
  • Gender Questioning

Well, Ok, not sexes but gender identities....

 
 
 
Karri
2.1.40  Karri  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.11    one month ago
More recently, we have seen the apparent belief that thousands of people marching in the streets or congregating around statues does not spread Covid-19, but going to church or demonstrating to reopen the economy will lead to the deaths of millions.

That's not exactly accurate.  Many of the people I know did complain that these demonstrations could lead to an increase in infection rates.  When open churches and political events were compared to the outdoor demonstrations, the issues I heard about concerned the fact that the later were mostly inside, without social distancing an without masks.  To be honest, any large grouping of people can lead to an increase in infections, but studies show that being outdoors, being at least six feet apart and wearing masks does slow the spread.  The problem is not the type of meetings; it is the way people interact in those gatherings.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  MUVA @2    one month ago

I believe it was none other than the infallible Dr Fauci who recently admitted that he lied to us when he downplayed and discouraged people from using masks:

"[W]e were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply," he told the  Wall Street Journal   of his supposedly noble lie.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/anthony-fauci-lied-about-masks-now-he-complains-that-people-distrust-authority

 
 
 
Thomas
2.2.1  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2    one month ago

Then that was not science, was it. Think for just one moment of China... Did they Have masks on? Is it a respiratory disease? It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that spread of the disease is lessened by everyone wearing a mask.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.2  MUVA  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2    one month ago

I find it hilarious this new push that has come from some on the left that only they believe in science my oldest voted for Trump has a PHD in biology UVA and went to Vanderbilt U   2 year MD program he has forgotten more about science then most people even could fathom. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2    one month ago
I believe it was none other than the infallible Dr Fauci who recently admitted that he lied to us when he downplayed and discouraged people from using masks:

That was back when Covid first started and no  one knew anything about it. Naturally, as science learned more, new recommendations were incorporated. But thank you Vic for the perfect example of peoples hostility towards science.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @2.2.1    one month ago
Then that was not science, was it.

I'll tel you what is science and Muva just gave it to us - Science says there are only 2 sexes!

What's your answer to "the science" now?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  MUVA @2.2.2    one month ago

It's because they want to use science

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.3    one month ago
But thank you Vic for the perfect example of peoples hostility towards science.

People want to be told the truth. Dr Fauci should have done just that

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.6    one month ago
People want to be told the truth. Dr Fauci should have done just that

He did based on the information available at the time. The problem is, people think they're being lied to if information changes to reflect new discoveries. Of curse, how that information is relayed also causes problems. Rather than saying one thing and then something else that might seem contradictory, it's better to say "this is what should now be done based on what has been learned.…" I think scientists and especially politicians share the blame in that regard.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.2.8  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Thomas @2.2.1    one month ago

You mention China.  There are reasons why China has done somewhat better in curbing the virus than America has.  First of all, many if not most (and even I) already had masks not only because of the pollution, but also because of the prior SARS epidemic wherein they would have already learned that a mask is more useful to prevent spread by the wearer than infection from others.  But that is where the cultural difference comes in.  The Chinese people have a greater concern for the benefit of the collective, more concerned about the health and safety of others, which was carried out by strict adherence to the guidelines for containing the virus, thinking not so much of themselves, but of others.  Compare that to the "me first" "my freedom comes first" attitude which has been on display in the USA.  One could also say, in order to make my comment more on topic, that the Chinese people had more respect for the science behind the prevention of the spread of the virus than the Americans did. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.7    one month ago
He did based on the information available at the time.

He admitted that he told the public that so that there would be enough masks for hospitals!!!!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.2.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.4    one month ago
Science says there are only 2 sexes!

Nope.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.11  author  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.9    one month ago
He admitted that he told the public that so that there would be enough masks for hospitals!!!

Clearly an error in information relay. I suspect that was more political motivation and strong-arming though.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.12  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @2.2.2    one month ago
I find it hilarious this new push that has come from some on the left that only they believe in science

Where do you get this idea?   The only people I have seen suggest this are arguably conservatives.  

I have to note again though that 'believe in science' is antithetical to science.   One does not believe in science, one is convinced (or not) by the evidence.   The closest one can speak of 'believing' in science would be continued trust in the scientific method.

 
 
 
cjcold
2.2.13  cjcold  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.7    one month ago

They trained me in mathematics, chemistry, physics, microbiology, environmental geology, hydraulics, atmospherics, sampling, computer science, satellite technology, etc.

The only thing they didn't teach me that might have been useful would be how to talk to the media and the non-scientific general public.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.14  author  Gordy327  replied to  cjcold @2.2.13    one month ago
They trained me in mathematics, chemistry, physics, microbiology, environmental geology, hydraulics, atmospherics, sampling, computer science, satellite technology, etc.

I see you are a well rounded individual. jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

The only thing they didn't teach me that might have been useful would be how to talk to the media and the non-scientific general public.

Or maybe if the media/public was better educated in scientific matters instead.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
2.2.15  JumpDrive  replied to  MUVA @2.2.2    one month ago
... my oldest voted for Trump has a PHD in biology UVA and went to Vanderbilt U   2 year MD program...

Does your oldest still support Trump after witnessing the administration's epic mismanagement of the pandemic?

 
 
 
Thomas
2.2.16  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.4    one month ago

Science observes homosexuality in other species as well as other deviations from the "norm".

 
 
 
Krishna
2.2.17  Krishna  replied to  Thomas @2.2.1    one month ago
Then that was not science, was it. Think for just one moment of China... Did they Have masks on? Is it a respiratory disease? It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that spread of the disease is lessened by everyone wearing a mask.

The Covad-19 virus is different in several important ways. So not surprisingly, at first very little was known about it. Gradually more and more was learned-- but because it is so different we still have "gaps in our knowledge" -- there's still a lot we don't understand.

While occasionally scientitts have sn "Aha Moment" (a sudden flash of insight that solves a problem that was a mystery for years) often know about some unknown increases, slowly and cumulativly over time.

(And BTW, people are different-- so just because there arte scientists doesn't mean that there won't be some who do have a strong political agenda... the scientific method pursues the truth and does what it can to prevent bias-- but many humans are...just human!)

 
 
 
Krishna
2.2.18  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @2.2.2    one month ago

 UVA and went to Vanderbilt U

By any chance do you live in Virginia Beach?A personal question and I'll understand if you don't want to answer it-- but by any chance so you live in Virginia Beach? Charlottesviile?

 
 
 
Krishna
2.2.19  Krishna  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.4    one month ago
Science says there are only 2 sexes!

Of course some would disagree!

And here's an amazing example-- Facebook says there are 58 sexes!

(BTW I disagree-- because I know there are only 55 1/2!

 
 
 
Suz
2.2.20  Suz  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.2.8    one month ago
One could also say, in order to make my comment more on topic, that the Chinese people had more respect for the science behind the prevention of the spread of the virus than the Americans did. 

That or they know not to trust their government.

I'm not sure where I would go with that other than to say Americans believe they are immune to everything including Aids and/or Ebola.  Aids wasn't going to touch 'normal' people because they weren't gay and ebola only happens to people in Africa.  This time, what happened in China didn't stay in China.  

I don't believe the American public wants to know.  Better to keep it over there where it's out of sight, out of mind.

I'm sure I'm way off base.

Hi ya, Buzz.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.2.21  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Suz @2.2.20    one month ago

Hi back at ya, Suz.

One might wonder if any government can be trusted.

 
 
 
Thomas
2.2.22  Thomas  replied to  Krishna @2.2.17    one month ago

Well, let me put it this way: When you are quarantining a person who has a contagious, unknown respiratory condition, do you just walk in the room and say, 'Hi!" with no protection? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.23  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.10    one month ago
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.24  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @2.2.16    one month ago

We are talking about the sex of human beings not sexual orientation!

Talk about not accepting science!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.25  Vic Eldred  replied to  Krishna @2.2.19    one month ago
And here's an amazing example-- Facebook says there are 58 sexes!

They can say anything. I thought the point of this article was accepting science?

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.26  author  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.23    one month ago
Yep:

Are you serious? You're citing an (obviously biased) opinion piece on a site sponsored by the Discovery Institute. That's not even a scientific article or research paper. Seriously?

I thought the point of this article was accepting science?

The point is about the apparent hostility towards science.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.2.27  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.23    one month ago

That's an opinion piece, Vic.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/im-xy-know-sex-determination-systems-101/

The fact that genetic sex can be directed by the flip of a single switch may be surprising. Sex is complex – but then again, there are a lot of other factors at play and, clearly, environment can have a big influence on how sex expresses itself. Additionally, there are many documented cases of humans with a genetic sex that appears “contrary” to their physical appearance. For instance, we know of genetically XX persons who have developed testes and external characteristics of men, and genetic XYs who develop as females. An example of the latter case occurs in Swyer Syndrome, often when there is a mutation in the SRY gene. While the rest of the Y chromosome is left intact, a malfunctioning SRY means that the male “switch” is never flipped, and the indifferent gonads do not get signals to become testes. Swyer Syndrome patients develop externally as female, but do not have ovaries and are infertile.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/sex-determination

Sexual development is not always so straightforward in humans. Although people are usually considered either male or female, various disruptions can occur during sexual development and differentiation that give rise to atypical or mixed sexual development. These include   sex chromosome   abnormalities, where there are extra or missing copies of the sex chromosomes. This would include Turner syndrome, where females receive only a single   X chromosome ;   Klinefelter syndrome , wherein males receive not only an X and Y chromosome but also an extra copy of the   X chromosome ; and a wide variety of other more rare numerical   sex chromosome   abnormalities where extra copies of the X and/or Y chromosomes are present. In addition, the SRY gene that is normally transmitted on the Y chromosome can become translocated to an X chromosome or an autosome, resulting in a reversal of sex. Also, when multiple cell lines are present, with different sex-chromosome allocations, individuals may develop both male and female characteristics. True hermaphrodites have both testes and ovaries, and may have both intact male and female external genital structures. Pseudohermaphrodites have external genital structures that are opposite of what would be expected on the basis of having either testes or ovaries internally. In addition, the development of the external genital structures can be incomplete, and it may initially be difficult to determine sex at birth. Occasionally, some of the male or female structures fail to form altogether for reasons that are not usually clear. In cases where external genitalia are ambiguous, it was common practice for many years to assign a female gender, and to perform surgical alterations to make the external genitals look more completely feminine. In recent years, it has been recognized that the sexual identity of genetic males after puberty is typically male regardless of whether the child was reared as a male or female, and thus more consideration is given to sex assignment now than in previous years.
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.2.28  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.26    one month ago

Vic's article's author also does not understand the difference between biological sex and gender identification.

Not to mention, the author must not have taken biology past the middle school level.  My high school biology classes addressed the fact that sex is not so simple as we'd like to think.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.29  Trout Giggles  replied to  cjcold @2.2.13    one month ago

Are you an environmental scientist? I was taught all those things, too

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.2.30  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.2.21    one month ago

No... best to sleep lightly with one eye open when it comes to governments....

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.2.31  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.23    one month ago

Nope..... Evolution news is part of a Christian "think tank" Vic.  They are pretty strong at pushing conspiracy theory and pseudo-science.

They push for things like creationism in the form of intelligent design for which there is no corresponding supporting science.

Got anything else    [removed    ?]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.32  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.28    one month ago
Vic's article's author also does not understand the difference between biological sex and gender identification.

No, it seems that you don't. Science deal with biological sex.


 My high school biology classes addressed the fact that sex is not so simple as we'd like to think.

If only I could have met your teachers!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.33  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.32    one month ago

Then what sex/gender are hermaphrodites**?

**is that still the scientifically correct name?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.34  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.33    one month ago
Then what sex/gender are hermaphrodites**?

It's called an abnormality!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.35  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.34    one month ago

that didn't answer my question

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.36  Kathleen  replied to  Krishna @2.2.19    one month ago

I saw the list, I would like to see a complete description medically and psychologically of each of those 58 sexes. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.37  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.35    one month ago

Why not? What do you call a calf born with two heads?  

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.38  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.36    one month ago

"I saw the list, I would like to see a complete description medically and psychologically of each of those 58 sexes."

You could find the information if you wanted to, if you actually wanted to know.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.39  Kathleen  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.36    one month ago

I see more having to do with how you feel in your mind with these sexes. My curiosity still stands with wanting to know about it in a medical or psychological term for the biological human body. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.2.40  Greg Jones  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.2.21    one month ago

Do you trust yours?

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.41  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.39    one month ago

'I see more having to do with how you feel in your mind with these sexes. My curiosity still stands with wanting to know about it in a medical or psychological term for the biological human body.'

Again, you could look it up.  Not hard to do.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.42  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.41    one month ago

Look up what?

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.43  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2    one month ago

Dr. Fauci didn't lie.

tRump lies every time he opens his mouth.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.44  Kathleen  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.42    one month ago

I looked it up before I posted and could only find rare cases with people being born with both sex organs and people that go through the entire sex change. I could not find anything different on the physical body pertaining to all these sexes other than how they feel about themselves.  Unless anyone on here has any information otherwise.  I am very curious. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.45  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.44    one month ago
I am very curious. 

So am I

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.46  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.43    one month ago
Dr. Fauci didn't lie.

I posted his admission of lying in post # 2.2.. Care to provide evidence to the contrary?

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.47  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.46    one month ago

What lie?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.48  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.47    one month ago

I don't understand all the confusion. Why not read post # 2.2?  Then you'll know what lie.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.49  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.32    one month ago

This is just a semantics dispute.

In the most simplistic sense, science (biology) deals with two genders:  male and female.   For the purposes of procreation, life on our planet is no more complex than binary (we have unary and binary procreation).   There is no ternary procreation.

The sex 'female' correlates with the production of sex cells we call 'eggs' while the sex 'male' correlates with the production of sex cells we call 'spermatozoa'.

Normally, biology reveals the sex of an individual, but variations occur.   Some are born with neither eggs or sperm cells, some are born with both.    So immediately we have as biological options:  Male, Female, Neither, Both.   

When one considers the other view of sex (gender), the biology gets extremely complex and there are far more than just four options.

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.2.50  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.48    one month ago

The would defeat the purpose of trolling ......

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.51  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.48    one month ago

No confusion.

No lie.

No need to check your post.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.52  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.49    one month ago
This is just a semantics dispute.

No it's not. Science defines human sexes at 2 male and female.

Saying I'm a boy/girl or wanting a sex change has NOTHING to do with science, other than trying to DEFY it!  I knew we would be here talking about the constructs of new groups!

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.53  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.48    one month ago

Dr. Fauci is not science; he is a scientist who is also operating in a political / sociological capacity.   Anything he declares is not ipso facto science, it is simply what he declares.   I am have no objection to someone faulting Dr. Fauci for how he has chosen to navigate this pandemic in a political / sociological sense.   But I will challenge anyone who use authorities as surrogates for science itself.   That is both wrong in terms of how science works and is flat out unfair to science.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.54  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.37    one month ago
What do you call a calf born with two heads? 

veal

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.55  MUVA  replied to  JumpDrive @2.2.15    one month ago

Yes

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.56  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.52    one month ago
No it's not. Science defines human sexes at 2 male and female.Saying I'm a boy/girl or wanting a sex change has NOTHING to do with science, other than trying to DEFY it!  I knew we would be here talking about the constructs of new groups!

Yes it is.   My comment explained the science.   Your rebuttal does not address my argument, but rather goes personal.

You are limiting yourself to the most abstract biological definition:  sex determined by the presence of reproductive cells.   That gives the two extreme options of male and female but, as I noted, it also yields the sexes of hermaphrodite and neuter.   (We all begin as hermaphrodites and, for the vast majority, develop into male or female.)   The fact that the supermajority of individuals are male or female does not mean the hemaphrodite (both) and neuter (neither) biological sexes do not exist.   They do;  there are human beings who have both reproductive cells and those who have neither.   This is reality.

That is science Vic.

And, as my comment explained, sex and gender are often used interchangeably.   When one explores the science behind the gender definition of sex one finds many variations (well beyond the four).   So, as is true for most things, when one gets into the details, reality shows itself to be more complex than our superficial intuition would suggest.  

That is science.

In short, if you wish to argue that in the vast majority of cases an individual will either possess spermatozoa cells or egg cells and thus will be either biologically sexed as male or female, you would be correct.   If you argue that in the general case, an individual's sex is either male, female, hermaphrodite or neuter, you would be correct.   If you argue gender (also called 'sex') one will find many biological sexes.

Semantics.   Nuances.   Perceived reality is a function of the level of detail at which you operate.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.2.57  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.32    one month ago
No, it seems that you don't. Science deal with biological sex.

Your link conflates the two.  But science deals with each - biology with biological sex, psychology and psychiatry (those ARE sciences, you know) with psychological gender.

And science says there are more than two.  Even when talking biology.  You declaring otherwise doesn't make it so.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.2.58  sandy-2021492  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.33    one month ago
is that still the scientifically correct name?

I believe the preferred term now is "intersex".

