The Open Mat Forum

Miscellaneous => Polls => Topic started by: n9531l on January 04, 2017, 10:02:37 PM

Title: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 04, 2017, 10:02:37 PM
I could only list five options, so you can write in one of the following, or another one I overlooked.

6. Our planet is only a few thousand years old.
7. Fluoridation of drinking water is a threat to human health.
8. All forms of life on earth (people, trees, dinosaurs, the polio virus) first appeared within a short time of one another.

You get to decide for yourself what "favorite" means. It could be the one you've done the most intensive research on, or the one you've most enjoyed discussing with your friends, or the one from which you've gotten the most amusement hearing the arguments of its supporters, etc.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ViseGrip on January 05, 2017, 10:51:59 AM
#6 & #8 Appear to be factors of the second from the top.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: Ray Brinzer on January 05, 2017, 11:07:26 AM
n9531l... have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: mspart on January 05, 2017, 11:24:10 AM
I've seen an ex commie drink water from a glass.

mspart
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ViseGrip on January 05, 2017, 12:33:29 PM
n9531l... have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?

(http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/43257/former-cuban-leader-fidel-castro-drinks-water-during-meeting-students-havana039s-university.jpg)
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: Ray Brinzer on January 05, 2017, 12:37:58 PM
n9531l... have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?

(http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/43257/former-cuban-leader-fidel-castro-drinks-water-during-meeting-students-havana039s-university.jpg)

Exactly.  Vodka.  Never water.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: scmathlete on January 05, 2017, 05:05:42 PM
I really like taking the "traditional" conclusions from one side in these debates, and using the "traditional" other sides reasons behind it, if for no other reason than for the intellectual exercise, and the bafflement/confusion of the other people.

For instance, I like to take a fundamentalist christian argument to show why evolution has to exist.   I also like to take the conclusion that global warming is manmade, and use it as an argument against recycling, reducing, and reusing (and all that jazz). I also like to take the stance that global warming isn't man made, but naturally occurring, and then make a case for why we need to reduce, reuse, recycle (and all that jazz too).

I also am perfectly willing to accept the fact that I am a societal oddball.

I don't really have arguments for all of those topics however, and didn't even realize that some of them were actually debated.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: mspart on January 05, 2017, 05:51:21 PM
Welcome to the boards.

mspart
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 05, 2017, 08:23:19 PM
#6 & #8 Appear to be factors of the second from the top.

That religious writings are offered as evidence in several arguments doesn't make them the same argument. If geologists could establish that the earth is very old, would that prove that evolution must have occurred? I don't think so. If evolution never occurred, would that prove the earth must be young? I don't think so.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: lkwdsteve on January 06, 2017, 10:30:35 AM
Hit man John Martorano claimed that mob boss Whitey Bulger would never drink the water in Boston.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: lkwdsteve on January 06, 2017, 10:38:18 AM
My most pressing current scientific question:

What do Scientologists think of Monsanto and Bayer joining forces?
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ViseGrip on January 06, 2017, 12:57:23 PM
#6 & #8 Appear to be factors of the second from the top.

That religious writings are offered as evidence in several arguments doesn't make them the same argument. If geologists could establish that the earth is very old, would that prove that evolution must have occurred? I don't think so. If evolution never occurred, would that prove the earth must be young? I don't think so.

No...but they are frequently used in conjunction and as support for the other.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ctc on January 06, 2017, 01:41:00 PM
Your question, n, does a lot or "presupposing".  Maybe it should have been worded "Which Battleground in the War within Science?".
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 07, 2017, 02:55:17 AM
Your question, n, does a lot or "presupposing".  Maybe it should have been worded "Which Battleground in the War within Science?".

Actually, I was careful to choose topics with a strong consensus among scientists.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ctc on January 07, 2017, 10:26:27 AM
Your question, n, does a lot or "presupposing".  Maybe it should have been worded "Which Battleground in the War within Science?".

Actually, I was careful to choose topics with a strong consensus among scientists.
I wouldn't say "strong consensus" either.

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. Albert Einstein
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: Cougar1 on January 07, 2017, 01:44:02 PM
What "war on science" are you referring to n?
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 07, 2017, 08:33:17 PM
What "war on science" are you referring to n?

The one you can read about here (March 2015 issue). It includes some interesting ideas about what's behind the historically fairly recent growth of public skepticism in scientific findings, including the way the Internet has made it possible for people to become their own experts and live in a "filter bubble" that lets in only the information they already agree with.