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.59  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.58    one month ago

thank-you

 
 
 
cjcold
2.2.60  cjcold  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.29    one month ago

That has been the only description listed in my bio here or on the old vine although I have many other interests now that I am mostly retired. 

Which facet(s) have you worked in the environment field?

 
 
 
cjcold
2.2.62  cjcold  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.57    one month ago
(those ARE sciences, you know)

Psychology and psychiatry are considered "soft" sciences.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.2.63  sandy-2021492  replied to  cjcold @2.2.62    one month ago

I know.  Psychology more so than psychiatry.  But they're still sciences, and use the scientific method to the degree they're able, given their area of study.

But Vic doesn't even accept the "hard" science of biology.  Biology recognizes that biological sex is not strictly binary.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.2.64  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.44    one month ago
could only find rare cases with people being born with both sex organs

This article discusses the prevalence of intersex births.  It is a bit older (2002), but The author uses a fairly restrictive definition of "intersex", and is in fact refuting another investigator who chose to use a broader definition.  It contains a useful list of conditions that cause intersex, and conditions that resemble intersex, and descriptions of those conditions.  By his estimate, there were about 50,000 true intersex individuals in the US in 2002, about 0.018% of the population.  While intersex is rare, it is certainly not unheard of.  The author, while arguing against a very broad definition of intersex, recognizes that intersex, including true hermaphroditism (both male and female genitalia) and chimaerism (genetically distinct cells, some male and some female, within the same individual), does exist.

There are not just 2 sexes.

https://www.leonardsax.com/how-common-is-intersex-a-response-to-anne-fausto-sterling/

A woman from my neighborhood when I was growing up is intersex.  She was born with ambiguous genitalia, and was assigned the male gender at birth, with surgery and hormone therapy to support masculinity.  I used to ride bikes with her and her brother, and they were both very into "boy" stuff - sports, building models, etc.  Then, I knew her as "Allen".  She is now "Leighanne".  When she hit her late 30s or so, the testosterone used to maintain masculine secondary sex characteristics began to cause heart issues.  Her cardiologist told her that staying on the testosterone could lead to a premature death.  So she stopped taking testosterone, and transitioned to female.  

And then she was run out of town by threats of violence to her family.

She is an intelligent woman - an engineer, married (the woman to whom she was married when she lived as a male chose to stay with her), raising children (I'm not sure whether they were adopted or conceived via artificial insemination).  She is dealing with a difficult situation with dignity and grace, and deserved much better than to have her and her family's lives threatened due to a condition with which she was born.  "Othering" and dehumanizing people who were born different from others because one does not accept or understand their condition leads to persecution.  And IMO, denying their existence, as some here choose to do (not referring to you) dehumanizes them.

 
 
 
Krishna
2.2.65  Krishna  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.14    one month ago
Or maybe if the media/public was better educated in scientific matters instead.

Don't hold your breath.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.66  author  Gordy327  replied to  Krishna @2.2.65    one month ago

I gave up that attempt long ago.

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.67  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.64    one month ago

I am sure she is a good person, I don’t believe I gave any indication on my part that any of these people would not be.  I would never discriminate against anyone.  I was not aware of all the genders.  I was talking about wanting to know more about it and curious.  You have to understand that there are people out there that do not know all this. That does not mean that they would condemn any of them. Some people probably will, while others  would not even care or mind at all. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.68  Trout Giggles  replied to  cjcold @2.2.60    one month ago

Military and state government

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.69  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.58    one month ago
I believe the preferred term now is "intersex".

I only wish Orwell was still with us to see all the newspeak!

 
 
 
JBB
2.2.70  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.69    one month ago

Orwell foreshadowed Trump with Big Brother!

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.2.71  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.69    one month ago

He would be very proud of his literary prognostications that's for sure ...

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.72  Kathleen  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.69    one month ago

Just to be clear Vic, when I said “on my part” in my above comment, I was not referring about you. I was talking in the general population. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.2.73  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @2.2.70    one month ago

Lol .... Trump is big brother?   Nah, Obama was big brother with his illegal surveillance of Americans.

How convenient the leftist memory is .....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.74  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.72    one month ago

Understood. My type of humor is an acquired taste.

 
 
 
JBB
2.2.75  JBB  replied to  Sparty On @2.2.73    one month ago

Who do you think is in charge of government?

Hint, Barack Obama has been retired for years

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.2.76  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @2.2.75    one month ago

Yeah you better deflect.  

Regardless, the illegal shit the Obama admin did will follow him through history.   That said the Trump admin has been shit-canning Obama swamp rats wholesale for the last three years.   It's going to get real sporty for some of those puds soon enough.  

It'll be fun watching the left whine and rationalize when the rats start getting popped.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.77  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @2.2.76    one month ago

@everyone, let's avoid unnecessary politics or political talk and focus on the topic please. Thank you.

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.2.78  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.77    one month ago

No problem, just responding to the usual Trump bashing.   I'll stop.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.79  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @2.2.78    one month ago

I understand and I'm not singling you out. I'm just trying to avoid derailment of the topic by politics. Thank you for your consideration.

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.2.80  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.79    one month ago

No problem, i respect what you are trying to do.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.81  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @2.2.80    one month ago

Thank you. I appreciate that.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.2.82  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.67    one month ago

I know that you were not belittling them, which is why I made sure to specify that I wasn't referring to you.  Some have belittled or denied their existence.  You merely expressed curiosity, which is why I posted an article I found to be informative.  Your expression of curiosity was why I addressed that comment to you.  But it also explained the science of why sex is not strictly binary, as some insist.

 
 
 
Karri
2.2.83  Karri  replied to  cjcold @2.2.62    one month ago
Psychology and psychiatry are considered "soft" sciences.

There are issues with how psychology uses the scientific method, sociology even more so.  However, psychiatry is a medical specialty and has to follow the methods used in other medical specialties.

 
 
 
Thomas
2.2.84  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.24    one month ago

Well, science says that humans present three physically: There are males, females, hermaphrodites .... Seems like a pretty bad example if you are trying to prove that there are two. 

And if we go beyond humans, there are all kinds of funky things going on.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.85  TᵢG  replied to  Thomas @2.2.84    one month ago

Four, actually:  neuter is the absence of both male and female sex cells.

 
 
 
Krishna
2.2.86  Krishna  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.2.21    one month ago

One might wonder if any government can be trusted.

A quote from a famous American:

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help. "

 
 
 
Krishna
2.2.87  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @2.2.86    one month ago

A quote from a famous American:

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help. "

A quote on the subject from yet another famous American:

Suppose I was an idiot, And suppose i was a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.2.88  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.44    one month ago
Unless anyone on here has any information otherwise

it is actually pretty simple.

the science is clear.

there are two sexes and many mental disorders.

512

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.89  author  Gordy327  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.2.88    one month ago

Actual science says you're wrong!

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.90  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.89    one month ago

8-ball is trying to claim that individuals with different combinations of biological sex cells are all mental disorders.   That is wrong at first inspection:  a hermaphrodite (both biological sexual organs), for example, is demonstrably not a mental disorder but an individual biology with both sexes.   Neuter individuals (with neither sex cells) are biologically neither male nor female.

I accept as valid a claim that there are two types of sex cells (male and female), but when speaking of the sex of an individual is it naive to insist that biology includes only the extremes (either 100% male sex cells or 100% female sex cells).   That is demonstrably not true.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.91  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.90    one month ago

His claims are old ones I've seem used before. At this point though, it's inexcusable for people to be so willfully ignorant (or dishonest) about such things.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
2.2.92  Release The Kraken  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.89    one month ago
Actual science says you're wrong!

You seem hostile about science ROFL, two genders, biology 101 homeslice.

If you chop off your junk, you are still a man.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.2.93  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.89    one month ago
Actual science says you're wrong!

actual science also said the ice caps would be gone and florida would be underwater by now..... LOL

so anyway... back to the articles question

Why Is There A Hostility Towards Science?

it has become politicized and weaponized..   

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.2.94  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.90    one month ago
with different combinations of biological sex cells are all mental disorders. 

 things like chemical imbalances in the brain are not cured by cutting off a body part or attaching new parts.

more science needs to be done.


but just for fun,

if I start identifying as the queen of england will they....

  • let me wear the crown jewels, do my bidding, and hang out in the castle?

or

  • will they send me for a mental evaluation?

 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.95  TᵢG  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.2.94    one month ago
 things like chemical imbalances in the brain are not cured by cutting off a body part or attaching new parts.

What does this have to do with what I wrote?

Answer:  nothing. 

Formulate a response that deals with sex cells if you want to actually respond to what I wrote.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.96  author  Gordy327  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.2.93    one month ago

Science said the ice caps would be melting, which was a pattern observed over the years. The extent of the melt and refreezing could only be speculated on. While a melting would certainly cause a sea level rise, the level of land mass submergence is also exaggerated. Fortunately,  science continues to observe and collect evidence.

As to the hostility, if people think science is weaponized and political, then that's the fault of the politicians, not the science.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.2.97  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.95    one month ago
What does this have to do with what I wrote?

nothing... that's why I wrote it.

8-ball is trying to claim that individuals with different combinations of biological sex cells are all mental disorders

you tried to splain what I thought.

so as a courtesy, I told you exactly why I thought what I thought....

no need to thank me  :)

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.98  TᵢG  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.2.97    one month ago
nothing... that's why I wrote it.

Normally when one replies to a comment the reply has something to do with the comment.

Is the biological hermaphrodite merely a mental disorder or an individual with both sex cells (typically manifested with both types of physical sexual attributes)?

This is not an opinion question, it is hard science.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.2.99  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.98    one month ago
Is the biological hermaphrodite

trying to conflate the two issues?    fail.


a "physical" combination of both sexes does not equal a third sex or a mental disorder.

people who feel/think they are a different sex than assigned at birth -  do have a mental disorder. 

and no matter how ya slice it...   cutting of parts will not fix the brain.

 

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.100  author  Gordy327  replied to  Release The Kraken @2.2.92    one month ago

Nope. I'm hostile towards willful ignorance.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.2.101  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.96    one month ago
then that's the fault of the politicians, not the science

I did not know "scientists" were above greed or stupidity.... LOL

that is probably why people do not rush to believe the science.when some so called "expert" gets on cnn and claims everyone's hair should be on fire...

people have learned to wait until the science proves the science true and that takes time.

example:

  • first was global cooling,
  • then came global warming,
  • then... along came global climate change  (they gave up guessing and went with both warming and cooling.)

and magically the cure for all of them? tax energy...  LOL  ( but it is not about the money)   LOL

meanwhile: the polar bears are thriving

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/polar-bears-keep-thriving-even-as-global-warming-alarmists-keep-pretending-theyre-dying

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.102  TᵢG  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.2.99    one month ago

Sex cells are different than the sex of an individual.   Life is complicated; one must spend time to grow beyond a superficial understanding of biology. 

a "physical" combination of both sexes does not equal a third sex or a mental disorder.

With this you contradict your own argument @2.2.88

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.2.103  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.102    one month ago
Life is complicated; one must spend time to grow beyond a superficial understanding of biology. 

a birth defect, is a birth defect, is a birth defect...  period.

[ deleted ]


With this you contradict your own argument @ 2.2.88

no. I was not originally talking about physical birth defects. - you brought this up not me.

I was originally talking about people who only think they are a different gender.      not people who have both genders.

[ deleted ]

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.104  author  Gordy327  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.2.101    one month ago
I did not know "scientists" were above greed or stupidity.... LOL

I didn't say scientists. I said science. And your statement doesn't actually address my post.

that is probably why people do not rush to believe the science. when some so called "expert" gets on cnn and claims everyone's hair should be on fire...

No one should "believe" science. They should look at the evidence.

people have learned to wait until the science proves the science true and that takes time.

Proof is too high a standard and science often doesn't "prove" something. It can make an assertion based on the evidence with a degree of certainty. As more evidence is gathered to support the assertion, the greater the degree of certainty.

example:
first was global cooling,
then came global warming,
then... along came global climate change  (they gave up guessing and went with both warming and cooling.)

That's how science operates: gather evidence regarding an observation and update the information as evidence is gathered. It's a self correcting system.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.2.105  sandy-2021492  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.2.103    one month ago

There are more than 2 biological sexes.  You can dance around it (badly) all you like, but it doesn't change the facts.  Your original comment was a reply to Kathleen, who asked for information regarding non-binary sex designations.  So you were, whether you intended to or not, addressing biological sex, not psychological gender.

I imagine you know that, though, and simply mean to troll.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.2.106  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.105    one month ago
There are more than 2 biological sexes

bs...  but there are lots of mental birth defects

maybe the ADA should cover this?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.2.107  sandy-2021492  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.2.106    one month ago

Nope.  If your high school biology class didn't cover it, I've posted links from actual scientists.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.2.108  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.104    one month ago
That's how science operates: gather evidence regarding an observation and update the information as evidence is gathered. It's a self correcting system.

you forgot the taking of money and answering to the people who fund such studies along with gathering evidence... 

but I do I agree it is self-correcting by honest scientists but that takes time,

so people tend to ignore the hair on fire science at first


 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.109  author  Gordy327  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.2.108    one month ago

Now you're just veering into the same science conspiracy theory territory as Nerm is, but offer nothing of actual value.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.2.110  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.109    one month ago
Now you're just veering into the same science conspiracy theory

conspiracy theory?  LOL

you just lost the argument.... move along we are done here.

think what ya like matters not.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.111  author  Gordy327  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.2.110    one month ago
you just lost the argument....

Hardly. I'm not the one making nonsense up.

move along we are done here.

Fine, considering you never really got started to begin with.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.112  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.105    one month ago
... simply mean to troll.

Spot on.   Seems to be a common tactic with a select group; if one cannot make a cogent argument then just try to be obnoxious instead.   Why this is not embarrassing to individuals who engage in faux obtuseness (and other) tactics is a curious thought.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.113  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.112    one month ago
Why this is not embarrassing to individuals who engage in this tactic is a curious thought.

Perhaps because they don't know any better? Have no shame? Or just don't care?

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.114  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.113    one month ago

As I have noted to you many times, this is like panning for gold.   Sometimes one finds a nugget (a thoughtful point or rebuttal) but most of the time one gets, in a word, trolling.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.115  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.114    one month ago

This is true.

 
 
 
MAGA
2.2.116  MAGA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.58    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.117  author  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @2.2.116    one month ago

How about contributing something of value or relevance to the discussion!

 
 
 
Krishna
2.3  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @2    one month ago

No.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3  Freedom Warrior    one month ago

Let’s face the facts the scientists and the so-called authorities have been absolutely Catastrophically wrong in regards to COVID, particularly now as the data has come out. Whoever actually  thinks they got is right needs do some serious soul-searching given the devastating impacts their horrendously flawed policies are having on the lives of people. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3    one month ago
Let’s face the facts the scientists and the so-called authorities have been absolutely Catastrophically wrong in regards to COVID, particularly now as the data has come out.

Science didn't know anything about Covid when it started. So how could it "get things right?" The best it could do at the time was use past instances of pandemics as a guide to dealing with it. But as time went on and science learned more about it, it incorporated the new information into its guidelines. 

Whoever actually  thinks they got is right needs do some serious soul-searching given the devastating impacts their horrendously flawed policies are having on the lives of people. 

No one said they "got it right." But the measures developed since Covid started have been shown to be effective.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1    one month ago
Science didn't know anything about Covid when it started. So how could it "get things right?" The best it could do at the time was use past instances of pandemics as a guide to dealing with it.

I agree, but they weren't saying that. They were scrambling to make recommendations with limited information, but their recommendations were presented as absolute truths. Even now, people rage that Trump or some other politician didn't follow scientific recommendations to their most extreme level of devotion. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1    one month ago
Science didn't know anything about Covid when it started. So how could it "get things right?"

When I read that sentence, what flashed through my mind was a scene in the movie Sully, the movie about the landing of the disabled airplane in the Hudson River.  Similations were created that were computer-driven that indicated that Sully had the time and could have landed at a couple of airports instead.  He brought up a point, and that was the "human factor".  When people are faced with a situation that is strange and unusual they don't act like robots or computers, there will be some delay in the reaction while they think what to do.   That very fact is used to explain why America was not immediately on top of the problem and did not do everything perfectly, but then China is blamed for not acting or understanding the problem and what to do about it immediately as well.  Is that justifiable?

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.1    one month ago

tRump never followed the scientific recommendations

or Pence

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.1    one month ago
They were scrambling to make recommendations with limited information, but their recommendations were presented as absolute truths.

That's partly the cause of the hostility IMO-how information is relayed. Limited information is all there was at the time too. Or perhaps people accepted recommendations as absolute truths. But if that "truth" gets changed as new information comes along, then I suspect they feel science is suspect and cannot be trusted.

Even now, people rage that Trump or some other politician didn't follow scientific recommendations to their most extreme level of devotion. 

People in positions of authority like politicians also set and lead by example. It sends a conflicting message if a politician doesn't follow or downplays scientific guidelines and recommendations. Some people are right to feel enraged if they know scientific recommendations are a good idea, but politicians won't follow them. Unfortunately, people seem to listen to politicians more than scientists.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.1.2    one month ago
When people are faced with a situation that is strange and unusual they don't act like robots or computers, there will be some delay in the reaction while they think what to do. 

Sometimes they don't think. They become irrational and/or emotional. That's part of the problem. We see that now with people who complain about wearing masks. 

That very fact is used to explain why America was not immediately on top of the problem and did not do everything perfectly,

It goes further than that. We knew about the problem ahead of time. But it was either ignored or downplayed. And when the problem really presented itself here, there was delay in response to it, which I fault more with politicians.

but then China is blamed for not acting or understanding the problem and what to do about it immediately as well.  Is that justifiable?

China shares blame for originating the problem. We share blame in the dismal response to it.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.6  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.5    one month ago

I agree with your comment.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.3    one month ago
tRump never followed the scientific recommendations or Pence

Remember when VP Pence, the head of the Covid task force no less (I'm still scratching my head on that one), went into the Mayo Clinic and didn't wear a mask? He should have been fired as head of the task force just for that alone.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.1    one month ago
They were scrambling to make recommendations with limited information, but their recommendations were presented as absolute truths.

Why conflate talking heads (political authorities) with science itself?    If a talking head makes a statement and presents it as certain science when it is not, then it is the talking head at fault, not science.

People lie.   People make mistakes.   Distinguish talking heads (people) from science and the scientific method.

 
 
 
Suz
3.1.9  Suz  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.3    one month ago
tRump never followed the scientific recommendations
or Pence
 

I do not agree with you, but at least he wasn't hiding in a dark corner of the WH. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.10  author  Gordy327  replied to  Suz @3.1.9    one month ago

Tess isn't entirely wrong. Both Trump & Pence have ignored or didn't follow recommended guidelines, like wearing a mask.

 
 
 
bccrane
3.1.11  bccrane  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.10    one month ago
Both Trump & Pence have ignored or didn't follow recommended guidelines, like wearing a mask.   

They don't need to, they're wearing a mask and social distancing  constantly, you just don't see it. No one gets near them that haven't been tested and screened, they themselves are tested constantly, everywhere they visit the area is sanitized before they get there.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.12  author  Gordy327  replied to  bccrane @3.1.11    one month ago

They've been photographed in public places without a mask. So what are you talking about? 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.13  Greg Jones  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.1.2    one month ago

China was rightly blamed for silencing its own scientists and medical experts, many of whom have died, or haven't been heard of since.

And of course, deliberately delaying informing of other countries of the highly infectious nature of the virus.

 
 
 
bccrane
3.1.14  bccrane  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.12    one month ago

The mask isn't a physical, over the face type, it's everyone around them working to shield them from this and any other threat. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Suz @3.1.9    one month ago
'tRump never followed the scientific recommendations
or Pence'
 

'I do not agree with you, but at least he wasn't hiding in a dark corner of the WH.' 

That's fine.  Makes absolutely no difference to me. I DON'T CARE IF YOU AGREE WITH ME.  

How can you disagree when you see the turd tRump NEVER wears a mask and prick Pence rarely does?  I mean prick Pence went into the Mayo Clinic without a mask for Christs' sake.  

Who is hiding in 'a dark corner of the White House'   #bunkerboy tRump who went hiding in his #bunker?

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.16  author  Gordy327  replied to  bccrane @3.1.14    one month ago

They're still around others. So a mask is warranted. So not wearing one is irresponsible and dangerous, not to mention set's a bad example.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  bccrane @3.1.11    one month ago
'They don't need to, they're wearing a mask and social distancing  constantly, you just don't see it. No one gets near them that haven't been tested and screened, they themselves are tested constantly, everywhere they visit the area is sanitized before they get there.'

How do you explain all those planning tRump's Tulsa 'rally' who had tested positive for Co-Vid and had been quarantined?

 
 
 
bccrane
3.1.18  bccrane  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.17    one month ago

Not sure what you're getting at, prior to Trump's rally the people setting up the rally were tested as part of the shielding Trump gets, as I was explaining, they were found to be positive and quarantined, wasn't that a good thing?  

 
 
 
Suz
3.1.19  Suz  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.15    one month ago
I DON'T CARE IF YOU AGREE WITH ME.  

It wasn't meant as an insult.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  Suz @3.1.19    one month ago

You keep saying that Suz, so excuse me if I don't take your word for it.

It doesn't appear to be reliable, your word that is.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  bccrane @3.1.18    one month ago

A majority of people setting up that 'rally' on his staff including his secret service detail have been exposed to Co-Vid and were quarantined.

There were more announced after the 'rally'

Now how about Arizona after that 'rally'?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.22  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.13    one month ago

I never denied that, in fact I posted it myself.  And whatabout what you and other Trumpsters refuse to admit?

 
 
 
Suz
3.1.23  Suz  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.20    one month ago
It doesn't appear to be reliable, your word that is.  

How so?  Examples?

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.24  Tessylo  replied to  Suz @3.1.23    one month ago
"It doesn't appear to be reliable, your word that is."  
"How so?  Examples?"

On one of your seeds - I mentioned something - and you said 'are you talking to yourself again' :)      as if you know of me doing that often, when I don't even know you or why you choose to make those comments to me.  

When I said it wasn't cute, you said, 'I thought it was cute' and then something along the lines of, I didn't mean to insult you.

I've only been on a few seeds where you've called me out this way.

Sounds kind of passive/aggressive if you ask me.  

I mean, you come in, drop a turd in the punchbowl, and then disappear, and then come back and say, "I can't imagine why you're offended"

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  Suz @3.1.23    one month ago

And . . . she's gone again.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.26  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.1.22    one month ago

LOL.. Crickets, as expected.  

 
 
 
cjcold
3.1.27  cjcold  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.16    one month ago

Especially since 2 campaign staffers and 11 SS agents have tested positive.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.28  author  Gordy327  replied to  cjcold @3.1.27    one month ago

Which only proves my point.

 
 
 
Karri
3.1.29  Karri  replied to  bccrane @3.1.14    one month ago

I think you forgot the sarcasm tag.  

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.30  Krishna  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.1.2    one month ago

When people are faced with a situation that is strange and unusual they don't act like robots or computers, there will be some delay in the reaction while they think what to do.

That is indeed true in many cases.

However...

There are also  many, many instances of a person suddenly & unexpectedly being faced with a dangerous situation-- and immediately "acting without thinking". Often saving their own life and the lives of others. 

And then shortly thereafter, when the situation is no longer a danger-- they think back and don't remember how they were able to act that quickly...seemingly "without thinking". they acted that way.  sort of "by instinct").

There are other dimensions of consciousness in addition to "Ordinary Waking Conscious" (AKA "Left Brain Thinking"...or "Logical Analysis".

(Apparently landing that plane is the Hudson was not an example of what I just mentioned-- the process innhis mind was considerably more complex.. more analytical.) 

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.31  Krishna  replied to  cjcold @3.1.27    one month ago

Especially since 2 campaign staffers and 11 SS agents have tested positive.

Trump may be a "super[spreader" (one who has a disease but is asymtomatice-- or possibly in Trump's case has mild symptoms and  covers it  up). 

And especially since he refuses to wear a mask-- I wouldn't be at all surprised if he is spreading the virus-- also because he spends time  in an enclosed space with lots of people constantly going in and out..i,e, The White House)-

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.32  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Krishna @3.1.30    one month ago

In an immediately dangerous situation, they might have to determine whether to exercise "fight or flight", but when faced with an entirely new but not immediate threat one should determine what the best thing might be to do about it. 

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2  Krishna  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3    one month ago
Let’s face the facts the scientists and the so-called authorities have been absolutely Catastrophically wrong in regards to COVID, particularly now as the data has come out.

And in fact, Science has been catastrophically wrong about ...just about everything! (Until they get it right).

Science off investigating something-- and develops "hypotheses"-- ideas, guesses, about something. Then they set up a series of "tests" (AKA "experiments") to learn more. A lot of what they originally thought might be true turns out not to be. Sometimes the results don't take that long-- but sometimes it takes years.

Thomas Edison was quite a scientist-- he invented many things. I've found the story of his invention of the light bulb especially interesting-- because he was wrong so many times! (But eventually he was successful...):

In the period from 1878 to 1880 Edison and his associates worked on at least three thousand different theories to develop an efficient incandescent lamp. (Incandescent lamps make light by using electricity to heat a thin strip of material (called a filament) until it gets hot enough to glow)

By January 1879, at his laboratory in Menlo Park, New Jersey, Edison had built his first high resistance, incandescent electric light. It worked by passing electricity through a thin platinum filament in the glass vacuum bulb, which delayed the filament from melting. Still, the lamp only burned for a few short hours. In order to improve the bulb, Edison needed all the persistence he had learned years before in his basement laboratory. He tested thousands and thousands of other materials to use for the filament. He even thought about using tungsten, which is the metal used for light bulb filaments now, but he couldn't work with it given the tools available at that time.

One day, Edison was sitting in his laboratory . . .   (cont'd)

A great scientist. But in the invention of the light bulb . He "was wrong" at least 3000 times!

(And if you want to criticize him for being "wrong" so much-- remember what counts-- he ultimately was "right"-- and invented the light bulb before anyone else!)

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2.1  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @3.2    one month ago

A great scientist. But in the invention of the light bulb . He "was wrong" at least 3000 times!

(And if you want to criticize him for being "wrong" so much-- remember what counts-- he ultimately was "right"-- and invented the light bulb before anyone else!)

BTW I used to read a lot of books re: how people, in very different fields,  became successful. Especially successful in"creating results"-- big time! And I read not only about scientists, but also successful executives, CEOs of YUGE corporations...as well as other fields.

Interestingly, they have several things in common.

One thing I read (in more than one source)-- was a major difference between highly successful people and those that are not (and this is directly related to our discussion about being wrong..and success)-- is that successful people make many, many more mistakes than those who aren't highly successful . . .  definitely something to ponder!

 
 
 
Krishna
3.3  Krishna  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3    one month ago
Whoever actually  thinks they got is right

I assume that you are speaking of Trump?

(After all, he knows more than anybody about....EVERYTHING!)

Excellent video...but the last line is the best!

 
 
 
Sparty On
4  Sparty On    one month ago

It isn’t for most of us.    I use science nearly every day for my job.    Successfully I might add for nearly 40 years.

The right tool for the right job.    Just like I wouldn’t use a hammer to replace a circuit board. I don’t usually use science in faith based decisions.

I know that’s tough for some to accept but that’s really inconsequential as it works for me and mine.    And in the end that is all that matters.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1  MUVA  replied to  Sparty On @4    one month ago

I have two tools hammer and chisel. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  MUVA @4.1    one month ago

I tried using my Megger once to replace a tire.

It was ugly .....

 
 
 
Thomas
4.1.2  Thomas  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.1    one month ago

Must have stank something awful.... ZZZZZZzzzzzzzaaaaaappp!

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4.1.3  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.1    one month ago

In jest, did you by chance use a tire iron at some point to check for insulative resistance as well?   

  

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1.3    one month ago

That would end uglier for sure ....

 
 
 
cjcold
4.1.5  cjcold  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1.3    one month ago

That would explain much.

 
 
 
Krishna
4.1.6  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @4.1    one month ago

I have two tools hammer and chisel. 

I have only one!

 
 
 
Krishna
4.2  Krishna  replied to  Sparty On @4    one month ago
I don’t usually use science in faith based decisions.

So you're saying that you don't like to "use the wrong tool for the job"?

Another way of saying that is that you try to "use the right tool for the job"!

(I find that I have that same tendency as well!!!!)

 
 
 
Kathleen
5  Kathleen    one month ago

I use science in everyday living.  So I do not have any hostility against it.  I have always been wearing my mask plus my husband and daughter wears one also.

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @5    one month ago
I use science in everyday living.

As do we all.

 So I do not have any hostility against it.  I have always been wearing my mask plus my husband and daughter wears one also.

You're one of the good ones then Kathleen.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1    one month ago

Thanks Gordy,  It's all about consideration for others around you. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1.2  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.1    one month ago

From an agnostic.... AMEN!

 
 
 
Krishna
5.2  Krishna  replied to  Kathleen @5    one month ago
 I have always been wearing my mask plus my husband and daughter wears one also.

Don't let the more fanatical Trump supporters find out! (For more intelligent people, such as you, the decision of whether or not to wear a mask is about being sensible about protesting your own health-- as well as being considerate of others.

But many people refuse to wear a mask-- because for them its not a health issue, or an issue of being considerate of other people-- but rather its pandering, because of Ego and an obsessive need to gain power & approval -- a decision made on purely political grounds!

320

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.2.1  Kathleen  replied to  Krishna @5.2    one month ago

I thought the seeder did not want to make this political. I consider that a back handed compliment.

I think for myself.

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.2.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @5.2.1    one month ago

Yes, let's all try to avoid getting too political here. I know it's difficult given the nature of the topic and the times we live in.

 
 
 
Krishna
5.2.3  Krishna  replied to  Kathleen @5.2.1    one month ago

I thought the seeder did not want to make this political.

Well, you're the one who brought up wearing a mask. (Which IMO says a lot about you-- i.e. that you're not on;y concerned about your own health but also  the health of others! :-)

 I wish more people were like you in that regard (especially in those states which are having such a sudden huge spike in cases. Most of those deaths could have been preventable).

Not so long ago, the question of whether or not to wear a mask was in no way political-- it was related to health only. (Well, also to being considerate of other people).

But now, to a large degree, like it or not  it has become political. Bizarre as it may seem, many of the people who adamantly refuse to wear a mask do it as a political statement. (And often believe that a mask really doesn't help anyway in preventing the spread). And their political views in many cases is what's preventing them from wearing it..

 
 
 
Tacos!
6  Tacos!    one month ago

Some people are hostile to science because they want what they want and they won't let science tell them they can't have it. This isn't necessarily anti-science as much as it is caring about one thing more than another. The irrational fear of nuclear power, for example, draws more inspiration from the Simpsons than it does from a scientific understanding of how nuclear power works. Fear for the environment, or of mutations, blinds people to any argument that the power can be generated cleanly. Same with the irrational fear of GMOs, which have been proven repeatedly to be safe. Democrats still seek labeling of GMOs for no valid scientific reason.

Another source of hostility is as a reaction to the high-minded sanctimony we see from some people who insist we follow certain recommendations from scientists because it came from a scientist. There is no acknowledgement in this righteousness that competent scientists can disagree on the proper conclusion from data. Scientists know science, but that doesn't mean they know anything about public policy, economics, sociology, or international affairs. There is rarely a disclaimer offered that the recommendation might one day prove to be the wrong course. This lack of humility breeds a lack of respect. You reap what you sow.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
6.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Tacos! @6    one month ago

There’s another good example that you point out. The day they consider  nuclear power as serious alternative is the day we might consider their protestations regarding catastrophic climate change more seriously. 

 
 
 
cjcold
6.1.1  cjcold  replied to  Freedom Warrior @6.1    one month ago

Seems I recall nuclear power being developed by scientists.

Seems the ongoing development of safer nuclear technology is being done by scientists.

Seems hundreds of new plants are being proposed and built by scientists.

Seems you have to start believing in the reality of AGW now.

Seems you're blaming scientists when you should be blaming the NIMBY folk.

Seems you need to do some more research into the subject.

 

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.2  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @6    one month ago
Another source of hostility is as a reaction to the high-minded sanctimony we see from some people who insist we follow certain recommendations from scientists because it came from a scientist.

Who makes that argument?   That is precisely what Gordy is addressing in this article.   Science is not based on authority.

 
 
 
Krishna
6.2.1  Krishna  replied to  TᵢG @6.2    one month ago

Another source of hostility is as a reaction to the high-minded sanctimony we see from some people who insist we follow certain recommendations from scientists because it came from a scientist.

Who makes that argument?   That is precisely what Gordy is addressing in this article.   Science is not based on authority.

I think that in most (all?) societies there are predominent beliefs held by most of the population, These beliefs may be scientific, political, religious, etc. 

And then there is a small``small group of people who challenge those beliefs. (In a democracy that's accepted, even encouraged-- in a dictatorship they are often put to death).

And more often than not its "the crazy ones".. those who "think different"-- who are responsible for society to make great leaps forward.

 
 
 
Krishna
6.2.2  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @6.2.1    one month ago

I think that in most (all?) societies there are many predominent beliefs held by most of the population, These beliefs may be scientific, political, religious, etc. 

And then there is a small`group of people who challenge those beliefs. (In a democracy that's accepted, even encouraged-- in a dictatorship they are often put to death).

And more often than not its "the crazy ones".. those who "think different"-- who are responsible for society to make great leaps forward.

This is one of my all-time favourite ads:

Apple Think Different ad (Narrated by Steve Jobs - 1997)

 
 
 
Krishna
6.2.3  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @6.2.2    one month ago

This is one of my all-time favourite ads:

Apple Think Different ad (Narrated by Steve Jobs - 1997)

People by order of appearance:

Albert Einstein

Bob Dylan

Martin Luther King Jr.