(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa428/n9531l/2017-01-07%2016.55.36_zpsjrjkxuxs.jpg)
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 07, 2017, 10:32:05 PM
Actually, I was careful to choose topics with a strong consensus among scientists.
I wouldn't say "strong consensus" either

Of course you wouldn't.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ctc on January 08, 2017, 09:01:22 AM
The "war on science" is a war within and is self destructive.  It has ever bit of dishonesty as does the political arena.  There is so very often an agenda.

https://explorable.com/science-fraud
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: lkwdsteve on January 08, 2017, 11:43:36 AM
Am I ahead of the curve, or behind the curve, when my thoughts on science are about child psychology, pharma, gender neutrality, and alt-eugenics?
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 08, 2017, 05:03:43 PM
The "war on science" is a war within and is self destructive.

But think how nice it would be if science were not self destructive. We could probably have some great things like telephones and electric lighting, and maybe even computers, some day. That self destruction was a real pity.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ctc on January 08, 2017, 09:12:29 PM
The "war on science" is a war within and is self destructive.

But think how nice it would be if science were not self destructive. We could probably have some great things like telephones and electric lighting, and maybe even computers, some day. That self destruction was a real pity.
Not all areas of science and certainly the question of global warming, evolution, age of the Earth, moon landings are fake, Florine in drinking water, vaccine dangers,and effects of GMO's on health has nothing to do with technological advancements in science.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ViseGrip on January 09, 2017, 10:50:46 AM
What "war on science" are you referring to n?

The one you can read about here (March 2015 issue). It includes some interesting ideas about what's behind the historically fairly recent growth of public skepticism in scientific findings, including the way the Internet has made it possible for people to become their own experts and live in a "filter bubble" that lets in only the information they already agree with.

(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa428/n9531l/2017-01-07%2016.55.36_zpsjrjkxuxs.jpg)

"Science" has its own culpability in this phenomena.  All too often we have seen scientists skew or falsify data to achieve an objective, then when caught complain about  "war on science". Likewise when "science" says we need to "end the debate" it calls into question its impartiality.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: mspart on January 09, 2017, 03:32:12 PM
First coffee is good for you.  Then coffee is bad for you.  Then it is good for you.  Then it is bad for you.  etc

I think people lose confidence when science makes what appears to be absolute statements when they are changed in a few years time.  Some of your examples are examples of this.  Here are the choices in the poll that we were given:

    Climate change is a hoax. - I don't know how many think it is a hoax but I'm sure many many people do not think it is a serious thing.  It has been so oversold and powerfully so with other scientists contradicting, cheating on data, bullying etc.  But nobody proposes going back to the stone ages.  They just want to tax and spend. 

    Evolution never happened.   I think there is no one that does not believe in natural selection within a species (microevolution).  Perhaps I am wrong on that.   With regards to origins of life and transformation of single cell animals to multicell organisms with specialized cells and organs (macroevolution)  is a bit more of a stretch to think of as happening by pure chance. 

    The moon landings were all faked. - I grew up in Huntsville, Al where the space program was centered (rocket technology anyway) so there is not really a question in my mind.  I have never met anyone who denied the moon landings but have seen internet musings on this.  They are not very convincing to me.

    Vaccinations can lead to autism. - I do not throw this out but am not sure of it.  Back in the day we got a few vaccinations.  Nowadays there are many more with many given in one shot.  I can see where a small child could not handle all of it at once, but better able to handle it over a longer period of time.  I personally know one family who claims this happened to their child and they are not the type to make this stuff up.  So I don't know if it leads to autism, but I think there is reason to think that spacing out the vaccinations would probably be a better solution. 

    Genetically modified food is evil. - All of our food has been genetically altered if you believe in evolution.  Man induced alteration is another matter and one I think is basically benign but I can see where some could be concerned about it. 

Those are my thoughts on the various choices. 

mspart
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 09, 2017, 03:46:05 PM
I think people lose confidence when science makes what appears to be absolute statements when they are changed in a few years time.

I think such statements are rarely made by the scientists themselves, since they know so well that scientific theories are inherently tentative. It's another matter for the magazine popularizers and Internet bloggers, who are prone to gee-whiz pronouncements.

By the way, I've never come across a scientific theory of evolution which suggested that macroevolution happened by pure chance.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ctc on January 09, 2017, 03:49:09 PM
I think people lose confidence when science makes what appears to be absolute statements when they are changed in a few years time.

By the way, I've never come across a scientific theory of evolution which suggested that macroevolution happened by pure chance.
And you never came across an example showing that macroevolution actually happened.  That link is "missing".
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ViseGrip on January 09, 2017, 03:53:39 PM
I think people lose confidence when science makes what appears to be absolute statements when they are changed in a few years time.