Richard Branson

John Lennon & Yoko Ono

Buckminster Fuller

Thomas Edison

Muhammad Ali

Ted Turner

Maria Callas

Mahatma Gandhi

Amelia Earhart & Bernt Balchen

Alfred Hitchcock

Martha Graham

Jim Henson

Frank Lloyd Wright

Pablo Picasso

The commercial ends with an image of a young girl, Shaan Sahota, opening her closed eyes, as if to see the possibilities before her.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @6    one month ago
Some people are hostile to science because they want what they want and they won't let science tell them they can't have it. This isn't necessarily anti-science as much as it is caring about one thing more than another.

Seems like quite a selfish mentality to me.

 The irrational fear of nuclear power, for example, draws more inspiration from the Simpsons than it does from a scientific understanding of how nuclear power works.

Yeah, but it is funny to occasionally see Homer nearly cause a nuclear meltdown. 

 Same with the irrational fear

I think that contributes to hostility to science. They don't understand science or what science says, so they fear and therefore "hate" it.

Another source of hostility is as a reaction to the high-minded sanctimony we see from some people who insist we follow certain recommendations from scientists because it came from a scientist.

No one should follow something blindly just because it came  from an authority like a scientist. That is not how science operates or bases its recommendations. Science goes by the evidence. An "authority" figure might relay the information. But one should not simply accept what the authority says as truth unless there's evidence to support what's being said. Ideally, any "authority" addressing others should say something along the lines of "we should do this because the evidence shows it's a good idea. At least until we learn more."

There is no acknowledgement in this righteousness that competent scientists can disagree on the proper conclusion from data. 

Scientists can disagree on anything. But again, evidence is required to back up any conclusions, whether in agreement ot disagreement.

Scientists know science, but that doesn't mean they know anything about public policy, economics, sociology, or international affairs.

By the same token, the public generally doesn't seem to know anything about science. And we have politicians trying to bridge that gap. We've seen how well that works out. >sarc<

There is rarely a disclaimer offered that the recommendation might one day prove to be the wrong course. This lack of humility breeds a lack of respect. 

I would think it's just common sense that people know science does not know everything and things might change as new information comes to light. Or am I giving people too much credit? But science will say earlier idea were wrong as they learned more or make changes on what new information is learned. That's just part of the scientific process.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @6    one month ago
The irrational fear of nuclear power,

Well, history shows us there is some basis for this.  Not necessarily fear of the power source, but fear that safety measures will not be taken.  Fukushima.  Chernobyl.  Three Mile Island.  Rocky Flats, Colorado.  St. George, Utah.  Unfortunately, safety measures regarding radiation have on occasion been lax, with disastrous results.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.4.1  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.4    one month ago

There are 58 nuclear power plants in the world and 440 across the whole world. They have an excellent safety record and are getting safer all the time. It's bigger flaw is that with all the safety and permitting requirements, it's pretty expensive. But the degree to which people on the Left have historically freaked out over the radiation danger is just not supported by the science.

Nuclear Power Is Too Safe to Save the World From Climate Change

Since Three Mile Island in 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that the rate of   shut-down-the-reactor-level problems   has dropped from 2.5 per plant per year to around 0.1 ( One such happened on March 29   in Washington). Even Three Mile Island wasn't the disaster it could have been, because of that plant's layers of redundant protection.
In terms of full blown nuclear disaster, there is really only one data point: Chernobyl. Which was horrifying. But in terms of real risk? The World Health Organization estimates the disaster will claim   4,000 lives , a figure that includes everything from direct victims to people born with genetic mutations well after the meltdown in 1986. By comparison, particulate matter from coal power plants   kills about 7,500 people   in the US every year. Radiation is the shark attack of environmental danger: An awful way to go, but far less likely than, say, a car wreck.
 
 
 
TᵢG
6.4.2  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @6.4.1    one month ago
But the degree to which people on the Left have historically freaked out over the radiation danger is just not supported by the science.

Thing is, that is not fear of science;  that is fear of the application of science.   It is the fear of what human beings (typically in political positions) do with advancements in scientific knowledge.  

By the same token, consider the application of science in the creation of biochemical, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.   Is this a fear of science or the fear of its irresponsible application (and use)?

Remember, Gordy (with his article) is asking why there is hostility against science.   Not the hostility against those who abuse it, but hostility of science itself.   The notion, for example, that the evolving knowledge and thus recommendations regarding COVID-19 are interpreted as a negative against science rather than recognizing the beauty of a self-correcting system.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.4.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @6.4.1    one month ago
There are 58 nuclear power plants in the world and 440 across the whole world.

?

people on the Left have historically freaked out

Sure, sure.

Also, death is not the only bad outcome of nuclear disasters.  Both Chernobyl and Fukushima led to an increase in thyroid cancers.  That's a pretty survivable cancer, granted, but the treatment is no fun, nor is a lifetime of trying to balance out your Synthroid.

There's also the problem of nuclear waste, and, from your own link, risk to those who mine uranium.  And, as you said, the expense.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.4.4  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.4.3    one month ago

Right. But compare all of that to the burning of coal or oil and everything connected to it. We have to do something for energy.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.4.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @6.4.4    one month ago

And your link mentions renewables like solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.4.6  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.4.5    one month ago

Yeah, the Left tends to hate geothermal and hydroelectric, too, for their impact on the environment. I still think they're better than burning coal and oil, though. And unfortunately, solar and wind are still very expensive and inefficient by comparison.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.4.7  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @6.4.6    one month ago

Darn lefties, not liking earthquakes.  I mean, really.

Hydroelectric plants that do not rely on building up a reservoir by means of a large dam would have little environmental impact.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
6.4.8  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Tacos! @6.4.4    one month ago

As you know, the world is coming to an end unless “we do something”.  

Yet of course we wouldn’t be caught dead doing anything sensible like advancing nuclear energy. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.4.9  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Tacos! @6.4.1    one month ago

I don't have any sort of fear with respect to nuclear power.  It does have it's uses, and I fully support research towards fusion power generation.  Fission power plants are fine, but the longstanding issue of what to do with spent fuel rods with respect to "not in my backyard" has yet to be laid to rest.

The real issue is the cost of nuclear power generation is it losing ground against solar, geothermal, wind and other forms of power generation.  

 
 
 
Krishna
6.4.10  Krishna  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.4    one month ago
Well, history shows us there is some basis for this.  Not necessarily fear of the power source, but fear that safety measures will not be taken.  Fukushima.  Chernobyl.  Three Mile Island.  Rocky Flats, Colorado.  St. George, Utah.  Unfortunately, safety measures regarding radiation have on occasion been lax, with disastrous results.

Nuclear power is one of the best sources in many ways. Its one of the cheapest. And in almost all cases (when it operates correctly-- its actually one of the cleaner ones. Especially when compared to carbon based sources).

Very clean-- and very safe.

Except when its not.

While those accident you mention are very, very rare-- they do happen. And when they do, the results are horrendous. 

BTW I am generally not a fan of conspiracy theories. But while the vested interests (governments and some corporations) have claimed its "been  proven" that the radioactive particles from Fukushima pose no threat-- I've seen information from reliable sources that that's not the case. (But I'm not interested in trying to prove this to anyone in a typical NT-style argument).

I personally am totally opposed to the reactors. There are other sources that are cheaper to build-- and more importantly much safer (innovative ways of harnessing the movements of  the planet--wind, water, solar to name a few.) And scientists keep coming up with new and better ways of doing this.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.4.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  Krishna @6.4.10    one month ago

I actually wouldn't have a problem with nuclear, IF we solved the problems of nuclear waste and safe uranium procurement, and if we could be sure that those in charge weren't cutting corners and were planning intelligently.  It seems that in regards to Fukushima, they weren't planning intelligently, compounding the disaster of a tsunami with a reactor meltdown.

 
 
 
Krishna
6.4.12  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @6.4.4    one month ago
But compare all of that to the burning of coal or oil and everything connected to it. We have to do something for energy.

You're assuming that the only possible sources of energy are coal-- or nuclear.

There are many, many others such as Solar, Wind, Water (waterfalls, flowing rivers, water power generated by the tides, and possibly wats to harness the energy of various biological systems,. There are even scientists working on ways to turn garbage into energy, etc),

Aome these are or will be safer, cleaner, cheaper and generally more efficient than carbon based fuels or nuclear.

 
 
 
Krishna
6.5  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @6    one month ago
The irrational fear of nuclear power, for example, draws more inspiration from the Simpsons than it does from a scientific understanding of how nuclear power works.

Bad example.

Ever hear of Fukushima?

Chernobyl?

Yes, I have a fear of nuclear power-- and its very rational.

(And BTW, I've never watched The Simpsons).

 
 
 
Krishna
6.6  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @6    one month ago
Some people are hostile to science because they want what they want and they won't let science tell them they can't have it.

Actually my experience over time has been just the opposite-- Science has enabled me to have many things I wanted-- that I previously had though I could never have!

(But I suppose that depends a lot upon one's attitudes in life--- for people who constantly choose to "see the glass half empty"-- that usually turns out to be true, LOL!

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.6.1  TᵢG  replied to  Krishna @6.6    one month ago

An example of what Tacos! is referring to would be the Young Earth Creationists and in particular the organization Answers In Genesis.   They actively try to discredit the findings of science that contradict their literal interpretation of the Bible.   For example, they reject that the planet is 4.5 billions years old and claim that it is actually only about 6,000 years old and to accomplish this magic act, they claim that all methods for dating are bogus.  

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Karri
6.7  Karri  replied to  Tacos! @6    one month ago
The irrational fear of nuclear power, for example, draws more inspiration from the Simpsons than it does from a scientific understanding

I am leery of nuclear power on the basis of history -- Chernobyl and Three Mile Island to be exact.  However, I know the safety improvements in the industry.  I accept that my concern is based on fear and not on today's standards.  (See, it is possible to admit that even someone with a scientific profession can have feelings not totally based on science.)

I will admit that I will not step up for the COVID vaccination until I can be assured of its efficacy and safety.  But, that will be based on my concerns that critical steps in the scientific process have been skipped in an effort to quickly get something to market.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
7  sandy-2021492    one month ago

Science isn't easy, and therefore isn't comfortable.  It requires one to reason, to suppress one's biases, and perhaps to change one's beliefs.  Consider creationism versus evolution.  It's much easier to just say "God did it."  It's much harder to trace back our origins to microbes through billions of years of evolution, and to know that we won't always have all the puzzle pieces.  Science always has questions, where certainty is much more psychologically comfortable.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1  Sparty On  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7    one month ago

And away we go .... here comes the faith bashing .....

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
7.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @7.1    one month ago

Pointing out a reality is not bashing.  Blind faith is unwise.

 
 
 
Krishna
7.1.2  Krishna  replied to  Sparty On @7.1    one month ago
And away we go .... here comes the faith bashing

Not necessarily. 

Some religious interpretations dismiss Evolution. But there are highly religious people who believe the evidence for Evolution is pretty clear-cut. (All religions-- or perhaps I should say religious denominations) are not close minded and superstitious. 

In fact I've known scientists who believe strongly in Evolution and see no conflict with their religious views.

(I suppose that last statement might anger both some "believers' as well as some of the more believers in "Evangelical Atheism". 

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Krishna @7.1.2    one month ago
In fact I've known scientists who believe strongly in Evolution and see no conflict with their religious views.

Well, I for one don't find the two to be mutually exclusive.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.3    one month ago

Many do reject the overwhelming evidence that human beings are an evolutionary branch under the family Hominidae (Great Apes) because it contradicts with the religious notion of special creation (at least as it applies to human beings).

Dr. Francis Collins, for example, is a brilliant and highly accomplished geneticist who is also a devout Christian.    He reconciles evolution as God's process and holds that God is guiding evolution with an unseen hand.   Well, there you go; one can rationalize anything.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7    one month ago

I think you touched on a major point, which I alluded to in the article: emotional comfort. Science doesn't offer that in its process. It may require one to put their emotions and beliefs aside and look at the evidence, which is apparently difficult for some to do. To use your creation v evolution example, I have seen people feel downright offended or irate at just the idea they are "descended from monkeys," as if evolving is something bad. I don't get it. It's like they have some narcissistic need to feel special or something.

 
 
 
Krishna
7.2.1  Krishna  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2    one month ago
I think you touched on a major point, which I alluded to in the article: emotional comfort.

Maybe. I'm not sure if that's true in all cases.

One of my strongest personality traits is-- curiousity. For me, I'm often happiest when researching some previously unknown topic. That brings me not only comfort-- but joy!

And if I have a theory that, upon investigation, proves to be wrong that doesn't cause me discomfort. Rather I feel it eliminates one possibility,and brings me closer to discovering the truth. (As a child my dream was to grow and become a Scientist-- to be alone in my laboratory, away from people and other distractions. In fact I started college (undergrad) as a Chem major. 

I think many people are different (although some are the same), Some personality types are motivated in life primarily by seeking comfort (or perhaps more accurately, by attempting to avoid discomfort).

Some people adopt a strategy of "avoidance"-- often denial. And a strong belief system, be it religious (Or political, for example devout Communists) provide quick simple explanations of things-- thus helping them avoid the inevitable lackof orientation that comes in the process of havingnthem have to"think for themselves"-- much easier to be told what to believe!

But other types,(such as me) are motivated by other things. (I have accepted the fact that in order to sucessfully pursue some goals a degree of emotional discomfort is inevitable).

[In the MBTI system of personality, I am a typical ENTP).

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.2.2  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2    one month ago

They hate the science that would make their gods/goddeses immaterial. By proving the book of Genesis as being wrong, then one opens the door to the possibility that the rest of the bible could be wrong.

The study of science and math have really only enjoyed around 3000 years of existence, where as there is evidence that man has been creating things to worship back before we learned to use fire and fabricate tools.  I think the current count is around 2400 different gods of record.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.2.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.2.2    one month ago

The funny thing is, one foes not even need science to prove Genesis (or the bible in general) wrong. One merely needs to point out the logical inconsistencies or contradictions to do that.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.2.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.3    one month ago

The funny thing is, one does not even need science to prove Genesis (or the bible in general) wrong. One merely needs to point out the logical inconsistencies or contradictions to do that.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.2.5  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.3    one month ago

Ah.... the old Cain's wife conundrum..... is that what you speak of?

I find the explanation in this link particularly humors...

https://www.compellingtruth.org/Cains-wife.html

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.2.6  author  Gordy327  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.2.5    one month ago
Ah.... the old Cain's wife conundrum..... is that what you speak of?

No. But I suppose that works too.

I find the explanation in this link particularly humors..

More like bad comedy. My eyes still won't stop rolling after reading that.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.2.7  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.6    one month ago

Try keeping them in the sockets Gordy....

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.2.8  author  Gordy327  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.2.7    one month ago
Try keeping them in the sockets Gordy....

I think I need some eyedrops. I think I might have lost a few IQ points reading that nonsense too. And they used to say TV rots the brain. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.8    one month ago

A fine example of the antithesis of science:   trying to explain a preconceived conclusion by pure speculation rather than sound evidence.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.2.10  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.9    one month ago
A fine example of the antithesis of science:   trying to explain a preconceived conclusion by pure speculation rather than sound evidence.

Indeed.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.2.11  FLYNAVY1  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.9    one month ago

 trying to explain a preconceived conclusion by pure speculation rather than sound evidence.

And we see it everyday here on NT from some of our membership...

 
 
 
Krishna
7.2.12  Krishna  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.2.2    one month ago
They hate the science that would make their gods/goddeses immaterial. By proving the book of Genesis as being wrong

Of course there's another way to interpret it.

Many "believers" take Genesis to be the literal truth. (Which makes it easier to disprove!) However I've known some who said its not meant to be taken literally---rather, its symbolic.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.13  TᵢG  replied to  Krishna @7.2.12    one month ago

In my experience, most religious people (per Judaism and Christianity) do not hold that Genesis is to be taken literally.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.2.14  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.13    one month ago

But the ones that do, jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Karri
7.2.15  Karri  replied to  Krishna @7.2.12    one month ago
However I've known some who said its not meant to be taken literally---rather, its symbolic.

Here's the way I look at it. Genesis was written around the time of Moses. At that time, concrete thinking (or lower) was the norm; abstract thinking was, at best, rare.  Now, imagine standing in one place and looking at the sun in the morning the afternoon and dusk.  You watch the sun moving while you are standing still.  It is quite clear that the sun is the thing that is moving.  Microscopes were not yet invented, so we knew nothing of cells or bacteria, etc., let alone sub-atomic particles.

Now, imagine Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai and bringing the theory of evolution and relativity.  Chances are the people would have run back to Egypt! 

The Bible spoke to the people of its time.  Fortunately, God gave us intellect and curiosity to find out more of this infinitely complex an wonderous universe.

 
 
 
Krishna
7.2.16  Krishna  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.3    one month ago
One merely needs to point out the logical inconsistencies or contradictions to do that.

Well, could you believe that some phenomena exist-- but their existence cannot be proved logically?

I believe Shakespeare was familiar with this concept as he has Hamlet say:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.17  TᵢG  replied to  Krishna @7.2.16    one month ago
Well, could you believe that some phenomena exist-- but their existence cannot be proved logically?

Could?  Of course, one can believe anything ... even truth in a blatant contradiction.

Should?   To me that answer would be 'no'.   It makes sense to hypothesize, fantasize, speculate, ... about something that cannot be evidenced (much less proven) but when one actually believes something true without supporting evidence (or at least based on logic grounded in evidenced or definitional axioms) one could then believe anything.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.2.18  author  Gordy327  replied to  Krishna @7.2.16    one month ago
Well, could you believe that some phenomena exist-- but their existence cannot be proved logically?

People can and do believe anything, no matter how ludicrous. But as I always say, belief does not equal fact.

I believe Shakespeare was familiar with this concept as he has Hamlet say:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

I say, "show me the evidence!"

 
 
 
Krishna
7.2.19  Krishna  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.3    one month ago

The funny thing is, one foes not even need science to prove Genesis (or the bible in general) wrong. One merely needs to point out the logical inconsistencies or contradictions to do that.

Well there's an easy way to defend Genesis--- (I may have mentioned this before?)/ If you believe its all allegorical, not to be taken literally....

(Some religious people believe that that is the case, while of course others do believe its literal).

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.20  TᵢG  replied to  Krishna @7.2.19    one month ago

To me the easiest explanation for Genesis is that it is a fantasy dreamed up by ancient men looking up at the sky, looking around at nature and spinning a tale for how it all started.   That hypothesis explains everything in the Bible perfectly (including its vagueness, contradictions and errors).

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.2.21  author  Gordy327  replied to  Krishna @7.2.19    one month ago

There isn't a problem when people treat Genesis, or any other fable in the bible, as the story or myth that it is. It's when they think those stories are literally true that it becomes a problem. Even more so when they try to pass it on as fact, especially over actual science. The fact that so many people seem to regard biblical stories as factual is a sad commentary on our society and where it's headed.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8  Nerm_L    one month ago

IMO part of the problem is the public does not have access to the scientific literature.  Science is locked behind paywalls.  The primary public exposure to science is through popular media.  Attempts to further research reported science only cycles through reporting by the popular media.

Popular media tends to highlight controversial issues and selects science reporting that dovetails with reporting on mainly political controversies.  The type and quality of reporting by the popular media naturally creates a public perception that science is influenced by politics.  The actual science is being filtered through the popular media's lens of political controversy.

The public only sees science debated by pundits in the popular media; not debated by scientists.  Science is only used to support a generally political position. And that science is presented as settled science to convince the public to accept a particular political point of view.

So, science is not being presented to the public objectively and, often, is presented less than honestly.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8    one month ago
IMO part of the problem is the public does not have access to the scientific literature.  Science is locked behind paywalls. 

There is plenty of literature out there in libraries and the internet. I can access articles from the NIH without having to pay. If one site requires payment, another site will probably have access to the same information. Perhaps the public is too lazy to do a thorough search? 

 The primary public exposure to science is through popular media.  Attempts to further research reported science only cycles through reporting by the popular media.

There is nothing stopping the public from doing a more in depth search. I think college students must do that on a regular basis for science classes or research.

The type and quality of reporting by the popular media naturally creates a public perception that science is influenced by politics.  The actual science is being filtered through the popular media's lens of political controversy.

Politics does have a way of screwing things up.

The public only sees science debated by pundits in the popular media; not debated by scientists.  Science is only used to support a generally political position. And that science is presented as settled science to convince the public to accept a particular political point of view.

Therein lies a big problem.

So, science is not being presented to the public objectively and, often, is presented less than honestly.

This is why science should be presented by scientists and not by politicians pretending to know science.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1    one month ago
There is plenty of literature out there in libraries and the internet. I can access articles from the NIH without having to pay. If one site requires payment, another site will probably have access to the same information. Perhaps the public is too lazy to do a thorough search? 

The public libraries in this locale have been closed due to the pandemic.  Not everyone has internet access; a problem that has been revealed by attempts at online learning during the pandemic.

Like it or not, the public's primary exposure to science is through the popular media.  The popular media reports on controversial issues in a manner to heighten the controversy; that is the business model for the popular media to encourage consumption of their product.  

There is nothing stopping the public from doing a more in depth search. I think college students must do that on a regular basis for science classes or research.

The public researching information only allows the public to accept or reject declarations made through the popular media.  The public may attempt to implement their acceptance or rejection of declarations through social media and their own actions.   The public is required to listen to the hypotheses, theories, and conclusions of scientists and either accept or reject.  The scientists are not required to listen or understand the public's point of view.

The science is presented to the public in a very authoritarian manner.  The public is only allowed to accept or reject authoritarian declarations and act upon those declarations according to their acceptance or rejection.

This is why science should be presented by scientists and not by politicians pretending to know science.

Even when scientists present information, that presentation is done in an authoritarian manner.  The public can only accept or reject what is presented.  There isn't a mechanism that requires the scientist to consider or conform to public concerns or public priorities other than through politics.

The concerns and priorities of scientists compete with other concerns and priorities in society.  The only mechanism available to the public to rank concerns and priorities is through politics.  Decision makers choosing concerns and priorities that the public has ranked lower usually generates hostility that is reported by popular media in a manner to heighten the controversy.

Scientists assume an authoritarian role.  Scientists are not accountable to public concerns and public priorities.  And disagreements between scientists and the public can only be resolved through politics.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.1    one month ago

Science isn't a conspiracy.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.2    one month ago
Science isn't a conspiracy.

Science also isn't a democracy.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.3    one month ago

True.   Science is not based on opinion (and votes) but rather on the persuasiveness of formal evidence and the associated formal explanation based thereon.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.5  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.4    one month ago
True.   Science is not based on opinion (and votes) but rather on the persuasiveness of formal evidence and the associated formal explanation based thereon.

Science is not a matter of persuasion, either.  Scientists present authoritative conclusions based upon evidence.  The evidence may or may not be complete.  The evidence may or may not be biased.  However, the conclusions drawn from the evidence are authoritative.

The public is only allowed to accept or reject those authoritative conclusions.  Disputes over use of those authoritative conclusions for formulating public policy can only be resolved by means of politics.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.5    one month ago

This is how I view your attitude towards science, like Dean Yeagers view of Peter Venkman:

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.5    one month ago

Read what I wrote Nerm.   I wrote about the persuasiveness of the evidence.

However, the conclusions drawn from the evidence are authoritative.

The conclusions are not authoritative.   There is no authority in fact (conclusions).   Facts do not contain the means to force compliance; facts are simply information.

The public is only allowed to accept or reject those authoritative conclusions.  Disputes over use of those authoritative conclusions for formulating public policy can only be resolved by means of politics.

It is so odd that some seem determined to falsely portray science itself and scientific findings as authoritative.   What is the point of this silliness?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.8  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.7    one month ago
Read what I wrote Nerm.   I wrote about the persuasiveness of the evidence.

The evidence is only evidence.  Perhaps you intended to indicate the persuasiveness of interpretation of the evidence?  Or perhaps persuasiveness of conclusions drawn from the evidence?

The conclusions are not authoritative.   There is no authority in fact (conclusions).   Facts do not contain the means to force compliance; facts are simply information.

Conclusions are obtained from evidence.  The conclusions are presented as being accurate, reliable, and true.  The conclusions are presented as being authoritative.  The conclusions are not presented as being persuasive.  Authoritative conclusions may be persuasive for speculative hypotheses that extend beyond the evidence.

It is so odd that some seem determined to falsely portray science itself and scientific findings as authoritative.   What is the point of this silliness?

The authoritative conclusions are presented as being accurate, reliable, and true.  That form of truth provides the authority to formulate public policy.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.8    one month ago
The evidence is only evidence.  Perhaps you intended to indicate the persuasiveness of interpretation of the evidence?  Or perhaps persuasiveness of conclusions drawn from the evidence?

No, I meant exactly what I wrote.   The evidence is the foundation.   Focusing on the interpretation now opens the door wide open.   For example, we have hard evidence that the Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado river.   The layers of sediment support this theory.   Yet we have individuals from organizations like Answers In Genesis looking at the same evidence and interpreting it as the result of a massive flow of water which deposited layers of sediment (Noah's flood).  

Another example is evolution.  Mountains of evidence (including now molecular biology - genetics) show the theory of evolution to be spot on yet we have people today denying evolution and claiming instead special creation.   They interpret the evidence of evolution to be mere changes guided by the hand of God after God had created the 'kinds' from scratch.

The conclusions are presented as being authoritative.  The conclusions are not presented as being persuasive. 

You have it backwards in terms of science.   Presenting a conclusion as authoritative comes from the political realm - not science.   In science it is the evidence and supporting formal explanation based on same that is considered (for persuasion).

The authoritative conclusions are presented as being accurate, reliable, and true. 

Again, you inexplicably continue to conflate declarations by officials with science itself.    Science does not exercise authority.    It explains phenomena based on empirical evidence and formal explanations based on a foundation of established science.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.10  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.9    one month ago
No, I meant exactly what I wrote.   The evidence is the foundation.   Focusing on the interpretation now opens the door wide open.   For example, we have hard evidence that the Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado river.   The layers of sediment support this theory.   Yet we have individuals from organizations like Answers In Genesis looking at the same evidence and interpreting it as the result of a massive flow of water which deposited layers of sediment (Noah's flood).

Then I suggest you are presenting an over simplified, elementary description of science.  Evidence is the foundation for authoritative conclusions.

Collecting evidence provides knowledge.  But scientific knowledge requires applying the scientific method to develop an authoritative explanation based on the evidence.  

A + B = C

The A + B is the evidence.  The equal sign is the scientific method.  And C is the authoritative conclusion that represents scientific knowledge.  The scientific method is a process to generate scientific explanations from the evidence.  The evidence, by itself, is knowledge but is not scientific knowledge.  Scientific knowledge depends upon the scientific method.  And the scientific method is a process used to arrive at definite conclusions based on evidence.

Another example is evolution.  Mountains of evidence (including now molecular biology - genetics) show the theory of evolution to be spot on yet we have people today denying evolution and claiming instead special creation.   They interpret the evidence of evolution to be mere changes guided by the hand of God after God had created the 'kinds' from scratch.

Charles Darwin did not observe fossils and arrive at conclusions concerning finches' beaks.  Darwin made disparate observations and arrived at authoritative conclusions for each set of observations.  Darwin assembled the separate conclusions into a theory of evolution because the conclusions were persuasive for speculative hypothesis.  Darwin believed the separate conclusions he developed for different sets of evidence were related and connected.  Each conclusion was authoritative but the relationship between the separate conclusions was speculative.

You have it backwards in terms of science.   Presenting a conclusion as authoritative comes from the political realm - not science.   In science it is the evidence and supporting formal explanation based on same that is considered (for persuasion).

That is incorrect.  Politics is the art of persuasion (according to Plato).  A political argument presents an uncertain truth whose acceptance requires belief and faith.

Science presents definite truths based in evidence.  Scientific truth is presented in an authoritative manner because the scientific truth is accurate, reliable, and true with certainty.

Again, you inexplicably continue to conflate declarations by officials with science itself.    Science does not exercise authority.    It explains phenomena based on empirical evidence and formal explanations based on a foundation of established science.

The authority of science derives from the certainty of scientific truth.  Science does not provide evidence; science provides explanations that are accurate, reliable, and true.  Science provides a type of authoritative truth and has authority because scientific truth is authoritative. 

If scientific truth is uncertain then accepting that scientific truth will require belief and faith, just as with political truth.  

Is scientific truth authoritative or persuasive?  Should decisions be made using authoritative truth or persuasive truth?  Should scientific truth have greater authority in decision making than political truth?

What do you believe?

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.10    one month ago
Then I suggest you are presenting an over simplified, elementary description of science.  Evidence is the foundation for authoritative conclusions.

Let's clear something up here Nerm.   The key problem is the use of the adjective 'authoritative'.   As with most English words, the specific usage matters.   So when you use the term 'authoritative' are you connoting:

1.  Able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable

-or-

2.  Proceeding from an official source and requiring compliance or obedience.

I have been arguing that science is not authoritative per usage 2 (above).   That is, science does not make edicts by authority.   Individual scientists of great stature do not get to simply state truth because they say so.   It is always the evidence that matters;  a scientist is only as good as what s/he can evidence.   Clearly, this is what I have argued.

Your prior comments suggest that you are alternating between 1 and 2.   For example:

Nerm @8.1.8The authoritative conclusions are presented as being accurate, reliable, and true.  That form of truth provides the authority to formulate public policy.

This example statement by you appears to use 'authoritative' as usage 2 in your first sentence (although 1 could also apply given your wording).   Your second sentence, however, connotes usage 1.

Another example is this:

Nerm @8.1.10The authority of science derives from the certainty of scientific truth.  Science does not provide evidence; science provides explanations that are accurate, reliable, and true.  Science provides a type of authoritative truth and has authority because scientific truth is authoritative. 

Your first sentence uses usage 2 while your ending sentence uses usage 1.

Pick a meaning (usage) for 'authoritative' and 'authority' and be consistent so that readers know what you are trying to argue.   There is no point trying to continue this without a clear, consistent use of language.   Again, my argument has always consistently used usage 2.

No point in continuing until you define what you mean by 'authoritative' and 'authority'.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.12  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.11    one month ago
Pick a meaning (usage) for ' authoritative ' and ' authority ' and be consistent so that readers know what you are trying to argue.   There is no point trying to continue this without a clear, consistent use of language.   Again, my argument has always consistently used usage 2.

I have used one meaning for authoritative throughout; authoritative means accurate, reliable, and true.

Your cited second example of my comment Nerm @ 8.1.10 uses that meaning as well.  So I will make the same statement using over simplified, elementary English to mitigate your confusion:

"The authority of science derives from the certainty of scientific truth.  Science does not provide evidence; science provides explanations that are accurate, reliable, and true.  Science provides a truth that is accurate and reliable and has authority because scientific truth is accurate, reliable, and true."

You are attempting to dishonestly make a persuasive argument that is the opposite of accurate, reliable, and true.  You are making political statements about science.  Splitting hairs from Schrodinger's cat is an attempt to make an argument that is in two places at once while avoiding discussing the issues at hand.  

If science presents uncertain truth ( a truth whose accuracy and reliability is uncertain ) then accepting that uncertain scientific truth will require belief and faith, just as with political truths.

Either science truth is authoritative (accurate, reliable, and true) - or - scientific truth is persuasive (truth whose accuracy and reliability is uncertain).  Which is it?

Either science doesn't require belief and faith because scientific truth is accurate, reliable, and true - or - science requires belief and faith because the accuracy and reliability of scientific truth is uncertain.  Which is it?

Science is declaring itself an official source of truth and is expecting public acceptance of that truth based on compliance or obedience to truth. (Note: that is the second definition of authoritative you cited.) 

Science has declared that accepting evolution is not a matter of belief or faith.  Science has declared that evolution is truth and expects acceptance of evolution in compliance and obedience to the truth.  What is the authority that allows science to make those declarations?  Science is claiming the authority of truth.  But is the scientific truth of evolution authoritative (accurate, reliable, and true) - or - is the scientific truth of evolution persuasive (truth whose accuracy and reliability is uncertain)?  Should the public accept evolution as obedience to a definite scientific truth - or - should the public accept evolution on belief in the persuasiveness of an uncertain scientific truth?  Which is it?

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.12    one month ago
I have used one meaning for authoritative throughout; authoritative means accurate, reliable, and true.

Have you read what you wrote in this thread?   My point all along has been that science itself does not have authorities who proclaim truth but rather truth (at least a good approximation to truth) is founded in evidence, not in individual authorities.   Your ' rebuttals ' do not match your claim.

Your cited second example of my comment Nerm @ 8.1.10 uses that meaning as well.  So I will make the same statement using over simplified, elementary English to mitigate your confusion:

Okay Nerm, trying to blame me for your tactic crosses the line.   You just admitted that you have been using ' authoritative ' in a completely different sense than when you first introduced the term and here is the proof.   You started out @ 8.1.1 with this use of authoritarian :

Nerm @ 8.1.1 ☞ The science is presented to the public in a very authoritarian manner.  The public is only allowed to accept or reject authoritarian declarations and act upon those declarations according to their acceptance or rejection.

...

Even when scientists present information, that presentation is done in an authoritarian manner .  The public can only accept or reject what is presented.  There isn't a mechanism that requires the scientist to consider or conform to public concerns or public priorities other than through politics.

...

Scientists assume an authoritarian role .  Scientists are not accountable to public concerns and public priorities.  And disagreements between scientists and the public can only be resolved through politics.

That is clearly using ' authoritarian ' in the sense of: ' Proceeding from an official source and requiring compliance or obedience ' rather than ' Able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable '.   Either you have forgotten what you wrote or you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty.   Which is it?

I have little patience for game playing Nerm.   Your comments show you are flipping between at least two meanings of the word ' authoritarian '.   