I think such statements are rarely made by the scientists themselves, since they know so well that scientific theories are inherently tentative. It's another matter for the magazine popularizers and Internet bloggers, who are prone to gee-whiz pronouncements.

By the way, I've never come across a scientific theory of evolution which suggested that macroevolution happened by pure chance.
Im not so sure its all that rare when it comes to climate forecasting, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

And just because I have a healthy skepticism of some of the past and present climate projections does not mean I dont believe in evolution, because I certainly do.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: mspart on January 09, 2017, 03:55:34 PM
I think people lose confidence when science makes what appears to be absolute statements when they are changed in a few years time.

I think such statements are rarely made by the scientists themselves, since they know so well that scientific theories are inherently tentative. It's another matter for the magazine popularizers and Internet bloggers, who are prone to gee-whiz pronouncements.

By the way, I've never come across a scientific theory of evolution which suggested that macroevolution happened by pure chance.

I'll grant you the first point.  On the second regarding scientific theory, iIf you have some time, could you please elaborate?

mspart
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 09, 2017, 04:27:09 PM
By the way, I've never come across a scientific theory of evolution which suggested that macroevolution happened by pure chance.
On the second regarding scientific theory, if you have some time, could you please elaborate?

How much time and effort are you willing to put into understanding the answer? There must be at least a hundred modern college biology textbooks which elaborate on that point in a way that is better presented than what I could say or you could find on the Internet. A week at the library should be enough to give you a pretty good understanding of the current thinking of biologists.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: mspart on January 09, 2017, 05:15:45 PM
By the way, I've never come across a scientific theory of evolution which suggested that macroevolution happened by pure chance.
On the second regarding scientific theory, if you have some time, could you please elaborate?

How much time and effort are you willing to put into understanding the answer? There must be at least a hundred modern college biology textbooks which elaborate on that point in a way that is better presented than what I could say or you could find on the Internet. A week at the library should be enough to give you a pretty good understanding of the current thinking of biologists.

I'm not sure those that would be answering your poll would be well versed on the current thinking of biologists.  What is generally discussed is Big Bang, primordial soup, life emerging, then diverging into different species and complexities of organisms.  Notwithstanding the current thinking of biologists, this is what is the general conversation is when discussing evolution. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution  does a decent job of describing this.

mspart
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ViseGrip on January 09, 2017, 05:22:57 PM
On a somewhat related note..... https://www.yahoo.com/news/study-crashes-main-moon-formation-theory-162207822.html
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: RYou on January 09, 2017, 10:01:02 PM
Vaccinations can lead to autism.  The science to prove or disprove isn't there yet. Same for Zika Virus.  The science of effect on the fetus is there but how it will affect others years into the future is totally unknown.

Same for food allergies in children.  I think 90% of parents are just fearful their kid may come down with a food allergy .


n9531l... have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?



Exactly.  Vodka.  Never water.


Russia - Vodka
Italy / France / Spain - wine
Germany / Switzerland - Bier

The water throughout Europe sucked and had to be purified through fermentation.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: Intensity guru on January 09, 2017, 10:14:06 PM
I really like taking the "traditional" conclusions from one side in these debates, and using the "traditional" other sides reasons behind it, if for no other reason than for the intellectual exercise, and the bafflement/confusion of the other people.

For instance, I like to take a fundamentalist christian argument to show why evolution has to exist.   I also like to take the conclusion that global warming is manmade, and use it as an argument against recycling, reducing, and reusing (and all that jazz). I also like to take the stance that global warming isn't man made, but naturally occurring, and then make a case for why we need to reduce, reuse, recycle (and all that jazz too).

I also am perfectly willing to accept the fact that I am a societal oddball.

I don't really have arguments for all of those topics however, and didn't even realize that some of them were actually debated.
How old were you when you realized you're a serial killer?
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: Cougar1 on January 11, 2017, 05:17:57 PM
What "war on science" are you referring to n?

The one you can read about here (March 2015 issue). It includes some interesting ideas about what's behind the historically fairly recent growth of public skepticism in scientific findings, including the way the Internet has made it possible for people to become their own experts and live in a "filter bubble" that lets in only the information they already agree with.

(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa428/n9531l/2017-01-07%2016.55.36_zpsjrjkxuxs.jpg)

"Science" has its own culpability in this phenomena.  All too often we have seen scientists skew or falsify data to achieve an objective, then when caught complain about  "war on science". Likewise when "science" says we need to "end the debate" it calls into question its impartiality.