Déjà vu.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.14  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.13    one month ago
That is clearly using ' authoritarian ' in the sense of: ' Proceeding from an official source and requiring compliance or obedience ' rather than ' Able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable '.   Either you have forgotten what you wrote or you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty.   Which is it?

Science IS authoritarian.  Science is not a democracy.  Science claims to be an official source of truth.  And scientific truth is expected to be accepted by the public in compliance and obedience to the truth.  The public is not allowed to vote on whether or not the truth is to be accepted.

If someone rejects evolution then the individual is accused of denying the truth.  The rejection of evolution has not complied with and has not been obedient to the truth.  A range of scientific conclusions from the official source of truth will be used to demonstrate the individual not been compliant and obedient to the truth; the individual is in violation of the truth provided by the official source of truth.  The authority to accuse someone of denying the truth is derived from science as an official source of truth.

The question you repeatedly avoid answering is whether scientific truth is authoritative (accurate, reliable, and true) - or - scientific truth is persuasive (truth whose accuracy and reliability is uncertain)?  

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.15  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.14    one month ago

Youre starting to repeat yourself Nerm. Where does science declare truth or claim to be a source of truth? It doesnt! Science goes by the evidence it collects, which helps establish a degree of confidence or probability. If someone wants to deny a scientific theory as false, then all they have to do us provide contradictory evidence to discredit it. "Truth" is dependent on the evidence to support it, not on popularity or blind authority. If someone denies evolution (or any other scientific theory), then they will be challenged to produce the evidence to discredit it. If they can't, then they have no credibility and their challenge is rightfully rejected. If their challenge passes scrutiny, then science will incorporate the new evidence and correct itself.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.14    one month ago
Science IS authoritarian. 

And this is why we are going around in circles.   You claim to use 'authoritarian' in a consistent manner but you flip back and forth.   Here you are back to using it to mean:  'Proceeding from an official source and requiring compliance or obedience' when you just claimed to be using it as: 'Able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable'.

Science IS authoritarian. 

Incorrect (I have addressed this fully)

Science is not a democracy.

Correct

Science claims to be an official source of truth. 

Wrong (I have addressed this fully)

And scientific truth is expected to be accepted by the public in compliance and obedience to the truth. 

Expected by whom ... everyone?   Science (as a whole) does not expect acceptance and public compliance and obedience (where applicable) to its findings / recommendations.   Again, I have addressed this fully.

The public is not allowed to vote on whether or not the truth is to be accepted.

Correct.   A silly notion to put forth but you are correct that the public does not vote on the acceptance of a scientific finding.

If someone rejects evolution then the individual is accused of denying the truth. 

No, the individual will be challenged to explain why they do not accept a well-founded, extremely well evidenced (multidisciplinary even) finding of science.   Especially if the favored explanation by the individual is akin to magic.

The rejection of evolution has not complied with and has not been obedient to the truth. 

Science does not claim to produce truth.  Science provides formal explanations of phenomena based on empirical evidence, the application of formal methods and the use of extant knowledge (e.g. biochemistry, geology, genetics, archeology, ...).

A range of scientific conclusions from the official source of truth will be used to demonstrate the individual not been compliant and obedient to the truth; the individual is in violation of the truth provided by the official source of truth.  The authority to accuse someone of denying the truth is derived from science as an official source of truth.

Good grief Nerm, I am done repeatedly addressing this stubborn, flat-out-wrong spin.    Maybe someone else will have the patience to engage you on this.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.17  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.15    one month ago
Youre starting to repeat yourself Nerm. Where does science declare truth or claim to be a source of truth? It doesnt! Science goes by the evidence it collects, which helps establish a degree of confidence or probability. If someone wants to deny a scientific theory as false, then all they have to do us provide contradictory evidence to discredit it. "Truth" is dependent on the evidence to support it, not on popularity or blind authority. If someone denies evolution (or any other scientific theory), then they will be challenged to produce the evidence to discredit it. If they can't, then they have no credibility and their challenge is rightfully rejected. If their challenge passes scrutiny, then science will incorporate the new evidence and correct itself.

Then how can science be cited as an authority to oppose teaching creationism in schools?  If science has no authority as an official source of truth then science has no place in the debate concerning teaching creationism in schools.  If science has no authority as an official source of truth then science has no place in the debate over how to address climate change.  If science has no authority as an official source of truth then science has no place in the debate over abortion.

Politics claims the authority of truth.  Religion claims the authority of truth.  And science claims the authority of truth.

Imposing truth onto any issue requires authority as an official source of truth that expects acceptance of truth in compliance and obedience to the truth.  If science has no authority as an official source of truth then accusations of denying science would be empty accusations without substance or meaning.  If science has no authority as an official source of truth then science can be ignored without consequences in same manner as ignoring spam advertising.

You are claiming that science is not authoritarian, does not claim to be an official source of truth, and does not impose scientific conclusions onto the public with expectation of acceptance in compliance and obedience to the truth.  Aren't you arguing that Dr. Anthony Fauci can go fuck himself because he is not any sort of official source of truth?  Fauci is just some guy blathering on TV who can simply be ignored like any advertising on late night TV.

You are arguing yourself into an indefensible position.  The argument you are constructing leads to a conclusion that science can simply be ignored because science does not declare truth or claim to be a source of truth.  That argument places science in the same category as the Enquirer and People on the rack by the checkout.

And I still haven't gotten answer to the question, does public acceptance of scientific truth require belief and faith?  Is scientific truth authoritative truth (accurate, reliable, and true) - or - is scientific truth persuasive truth (truth whose accuracy and reliability is uncertain)?

 
 
 
Krishna
8.1.18  Krishna  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1    one month ago
Perhaps the public is too lazy to do a thorough search? 

Correct!

Although I think in many cases a more accurate way to describe it that its more a total lack of curiosity.

For sometimes I wondered why so many people have such a lack of curiousity. There may be different reasons in different people, but in many cases (especially on Social Media sites such as NT) I think the lack of curiousity is due to the common attitude of "I know it all).

 
 
 
Krishna
8.1.19  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @8.1.18    one month ago
"I know it all).

If someone is a Know It All-- why should they even both to invesitigate when someone brings up an unusual concept-- or posts a link or a video. 

Although a wise old saying:

Its a truly wise man who knows how much he doesn't know.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.20  author  Gordy327  replied to  Krishna @8.1.18    one month ago
Although I think in many cases a more accurate way to describe it that its more a total lack of curiosity.

Or apathy. Mental laziness.

I think the lack of curiousity is due to the common attitude of "I know it all).

Or possibly "I don't care?"

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.21  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.17    one month ago
Then how can science be cited as an authority to oppose teaching creationism in schools? 

You need to get the whole "authority" thing out of your head. 

If science has no authority as an official source of truth then science has no place in the debate concerning teaching creationism in schools.  If science has no authority as an official source of truth then science has no place in the debate over how to address climate change.  If science has no authority as an official source of truth then science has no place in the debate over abortion.

The key here is OBJECTIVE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE! Creationism is a religious concept. It is not science. It is essentially a declaration of certainty and/or assumption (i.e. "God did it"), sans evidence. Therefore, it has no place in a science class. Actual science will completely contradict or debunk creationism, depending on how strictly one adheres to the concept. As for abortion, science only describes the gestational process. It makes no claim over the sociopolitical discussion of abortion.

Politics claims the authority of truth.  Religion claims the authority of truth.  And science claims the authority of truth.

Yes, yes, and no!

Imposing truth onto any issue requires authority as an official source of truth that expects acceptance of truth in compliance and obedience to the truth.

Ant "truth" requires evidence and/or proof to support it. No one is compelled to be obedient, except possibly in religious circles.

If science has no authority as an official source of truth then accusations of denying science would be empty accusations without substance or meaning. 

Again, it's about the evidence. Accept or deny science based on evidence. Then present the evidence to legitimize acceptance or denial.

 Aren't you arguing that Dr. Anthony Fauci can go fuck himself because he is not any sort of official source of truth?  Fauci is just some guy blathering on TV who can simply be ignored like any advertising on late night TV.

He, like anyone in the sciences, needs to present evidence to support what he is saying. It's not that he's an "authority" that gives him credibility or is a reason anyone should listen to him or not. He should say "this is what the evidence shows...." Then you can take that as you will.

You are arguing yourself into an indefensible position.  The argument you are constructing leads to a conclusion that science can simply be ignored because science does not declare truth or claim to be a source of truth.  That argument places science in the same category as the Enquirer and People on the rack by the checkout.

If that's what you think, then you clearly do not understand the argument, or what was said.

And I still haven't gotten answer to the question, does public acceptance of scientific truth require belief and faith?  Is scientific truth authoritative truth (accurate, reliable, and true) - or - is scientific truth persuasive truth (truth whose accuracy and reliability is uncertain)?

I'll sum it up in one word: EVIDENCE! If one needs belief or faith to accept science, or thinks science is an authority or declares truth, then there is something wrong here. And I would place a lack of scientific acumen near the top of that list.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.22  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.16    one month ago
And this is why we are going around in circles.   You claim to use 'authoritarian' in a consistent manner but you flip back and forth.   Here you are back to using it to mean:  'Proceeding from an official source and requiring compliance or obedience' when you just claimed to be using it as: 'Able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable'.

The allegation was about using the term 'authoritative' in a consistent manner.  You've moved the goal post again.

You are playing these circle games to avoid answering questions.  You aren't discussing anything.  You aren't debating anything.  You are only attempting to protect your own point of view in a political manner.

This sort of behavior is not unusual for science advocacy.  It's one of the reasons there is hostility towards science.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.23  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.21    one month ago
You need to get the whole "authority" thing out of your head. 

Then people need to stop making declarations and dictates as though science had some sort of authority.

The key here is OBJECTIVE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE! Creationism is a religious concept. It is not science. It is essentially a declaration of certainty and/or assumption (i.e. "God did it"), sans evidence. Therefore, it has no place in a science class. Actual science will completely contradict or debunk creationism, depending on how strictly one adheres to the concept. As for abortion, science only describes the gestational process. It makes no claim over the sociopolitical discussion of abortion.

That's true, creationism is not science.  Creationism is a spiritual and sociopolitical explanation of evidence rather than a scientific explanation of evidence.

Evidence is knowledge but isn't scientific knowledge.  The evidence stands on its own and doesn't need validation science.  Scientific knowledge consists of scientific explanations of evidence.  As you have correctly pointed out, science only concerns itself with a portion of available evidence and knowledge.

In some respects, scientific explanations are the result of ignorance and lack of curiosity resulting from ignoring and denying portions of available evidence and knowledge.

And "truth" requires evidence and/or proof to support it. No one is compelled to be obedient, except possibly in religious circles.

Are you arguing that science does not attempt to convey truth?  

Science advocates have declared science as an official source of truth.  Science advocates have declared religion is not a source of truth.  Science advocates certainly are utilizing the authority of truth to make their arguments against religion.  That's what you've done in your descriptions of science and creationism.  Your argument claims science is an official source of truth and has the authority to impose that truth onto claims made by creationism.  You are even using the authority of science to define what is and what is not truth.

If science has no authority as an official source of truth then science has no business claiming any other institution has no authority as a source of truth.  Science should not be opposing creationism if science has no authority as a source of truth.

If that's what you think, then you clearly do not understand the argument, or what was said.

You have been making statements from an authoritarian point of view.  You have claimed science is an (the?) official source of truth.  You have made statements concerning religion and creationism supported by the authority of scientific truth.

And now you accuse me of not understanding the argument?

I'll sum it up in one word: EVIDENCE! If one needs belief or faith to accept science, or thinks science is an authority or declares truth, then there is something wrong here. And I would place a lack of scientific acumen near the top of that list.

The evidence stands alone.  Collecting evidence isn't science.  Any untrained observer can collect evidence.  A toddler can collect evidence by collecting shiny blue pebbles just because they like shiny blue pebbles.  Evidence is NOT science.

Science generates hypotheses, theories, conclusions, and explanations using the scientific method.  Scientific hypotheses, theories, conclusions, and explanations are scientific knowledge; the evidence is NOT scientific knowledge.

Evidence does not require faith or belief; it is either evidence or it is not evidence.  But evidence is not scientific knowledge.  And the certainty of the evidence does not impart certainty onto scientific hypotheses, theories, conclusions, and explanations.  Evidence is authoritative knowledge but evidence is NOT scientific knowledge.

Scientific knowledge consists of conclusions derived from evidence.  But is the scientific knowledge authoritative (accurate, reliable, and true) - or - is the scientific knowledge persuasive (truth whose accuracy and reliability is uncertain)?  Does public acceptance of scientific knowledge require belief and faith because scientific knowledge is persuasive rather than authoritative?  Is there public hostility toward science because scientific knowledge is presented with an authority of truth but the scientific knowledge is persuasive rather than authoritative?

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.22    one month ago
You've moved the goal post again.

Nerm that is blatant bullshit.   I alleged (and proved with direct quotes) that you are using the same word 'authoritative' with different meanings (usage semantics).   You are flip flopping on the meaning of a word that is operative in your comments.   That makes your resultant comments incoherent.

Maybe you do not realize this, but your comments in general often are expressed with common words to which you assign your own special meaning.   Thus the flip-flopping of usage semantics in this thread does not surprise me, but I also have no patience for it.   As noted, engage someone else.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.25  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.24    one month ago
Nerm that is blatant bullshit.   I alleged (and proved with direct quotes) that you are using the same word 'authoritative' with different meanings (usage semantics).   You are flip flopping on the meaning of a word that is operative in your comments.   That makes your resultant comments incoherent. Maybe you do not realize this, but your comments in general often are expressed with common words to which you assign your own special meaning.   Thus the flip-flopping of usage semantics in this thread does not surprise me, but I also have no patience for it.   As noted, engage someone else.

You are making baseless accusations, in a political manner, hoping something will stick.

My position has been clear.  Science is authoritarian.  Scientists, such as Dr. Fauci, issue directives for action based on the authority of truth.  The public is only allowed to accept or reject the directives issued by scientific experts.  Rejection of those directives is deemed denial of truth.  Scientific experts are not required to consider or incorporate public concerns or priorities into their directives for action.  The only mechanism to resolve disputes between authoritarian scientific directives and public concerns/priorities is through politics.

Science is not a democracy.  Public concerns and priorities have no representation in science.  Scientific institutional consensus claims authority as an official source of truth.  The public is expected to accept scientific truth in compliance and obedience to the truth; denying the truth is unacceptable disobedience.  Not following the directives for action made by scientific experts is considered denial of truth.  And scientific experts, themselves, tell the public that denying the truth is irrational.

While institutional science does have an authoritarian role in society as an official source of truth, is scientific truth authoritative - or - is scientific truth persuasive?  Scientific experts issue directives for action based on the authority of scientific truth.  Is the public expected to accept those scientific directives for action because the scientific truth is accurate, reliable, and true?  Or is the public expected to accept those scientific directives for action because they have faith and believe in the institution of science as an official source of truth?

Is disbelief in the accuracy or reliability of scientific directives for action denying the truth?  When the underlying science is constantly changing then the scientific directives for action have been based on uncertain truth and not authoritative truth.  The authoritarian role of institutional science in society is as an official source of uncertain and constantly changing truth.

The public expressing doubts about the accuracy and reliability of declarative statements and directives for action made by scientific experts is not irrational.  When a truth presented by scientific experts has been base upon constantly changing underlying science then public rejection is not denying the truth.

Hostility towards science may be an expression of doubt that scientific experts have any authority to claim that the public is denying truth or that rejection of scientific truth is irrational.  Hostility towards science may be recognition that institutional science does not have any authority to claim that something like creationism is untrue.

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.1.26  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.25    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.27  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.26    one month ago

TiG explained quite clearly why Nerm is wrong and supported his own position with direct quotes and explanations.  And after reviewing the discussion, Nerm is wrong, even if he doesn't recognize or accept it. If one wants to be right, then I suggest stopping with dubious debate tactics and provide a rational and reasonable rebuttal.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.28  Nerm_L  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.26    one month ago
Don't bother dude.   Some folks here are never wrong in their minds.   Especially when they are wrong.  

You have entered the circle jerk zone.   Proceed at your own risk but i promise you this much if you choose to proceed.  

You will be wrong.   Especially if you are right.

Yeah, it's the same dance, different day.  Scientists prefer a circle jerk because there aren't any corners.  

Science is never wrong; science evolves.  But no one admits that evolving science is never quite right, either.  

Why is there hostility towards religion?  The hostility towards science is the same as the hostility toward religion - and - for the same reasons.

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.1.29  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.27    one month ago

Opinions do vary.

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.1.30  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.28    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.31  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.29    one month ago

That's why I prefer facts.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.32  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.28    one month ago

No one ever said science is never wrong. So spare us the hyperbole. But unlike religion, science admits it's wrong and/or has a probabilitu of error when the evidence shows that and science will self correct itself. That conspicuously rarely or doesn't happen in religion. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.33  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.27    one month ago
TiG explained quite clearly why Nerm is wrong and supported his own position with direct quotes and explanations.  And after reviewing the discussion, Nerm is wrong, even if he doesn't recognize or accept it. If one wants to be right, then I suggest stopping with dubious debate tactics and provide a rational and reasonable rebuttal.

That is false.  TiG disputed the use of the term 'authoritative' which I addressed by directly answering TiG's allegations with a rational and reasonable rebuttal @8.1.12 .  Since I rebutted TiG's allegation, TiG then transposed 'authoritarian' for 'authoritative' in comment @8.1.13 which moved the goal post and had nothing to do with what I had addressed.  But I have contended all along that science is authoritarian which I explained in @8.1.1.  

TiG claims I am ignoring his point of view that science is not authoritarian.  That's correct, to an extent, because I contended science is authoritarian and that the role of science in society is authoritarian.  I haven't flip flopped or changed my position.  And TiG has not rebutted any of my supporting arguments that demonstrates science is authoritarian.

And TiG used the dispute to stop the discussion completely and avoid answering any of the questions I had directed toward him.  

Your claim that I have been entirely wrong is not supported by the facts and evidence.  And this is a reasonable and rational rebuttal to that false accusation.

Your allegations and accusations are false.  And my contention that science is authoritarian has not been rebutted.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.34  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.28    one month ago
Science is never wrong; science evolves.  But no one admits that evolving science is never quite right, either.  

Who has ever claimed that science achieves perfection (truth)?    Gordy and I both routinely note that science formally explains phenomena based on a foundation of formal evidence and never declares certainty (truth).   If you do not know the reasons why science operates this way I can explain them to you.

Strawman!

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.35  Nerm_L  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.30    one month ago
Removed for context - sandy

I understand completely.  I was a practicing engineer myself, long ago and far away.  I've dealt with a lot of scientists professionally.  It seems snarky was part of the training.

Engineers are also scientists.  But science is only a part of engineering.  Practical experience also provides evidence and knowledge that is not scientific knowledge.

In the case of the pandemic, we have well over a century of practical experience controlling outbreaks of infectious disease transmitted by humans (or other vectors, for that matter).  We have more practical evidence and knowledge than scientific knowledge about controlling transmission of disease.  Outbreaks of disease were being controlled before we knew anything about bacteria or viruses.  We don't need science to tell us what we should already know from practical experience.  Practical knowledge is not scientific knowledge and we should not ignore or dismiss practical knowledge just because science was not involved.

The justification for social distancing is provided by hundreds of years of practical knowledge.  We don't need scientific blather or controlled studies.  We already know what works but understanding why it works, in exquisite detail, really is unnecessary.

Scientists strive for answers that are correct with certainty.  Engineers strive for answers that are correct enough to be applied practically.  Right now we need practical answers more than we need to be correct with certainty.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.36  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.33    one month ago

It's been repeatedly explained to you why science is not authoritarian nor operates that way, despite your continued flawed assertions to the contrary. You have not shown that to be the case. So now things are just going in circles. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
8.1.37  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.36    one month ago
repeatedly explained

You can fix ignorance but sadly, you just can't fix stupid.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.33    one month ago
Since I rebutted TiG's allegation, TiG then transposed 'authoritarian' for 'authoritative' in comment @8.1.13 which moved the goal post and had nothing to do with what I had addressed.  But I have contended all along that science is authoritarian which I explained in @8.1.1.  

What bullshit Nerm.    You are the one who introduced authoritarian and authoritative.   You are the one who repeatedly changed the meaning of these terms within your comments.   My comments have consistently stated that science is not authoritative (and similarly science is not authoritarian).

Remember the semantic distinctions I presented.   About as clear as one can be:

TiG @8.1.11 ☞ Usages of the word 'authoritative'

1.  Able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable

-or-

2.  Proceeding from an official source and requiring compliance or obedience.

And since you are playing new dishonest games, pretending that I 'moved the goalpost', the definition for the word 'authoritarian':

Oxford:  Favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

That is not science.   Your claim that science (and/or scientists) is authoritarian is ridiculous.  Makes no difference whether you use the word 'authoritarian' or 'authoritative' in your description of science because both are flat out wrong.   As I described upfront and continued consistently throughout:

Nerm @8.1.5However, the conclusions drawn from the evidence are authoritative.

TiG @8.1.6 ☞ The conclusions are not authoritative.   There is no authority in fact (conclusions).   Facts do not contain the means to force compliance; facts are simply information.

Nerm @8.1.8 ☞ The conclusions are presented as being authoritative.  The conclusions are not presented as being persuasive. 

TiG @8.1.9 ☞You have it backwards in terms of science.   Presenting a conclusion as authoritative comes from the political realm - not science.   In science it is the evidence and supporting formal explanation based on same that is considered (for persuasion).

Nerm @8.1.8 ☞ The authoritative conclusions are presented as being accurate, reliable, and true. 
TiG @8.1.9 ☞ Again, you inexplicably continue to conflate declarations by officials with science itself.    Science does not exercise authority.    It explains phenomena based on empirical evidence and formal explanations based on a foundation of established science.

... on and on ... you have been stubbornly dead wrong this entire thread

Finally, you used 'authoritarian' in a comment to Gordy @8.1.1 and then @8.1.5 you used the term 'authoritative' in a reply to me.   As noted, you introduced the terminology (not me) and you have flip-flopped on the meaning (not me).  

Nerm @8.1.1 The science is presented to the public in a very authoritarian manner.  The public is only allowed to accept or reject authoritarian declarations and act upon those declarations according to their acceptance or rejection. ... Even when scientists present information, that presentation is done in an authoritarian manner.  The public can only accept or reject what is presented.  There isn't a mechanism that requires the scientist to consider or conform to public concerns or public priorities other than through politics. ... Scientists assume an authoritarian role. 
Nerm @8.1.5 Scientists present authoritative conclusions based upon evidence.  The evidence may or may not be complete.  The evidence may or may not be biased.  However, the conclusions drawn from the evidence are authoritative. The public is only allowed to accept or reject those authoritative conclusions.  Disputes over use of those authoritative conclusions for formulating public policy can only be resolved by means of politics.

To wit, you injected the language 'authoritative' and 'authoritarian'.   You flip-flopped (repeatedly) on usage semantics.   And, regardless of the terminology you use, you remain dead wrong in your allegation that science is authoritative or authoritarian.   Science explains phenomena and never declares absolute truth — always holding that findings could be falsified in the future and always looking for ways to falsify existing theories.

This is basic stuff too, so it is amazing you have chosen to stubbornly argue a position that is just dead wrong.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.39  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.32    one month ago
No one ever said science is never wrong. So spare us the hyperbole. But unlike religion, science admits it's wrong and/or has a probabilitu of error when the evidence shows that and science will self correct itself. That conspicuously rarely or doesn't happen in religion. 

Then scientific truth must be persuasive (truth whose accuracy and reliability is uncertain).  Since scientific knowledge has been wrong before and scientific knowledge changes then scientific knowledge cannot be authoritative (accurate, reliable, and true) with certainty.

That leads to a conclusion that public acceptance or rejection of scientific knowledge is influenced by belief and faith in the institution of science; not by acceptance of authoritative knowledge since the accuracy and reliability of that knowledge is uncertain.

Public acceptance of science involves belief and faith just as with politics and religion.  Science uses the authority of truth to influence and persuade the public in the same manner as politics and religion.  The science's role in society as an official source of truth is similar to the roles of politics and religion in society.  

Hostility toward science is much the same as hostility toward politics or religion - and - for the same reasons.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.40  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.39    one month ago
Since scientific knowledge has been wrong before and scientific knowledge changes then scientific knowledge cannot be authoritative (accurate, reliable, and true) with certainty.

Nobody has claimed that scientific knowledge (findings, theories, etc.) are authoritative (either as in true or as in demanding compliance).   I know I have consistently stated that science does not declare truth / certainty probably hundreds of times on NT alone.  

Strawman!

That leads to a conclusion that public acceptance or rejection of scientific knowledge is influenced by belief and faith in the institution of science; not by acceptance of authoritative knowledge since the accuracy and reliability of that knowledge is uncertain.

Science never declares 100% certainty on a finding.   Public acceptance of scientific findings will vary per person.   Some may just trust institution of science because of its continued success.   Others will dig deeper and look at the details supporting the findings.   Regardless, science never demands that people accept and comply with its findings.   Science does not operate in an authoritative fashion.

Public acceptance of science involves belief and faith just as with politics and religion.  ...    Hostility toward science is much the same as hostility toward politics or religion - and - for the same reasons.

Here we go again with someone trying to portray science as a belief system so that they can lower it to the level of religious belief.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.41  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.38    one month ago
You are the one who introduced authoritarian and authoritative.

That is correct.  I stated a contention for discussion and debate.

You are the one who repeatedly changed the meaning of these terms within your comments.

That is false.  I have repeatedly used terms that supported my contention that science is authoritarian.  If you are complaining that I have contended science is authoritarian then offer a reasonable, rational rebuttal.  Don't complain about my use of terms denoting authority.  Since I contended science is authoritarian then use of such terms to denote authority would be appropriate to support my contention.  I haven't changed meaning of terms; I have used the terms to support my contention.

You have claimed that evidence imparts the authority of truth to science.  I have rebutted that contention by pointing out that evidence stands alone, evidence is knowledge, and evidence is not scientific knowledge.  Scientific knowledge consists of hypotheses, theories, conclusions, and explanations derived from (or supported by evidence); the evidence, itself, is not scientific knowledge.  The accuracy and reliability of evidence does not impart accuracy or reliability onto scientific knowledge.

Institutional science does have a role of authority in society as an official source of truth.  But that authority as an official source of truth does not derive from the accuracy or reliability of evidence since evidence is not scientific knowledge.

Remember the semantic distinctions I presented.   About as clear as one can be:

Remember my direct answer and rebuttal in @8.1.12 ?  

Nerm @8.1.12  So I will make the same statement using over simplified, elementary English to mitigate your confusion: "The authority of science derives from the certainty of scientific truth.  Science does not provide evidence; science provides explanations that are accurate, reliable, and true.  Science provides a truth that is accurate and reliable and has authority because scientific truth is accurate, reliable, and true."

About as clearly the opposite of what you are falsely claiming as can be.

And since you are playing new dishonest games, pretending that I 'moved the goalpost', the definition for the word 'authoritarian':

You did move the goal post.  My original contention was that science is authoritarian and I have been using terms that denote authority in support of my original contention.  What you did, in a backhanded manner, was try to make a persuasive argument that I had not made a contention that science is authoritarian.  You moved the goal post using a false allegation.

To wit, you injected the language 'authoritative' and 'authoritarian'.   You flip-flopped (repeatedly) on usage semantics.   And, regardless of the terminology you use, you remain dead wrong in your allegation that science is authoritative or authoritarian.   Science explains phenomena and never declares absolute truth — always holding that findings could be falsified in the future and always looking for ways to falsify existing theories.

I injected the contention that science is authoritarian first.  And I have used terms denoting authority to support that original contention.

I haven't flip flopped.  I contended science is authoritarian at the beginning and continue to maintain that science is authoritarian.  And I have used the appropriate terms in the appropriate manner to support that contention.

Your citations are correct and you correctly point out that I have used terms denoting authority.  That's the whole point I'm making.  Obviously you disagree with my contention that science is authoritarian but you haven't offered any rational rebuttal.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.42  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.40    one month ago
Nobody has claimed that scientific knowledge (findings, theories, etc.) are authoritative (either as in true or as in demanding compliance).   I know I have consistently stated that science does not declare truth / certainty probably hundreds of times on NT alone.   Strawman!

Once again you a making a false allegation and are trying to move the goal post. 

I never claimed anyone on this thread said scientific knowledge was authoritative.  I asked a question:  Is scientific truth authoritative or persuasive?   If the term 'truth' in the context of previous discussion ties your panties in a knot then the question can be restated without changing meaning: Is scientific knowledge authoritative or persuasive?

Gordy answered the question I posed and I responded to Gordy's answer.  Your allegation of 'strawman' is, itself, a strawman.  You are alleging something I did not do.

Science never declares 100% certainty on a finding.   Public acceptance of scientific findings will vary per person.   Some may just trust institution of science because of its continued success.   Others will dig deeper and look at the details supporting the findings.   Regardless, science never demands that people accept and comply with its findings.   Science does not operate in an authoritative fashion.

Since science never declares certainty then scientific knowledge is always uncertain.  

Public acceptance of scientific knowledge whose accuracy and reliability is uncertain depends upon belief and faith.  The practice of science may not depend upon belief and faith but acceptance of uncertain scientific knowledge does require belief and faith.

Digging deeper into the evidence will not remove uncertainty in scientific knowledge.  The uncertainty may be small but, nevertheless, scientific knowledge is always less than certain.  Uncertainty establishes doubt and acceptance must overcome that doubt.  Doubt is also influenced by belief and faith.

Institutional science does have a role in society as an official source of truth.  Do you agree or disagree?  And that role as an official source of truth does impart a status of authority on institutional science.  Do you agree or disagree?  Since scientific knowledge is always less than certain then any authoritarian role in society as an official source of truth must include belief and faith.  Do you agree or disagree?

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.43  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.41    one month ago
I have repeatedly used terms that supported my contention that science is authoritarian. 

I proved @8.1.13 that you have used the same word with different usages.  

If you are complaining that I have contended science is authoritarian then offer a reasonable, rational rebuttal. 

I have been rebutting your authoritarian nonsense since your first comment.  

You have claimed that evidence imparts the authority of truth to science.

I stated:

TiG @8.1.4Science is not based on opinion (and votes) but rather on the persuasiveness of formal evidence and the associated formal explanation based thereon.

'Imparting the authority of truth' sounds like something Deepak Chopra would say.   It is nonsense.

You know what Nerm, I am now convinced you are doing this on purpose.    I back up my claims with actual quotes and you ignore the proof and just keep repeating the same nonsense.   And along the way you produce claims like this one which shows you either are not reading what I am writing or are purposely fabricating false claims.

This is a pointless waste of time.

 
 
 
Krishna
8.1.44  Krishna  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.1    one month ago

Like it or not, the public's primary exposure to science is through the popular media.  

Sounds like your experience in public school was in a really lousy district....

 
 
 
Krishna
8.1.45  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @8.1.44    one month ago

Like it or not, the public's primary exposure to science is through the popular media.

Sounds like your experience in public school was in a really lousy district....

Actually, now that I think about it, my first exposure to Science was when as a really little kid my parents boughut me some very elementary science books.

But aside from that, my first exposure was in Public School (Unlike many people, I was lucky enough to go to a really excellent school district).

I remember learning Science in First grade> (No it wasn't Quantum Physic or anything like that-- but it was Science).

Maybe  Kindertgarten (But that I don't remember that-- after all, that was well over 20 years ago jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif ).

 
 
 
Krishna
8.1.46  Krishna  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.42    one month ago
The practice of science may not depend upon belief and faith but acceptance of uncertain scientific knowledge does require belief and faith.

That's sounds like it might be interesting-- could you say that again that in plain English?

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.47  author  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.37    one month ago
You can fix ignorance

Sometimes I wonder. Some people seem to like being willfully ignorant.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
8.1.48  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.47    one month ago

Sometimes I wonder. Some people seem to like being willfully ignorant.

it seems for some, ignorance is the rule

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.49  author  Gordy327  replied to  igknorantzrulz @8.1.48    one month ago

And no exceptions too.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
8.1.50  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.49    one month ago
And no exceptions too.
I consider critical thinkers need to not accept this, and they don't, but when attempting the re-education of a cult, lead by A Dolt, where Science and Facts can't jolt too may to actually THINK, pass me a pitcher, cause i'll break it over their THICK FRCKN SKULLZ !
.
Sorry Gordy

difficult for thinking individuals 

to watch the dismantling of so much, and i know you see through my panes

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.51  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.39    one month ago

It's not "truth" that needs to be persuasive. It's the evidence which must be. I don't why you keep getting, much less narrow mindedly focusing on "truth." If people think science goes by or declares "truth," then people are woefully ignorant of science. I suspect that ignorance (willfully or otherwise) plays a large part of the general hostility toward science.

It's the scientific process and collection of evidence which leads to knowledge. And if someone needs belief or faith to accept science, then they don't understand science or are too lazy to try and understand it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.52  author  Gordy327  replied to  igknorantzrulz @8.1.50    one month ago

Seeing peoples hostility and/or general ignorance of science is what is painful. And sad. Having people in positions of leadership who are also ignorant and hostile towards science doesn't help.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
8.1.53  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.52    one month ago

teaching this belief, brings disbelief, as to how easily and severely the human brain can be led astray, cause as stated, when control and monetary interests are at stake, it is driven through the heart of a scientific argument, that still isn't beaten, just distorted and attacked, till simple minds gain a complex, as their view concaves inn, to the convex, and distorted perceptions, and are now just reflections of people who rather than be wrong, break the mirror, as they don't wish to face the truth, or imagine their image, if they were to think

different, than their peers

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.54  Nerm_L  replied to  Krishna @8.1.44    one month ago
Sounds like your experience in public school was in a really lousy district....