That is precisely how it is VG. When you see data skewed for the express purpose of trying to "prove" something they have lost all credibility.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 12, 2017, 06:13:25 AM
When you see data skewed for the express purpose of trying to "prove" something they have lost all credibility.

When you say "they" are you referring to scientists in general or to the people who skewed the data?
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 12, 2017, 06:32:02 AM
All too often we have seen scientists skew or falsify data to achieve an objective, then when caught complain about  "war on science".

I'm curious about how you propose to quantify that claim. There are close to two million scientific papers published each year. In 2016, how many authors complained about "war on science" after being caught falsifying data? Do your figures justify the use of the phrase "all too often"?
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ctc on January 12, 2017, 09:18:33 AM
All too often we have seen scientists skew or falsify data to achieve an objective, then when caught complain about  "war on science".

I'm curious about how you propose to quantify that claim. There are close to two million scientific papers published each year. In 2016, how many authors complained about "war on science" after being caught falsifying data? Do your figures justify the use of the phrase "all too often"?
Much science is simply operational science.  Developing a better phone or a faster computer doesn't carry with political financial or an agenda.  Weed those out of all those papers and I believe the "war against science " is high.  This phrase is used against creationists all the time and unjustly so.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ViseGrip on January 12, 2017, 12:33:58 PM
All too often we have seen scientists skew or falsify data to achieve an objective, then when caught complain about  "war on science".

I'm curious about how you propose to quantify that claim. There are close to two million scientific papers published each year. In 2016, how many authors complained about "war on science" after being caught falsifying data? Do your figures justify the use of the phrase "all too often"?
"All too often" is clearly a subjective opinion, but one that is not unsupported.
Just a very quick google search offers several sources of support
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
http://phys.org/news/2016-10-scientific-wrong.html
http://reason.com/archives/2016/08/26/most-scientific-results-are-wrong-or-use
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/odds-are-its-wrong
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915-most-scientific-papers-are-probably-wrong/
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: Cougar1 on January 12, 2017, 02:20:08 PM
When you see data skewed for the express purpose of trying to "prove" something they have lost all credibility.

When you say "they" are you referring to scientists in general or to the people who skewed the data?
Those who were/are complicit in skewing data to prove their point.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 12, 2017, 07:03:03 PM
All too often we have seen scientists skew or falsify data to achieve an objective, then when caught complain about  "war on science".
Just a very quick google search offers several sources of support

I checked your sources of support and was not able to find the examples of authors of scientific papers complaining about "war on science" when criticized for either deceptive or sloppy research practices. Let me know if I overlooked such examples. Even if I did, scientists calling out other scientists for bad research would be a different kind of "war on science" than the kind implied by my poll.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: Cougar1 on January 12, 2017, 07:23:04 PM
n, when you have predictions, such as those in this piece, that are totally out of touch with reality (and still being made) how credible can your science be? http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 12, 2017, 07:32:49 PM
Actually, those predictions are not related to my science.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ViseGrip on January 12, 2017, 09:51:50 PM
All too often we have seen scientists skew or falsify data to achieve an objective, then when caught complain about  "war on science".
Just a very quick google search offers several sources of support

I checked your sources of support and was not able to find the examples of authors of scientific papers complaining about "war on science" when criticized for either deceptive or sloppy research practices. Let me know if I overlooked such examples. Even if I did, scientists calling out other scientists for bad research would be a different kind of "war on science" than the kind implied by my poll.
As you can see in those articles, researchers bias is a significant issue. When challenged about that bias, many in the climate change debates declare a "war on science".
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 13, 2017, 02:40:23 AM
As you can see in those articles, researchers bias is a significant issue. When challenged about that bias, many in the climate change debates declare a "war on science".

That may be the case. I just overlooked the examples of a scientist declaring a "war on science" in your sources, and don't feel like going back over them.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: Cougar1 on January 13, 2017, 06:24:39 AM
Actually, those predictions are not related to my science.

Your science?
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ctc on January 13, 2017, 09:43:43 AM
Science isn't unlike almost anything else in life.  Money, power, and agenda can and does corrupt it.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 13, 2017, 12:06:34 PM
Quote
n, when you have predictions, such as those in this piece, that are totally out of touch with reality (and still being made) how credible can your science be?

Actually, those predictions are not related to my science.
Your science?

Isn't that what you asked about?
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: Cougar1 on January 13, 2017, 01:59:41 PM
Quote
n, when you have predictions, such as those in this piece, that are totally out of touch with reality (and still being made) how credible can your science be?