Actually I had more exposure to science than most.  When I was a kid, atomic energy was the sexy science.  Atomic ships, atomic submarines, atomic airplanes, atomic trains, atomic cars, atomic piles in our homes to eliminate the grid.  Atomic spaceships.  The atom was supposed to be the means to achieve a Star Trek future.  But atomic energy became nuclear energy and nuclear energy was bad.  The science of progress was transformed into the science of evil.  Scientists formed a consensus that we shouldn't and couldn't have that atomic future.  And because scientists decided we shouldn't and couldn't have that future, the public now must deal with the existential threat of climate change.

Science does not benefit the public.  Science benefits whoever owns and controls the science.  And controlling the science allows controlling the public and controlling the future.  Science does not offer a future to the public; science imposes a future onto the public without responsibility or accountability.

 
 
 
bccrane
8.1.55  bccrane  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.52    one month ago

Using selective science is also painful.  My brother farms the family farm and we had one of the EPA type agencies come in years ago and try to stop us from farming certain areas, we finally got the head guy in here and he looked it over and realized the agents were overzealous and cleared all but a few acres.  There were trees on part of the cleared area that we decided to remove and join two fields together, the same agency seen from satellite photos we had started clearing  about a dozen trees, so out comes an agent, my brother joined him and they went out to the area, first a bore sample was done and found the seasonal water table was 2' below the surface, two of the trees were ash, and some plants were wetland type, so he declared it wetlands and for us to cease clearing.  My brother pointed out that you take a bore sample from anywhere within a hundred square miles you will find the same water table line (this whole area at one time was a huge swamp), the ash trees were growing with oak, maple, and basswood trees all dry land trees, and the vegetation was more dry land than a few sparse wetland, and the big kicker was there is a newly formed man made 100 acre wetland a few hundred feet away with a water level 3 feet below the area in question.  The agent was using science to give him power over someone without using all the evidence.

Oh, almost forgot, the agent had the satellite photo with him and showed it to my brother how they knew what we were doing, my bother had a hard time recognizing it because what was missing from the photo was the 100 acre man made wetlands, it had been photoshopped out making it look like an area of grassland instead of a lake with areas 50 feet deep.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.56  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.43    one month ago
I proved @8.1.13 that you have used the same word with different usages.  

What is it about science being authoritarian do you not understand?  What is it about science being used to control the public and control the future do you not understand?  SCIENCE IS AUTHORITARIAN.

You've only demonstrated a desire to talk about science in a political manner.  As is typical in the history of using authority to control public discourse, the greatest concern is how something is said to shift attention away from the substance.  The liturgy and dogma has become far more important to protect a position of authority rather scrutinizing the public purpose and need for that authority.  It's quite possible that Charles Darwin could not formulate a theory of evolution in today's scientific environment.

You made an allegation and I rebutted that allegation.  So now it is politically expedient to continue making allegations to score political points.  You aren't discussing the substance.  You have adopted a political tactic of proving that one mistake, one error, or one wrong statement makes everything wrong.  And that political tactic depends upon science being the arbiter of truth, with absolute authority, that cannot be challenged.  Questioning the authority of science is denying the facts, denying the evidence, and, worst of all, denying the truth.

You aren't debating anything.  You are proselytizing.  You make declarative statements about science and expect acceptance of those declarations as some sort of rebuttal BECAUSE science is the authority for truth that cannot be questioned or challenged.  Disobedience to the authority of science must be proven wrong by any means.

You speak about science from the point of view of an authoritarian scientist without any consideration or regard for the public's point of view.  You speak about science and defend science as an authoritarian.  Science is not a servant of the truth.  Science does not benefit the public.  Science benefits whoever owns and controls the science.  And science is being used to control the public and control the future.

The public allowing science to assume an authoritarian role in society is dangerous.  Placing science in the position of the official source of truth will transform science into a religion.  We see that happening today.  Scientists will become priests.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.57  author  Gordy327  replied to  bccrane @8.1.55    one month ago

Sounds like dishonest tactics to me. But I fault the person engaging in such tactics, not the science.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.58  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.54    one month ago

That's some grade A conspiracy theory crap right there!

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.59  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.56    one month ago
What is it about science being used to control the public and control the future do you not understand?  SCIENCE IS AUTHORITARIAN.

Here you illustrate one of your problems.   You state 'science is authoritarian' as a summary conclusion to your question/statement that 'science is being used to control the public and control the future'.

Figure out the difference between science and the usage of science (especially by political and religious authorities).  If you continue to conflate the two, your comments (and by extension, your arguments) will remain dead wrong.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.60  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.51    one month ago
It's not "truth" that needs to be persuasive. It's the evidence which must be. I don't why you keep getting, much less narrow mindedly focusing on "truth." If people think science goes by or declares "truth," then people are woefully ignorant of science. I suspect that ignorance (willfully or otherwise) plays a large part of the general hostility toward science. It's the scientific process and collection of evidence which leads to knowledge. And if someone needs belief or faith to accept science, then they don't understand science or are too lazy to try and understand it.

How can the public trust the evidence?

Scientists have found that weather observations collected in the past do not correspond to observations collected using recently adopted methodology.  Scientists have concluded that the older methodologies introduced a bias in the observations.  So, scientists have manipulated past evidence to conform to observations made with today's methodology.  The public no longer has access to the evidence, the public only has access to manipulated evidence.

When science manipulates the evidence then why should the public trust that evidence?

Scientists conduct a controlled experiment by bubbling carbon dioxide gas into a tank of water and observe the effect on aquatic organisms.  Scientists then extrapolate the observations from that controlled environment into predictions concerning an uncontrolled environment.

When science creates evidence by artificial means why should the public accept that evidence as an objective description of nature?

How can manipulated evidence and artificially created evidence be considered as accurate, reliable, and true?  How can scientists avoid the need for belief and faith to justify manipulating and artificially creating evidence?  How can the public accept scientific knowledge based on manipulated evidence and artificially created evidence without belief and faith?

The public perception of evidence isn't necessarily that of objectivity, accuracy, or reliability.  Manipulating and artificially creating evidence establishes a source of public doubt toward what science declares to be true.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
8.1.61  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.59    one month ago

he's totally missed the letters in your plain as day words, and i don't think the postman gonna ring twice

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.62  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.38    one month ago
To wit, you injected the language 'authoritative' and 'authoritarian'.   You flip-flopped (repeatedly) on usage semantics.   And, regardless of the terminology you use, you remain dead wrong in your allegation that science is authoritative or authoritarian.   Science explains phenomena and never declares absolute truth — always holding that findings could be falsified in the future and always looking for ways to falsify existing theories. This is basic stuff too, so it is amazing you have chosen to stubbornly argue a position that is just dead wrong.

You posted two definitions for the term 'authoritative' didn't you?  Don't both definitions describe authority? 

Definition 1:  able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable.  Doesn't that describe the authority of truth?  Wouldn't denying something that can be trusted as accurate, reliable, and true be denying the truth?

Definition 2:  commanding and self-confident; likely to be respected and obeyed.  Isn't scientific knowledge commanding and self-confident because that knowledge has been subjected to falsification?  Isn't scientific knowledge that is accurate, reliable, and true likely to be respected and obeyed?

Both definitions of 'authoritative' describe authority based on trust and truth.  The term 'authoritative' describes authority by either definition you choose.  Both definitions apply to scientific knowledge.

The definition of authoritarian (which I think you posted earlier):  favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

Science favors enforcing strict obedience to the authority of truth provided by scientific knowledge that can be trusted as being accurate, reliable, and true and scientific knowledge that commands respect and obedience for overcoming the challenges of falsification.

Science is authoritarian because scientific knowledge is authoritative; assuming, of course, that scientific knowledge is actually authoritative.

---------------

You are attempting to split hairs from Schrodinger's cat by attempting to make an argument that is in two places at once.  The term 'authoritative' describes authority by either definition you cited.  The term 'authoritarian' describes use of authority although the emphasis on government is a red herring.  My points have been consistent throughout.  Your arguments have attempted to move the goal post.

You've engaged in a tactic that is more political than rational.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.63  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.62    one month ago

Figure out the difference between science and the usage of science (especially by political and religious authorities).  If you continue to conflate the two, your comments (and by extension, your arguments) will remain dead wrong.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.64  Nerm_L  replied to  Krishna @8.1.46    one month ago
That's sounds like it might be interesting-- could you say that again that in plain English?

A worker goes to his boss and explains the number of rejects has spiked.  The worker isn't sure what the problem is and doesn't know how to fix the problem.  The worker is the expert who knows the the details of the process.  The worker is certain that something is wrong.  The worker recommends that everything needs to be shut down until the problem is understood and can be fixed.

The boss is required to make a decision whether or not to shut everything down.  How does the boss make that decision?  The evidence is clear, the number of rejects has spiked.  So, the decision is whether or not to accept the worker's recommended course of action.  Wouldn't belief and faith in the worker be a large factor in the boss' decision?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.65  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.63    one month ago
Figure out the difference between science and the usage of science (especially by political and religious authorities).  If you continue to conflate the two, your comments (and by extension, your arguments) will remain dead wrong.

Was Dr. Anthony Fauci elected?  Is Dr. Anthony Fauci a priest?  Isn't Dr. Anthony Fauci exercising authority as a scientific expert?

How has Dr. Anthony Fauci been using science?

Why should the public accept Dr. Anthony Fauci's authority?  And if the public is forced to obey Dr. Anthony Fauci's authority then why wouldn't there be hostility from the public?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.66  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.58    one month ago
That's some grade A conspiracy theory crap right there!

Is that supposed to be some sort of refutation?

Modern science benefits those who own and control the science. 

Scientific knowledge is now intellectual property.  Scientific research in agriculture, medicine, biology, technology, energy, materials, and a host of other areas are being pursued to obtain profit.  Whoever owns the the intellectual property will obtain the greatest profit.  Scientific knowledge is locked behind paywalls and protected by patents.  In far too many instances, academic research has turned into patent mills.

Science activists are attempting to control and utilize science to influence public opinion and control the future.  Activist scientists are selectively using science to demand a course of action that will have ramifications far into the future.  Activist scientists are manipulating evidence, artificially creating evidence, and deliberately dismissing evidence that does not conform to the purpose of their activism.  Activist scientists are not describing things as they are; activist scientists are describing things as they should be.

Today's scientists are making institutional decisions that directly affect the structure of society and the course of the future.  And public concerns and priorities have no representation in institutional science.   The public is being forced to accept societal manipulation and a future that the public had no part in creating.  In some respects, the public is becoming a victim of science rather than a beneficiary of science.

Institutional science has increasingly become authoritarian and the authority of science is increasingly being used to force the public to comply and be obedient to the authority of science.  Disagreeing with or challenging institutional science has become a heresy against the orthodoxy of truth as defined by institutional science. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.67  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.65    one month ago
Was Dr. Anthony Fauci elected?  Is Dr. Anthony Fauci a priest?  Isn't Dr. Anthony Fauci exercising authority as a scientific expert?

Again Nerm, you conflate individuals operating with political authority with science itself.

Dr. Fauci is not science.   He is an individual scientist operating in a political / sociological role.   If Dr. Fauci was strictly acting as a scientist he would be unable to do anything but make recommendations.    Further, to my knowledge, Dr. Fauci even in his current role cannot mandate anything;  he can only recommend to those who have the authority to mandate.

Science and the usage of science by authorities are two entirely different things.   I am amazed that I must repeat something so demonstrably obvious.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.68  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.67    one month ago
Dr. Fauci is not science.   He is an individual scientist operating in a political / sociological role.   If Dr. Fauci was strictly acting as a scientist he would be unable to do anything but make recommendations.    Further, to my knowledge, Dr. Fauci even in his current role cannot mandate anything;  he can only recommend to those who have the authority to mandate.

How is Dr. Fauci using science in a political / sociological role?

Dr. Fauci has been making formal authoritarian announcements and declarations about actions to control the pandemic.  How does science support Dr. Fauci's authoritarian role?

Dr. Fauci has stated there is much that is not known about the coronavirus.  Dr. Fauci has stated that the evidence is uncertain in many situations because the evidence has been anecdotal.  Dr. Fauci has been citing the methodology of science.  Clinical trials provide authoritative conclusions (there's that word again).  Dr. Fauci has been justifying his authoritarian announcements and declarations by indicating that science is authoritative. 

Hasn't Dr. Fauci used science as an official source of authoritative knowledge?  Hasn't Dr. Fauci been using science as an authority for truth?  Hasn't Dr. Fauci made the argument that rejecting his authoritarian announcements and declarations would be an irrational denial of the truth?

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.69  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.60    one month ago
How can the public trust the evidence?

Simple: first stop thinking science is some kind of conspiracy. Second, have a basic education and understanding of science. Third, investigate the evidence for oneself. Fourth, approach science logically and rationally, not emotionally or irrationally. Fifth, don't look to non-science individuals for science related issues or information.

Scientists have found that weather observations collected in the past do not correspond to observations collected using recently adopted methodology.  Scientists have concluded that the older methodologies introduced a bias in the observations.  So, scientists have manipulated past evidence to conform to observations made with today's methodology.  

What are you talking about?

When science manipulates the evidence then why should the public trust that evidence?

Science or scientist?

Scientists then extrapolate the observations from that controlled environment into predictions concerning an uncontrolled environment. When science creates evidence by artificial means why should the public accept that evidence as an objective description of nature?

It's called an experiment and simulation of a certain condition. Then it gets compared to what is observed and repeated as necessary for reliability.

How can manipulated evidence and artificially created evidence be considered as accurate, reliable, and true?  How can scientists avoid the need for belief and faith to justify manipulating and artificially creating evidence?  How can the public accept scientific knowledge based on manipulated evidence and artificially created evidence without belief and faith?

That statement shows you view or treat science as some kind of conspiracy theory. It's delusional.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.70  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.68    one month ago
How is Dr. Fauci using science in a political / sociological role?

First of all, I suggested that Dr. Fauci is not the person empowered to require compliance;  those persons are the mayors, governors, Congress and the PotUS.   Dr. Fauci serves as an expert advisor in infectious disease.   His recommendations are based on science.   It is the political authorities who act (or not) on those recommendations.  

Dr. Fauci has been making formal authoritarian announcements and declarations about actions to control the pandemic. 

Your use of 'authoritarian' is as wrong now as it was the first time you mentioned it.   You ignore my answers and just repeat the same questions; so I am not going to yet again explain to you the basics of science.   Get a clue on your own Nerm.

How does science support Dr. Fauci's authoritarian role?

Dr. Fauci's recommendations are based on the findings of empirical science (in particular, the area of infectious disease). 

Dr. Fauci has stated there is much that is not known about the coronavirus. 

And he is correct.

Dr. Fauci has stated that the evidence is uncertain in many situations because the evidence has been anecdotal.  Dr. Fauci has been citing the methodology of science.  Clinical trials provide authoritative conclusions (there's that word again).  Dr. Fauci has been justifying his authoritarian announcements and declarations by indicating that science is authoritative

Your refusal to understand how science works is on you.   I am not going to yet again explain this to you.

Hasn't Dr. Fauci used science as an official source of authoritative knowledge? 

Dr. Fauci has used science as (most likely) the most accurate source of information about coronovirus  (and COVID-19) and infectious disease in general.   Exactly as he should;  offer the best science has at the moment and revise based on new information.

Hasn't Dr. Fauci been using science as an authority for truth? 

No.  Science never declares truth.   This is one of the most fundamental concepts in science.   Having repeatedly explained this to you, there is no point doing it yet again since you ignore the information and keep stubbornly repeating your mantra. 

Hasn't Dr. Fauci made the argument that rejecting his authoritarian announcements and declarations would be an irrational denial of the truth?

Your use of 'authoritarian' contradicts the scientific method.   Buy a vowel.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
8.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Nerm_L @8    one month ago

And I would also add that in the case here in San Diego County health officials appear to be purposely hiding the most critical data that we would need to evaluate the circumstances. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @8.2    one month ago
San Diego County health officials

Blame the officials, not the underlying science, the scientific method or science in general.

 
 
 
Krishna
8.3  Krishna  replied to  Nerm_L @8    one month ago
MO part of the problem is the public does not have access to the scientific literature

Nope-- its all there if you want to look for it. 

As that used to be-- but now with the Internet its even easier!

If anything most of the public doesn't think its important to be informed. So they don't even bother to look.

Example: You're in the midst of a really good online discussion. But no one knows the answer to some questions that would resolve some unknowns, and really move the discussion along. You discover a link to some fascinating information that will move the discussion along exponentially-- and post it in the discussion!

Question: what percentage of the people in the discussion will click on that link?

(My guess; usually aero).

Its not that the info isn't avaiable, its just that for various reasons most people don't care. Or-- they are "know it alls"-- so they think they  can't possibly learn anything new, so why bother)

Its not that the info isn't there-- its just most people won't pursue it.

 
 
 
Krishna
8.3.1  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @8.3    one month ago
aero).

typo-- should be zero