Actually, those predictions are not related to my science.
Your science?

Isn't that what you asked about?
I'm referring to any "science" that uses anything other than the scientific method to come to conclusions. You said "my science" so I wasn't sure what you were referencing.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 13, 2017, 08:45:39 PM
You said "my science" so I wasn't sure what you were referencing.

When you said "your science", I assumed you meant whatever it is that I think science is. Since you have asked, I don't feel bad about giving a somewhat long-winded reply. My science is a method for gaining knowledge. It's sometimes presented in school under the heading of "scientific method". It's a method that is carried out by humans, so it's possible for it to be done well and also for it to be done badly.

Something about my science that people sometimes don't understand is that it is not about Truth. I used a capital T to avoid confusion with other common uses of the word truth. If your friend says "Tell me the truth, Cougar, did you really drink four beers before stepping on the mat?" he is not talking about Truth. By Truth I mean a collection of definitive answers to the major questions many people have about the purpose and significance of human existence. An example of such a question would be, "Does each human being have a soul that survives death?"

If you are looking for understanding and explanations of why things happen as they do in the natural world, my science is a good bet for helping you. But it is not able, nor does it claim to be able, to answer questions about Truth. That's not a problem for me, because personally I think Truth is overrated. But it may be uncomfortable for some people to think they may never learn the Truth. For them, I think there are two main avenues for getting to the Truth, namely philosophy and religion, the choice depending on whether they are more attuned to Truth through introspection or Truth through revelation. I think religion would be the better choice. With over five thousand religions to choose from, the chances are very good of finding one whose version of the Truth is close to what one was hoping it would be. Having so many versions of Truth available is one of my reasons for thinking it's overrated.

Meanwhile I'm satisfied wih foregoing any chance of learning the Truth, and being happy with the chance at gaining knowledge and understanding provided by my science. This is the context in which I read your question when you referred to "your science", but it seems you may have had something different in mind.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: Cougar1 on January 14, 2017, 08:58:58 AM
You said "my science" so I wasn't sure what you were referencing.

When you said "your science", I assumed you meant whatever it is that I think science is. Since you have asked, I don't feel bad about giving a somewhat long-winded reply. My science is a method for gaining knowledge. It's sometimes presented in school under the heading of "scientific method". It's a method that is carried out by humans, so it's possible for it to be done well and also for it to be done badly.

Something about my science that people sometimes don't understand is that it is not about Truth. I used a capital T to avoid confusion with other common uses of the word truth. If your friend says "Tell me the truth, Cougar, did you really drink four beers before stepping on the mat?" he is not talking about Truth. By Truth I mean a collection of definitive answers to the major questions many people have about the purpose and significance of human existence. An example of such a question would be, "Does each human being have a soul that survives death?"

If you are looking for understanding and explanations of why things happen as they do in the natural world, my science is a good bet for helping you. But it is not able, nor does it claim to be able, to answer questions about Truth. That's not a problem for me, because personally I think Truth is overrated. But it may be uncomfortable for some people to think they may never learn the Truth. For them, I think there are two main avenues for getting to the Truth, namely philosophy and religion, the choice depending on whether they are more attuned to Truth through introspection or Truth through revelation. I think religion would be the better choice. With over five thousand religions to choose from, the chances are very good of finding one whose version of the Truth is close to what one was hoping it would be. Having so many versions of Truth available is one of my reasons for thinking it's overrated.

Meanwhile I'm satisfied wih foregoing any chance of learning the Truth, and being happy with the chance at gaining knowledge and understanding provided by my science. This is the context in which I read your question when you referred to "your science", but it seems you may have had something different in mind.

It was a bit confusing but your "long-winded" response is sufficient to clear it up.  :)

The scientific method is a reasonable approach to understanding anything in the natural world. Obviously, it cannot provide all the answers. In the case of evolutionary theory it cannot be proven and therefore must be understood as theoretical. In the case of climate change it's a bit nebulous as well though the impact of humans should certainly be taken into account and we do have a responsibility to be good stewards of the natural world we live in. It becomes problematic for me when "scientists" insist their theories are right and should be dogmatically worshipped by everyone. Personally, I think the "war on science" is the result of these people. It's a bit like politics. Facts are facts, and they should be able to be agreed upon in a non partisan way when they are presented.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: scmathlete on January 14, 2017, 09:10:32 PM
I really like taking the "traditional" conclusions from one side in these debates, and using the "traditional" other sides reasons behind it, if for no other reason than for the intellectual exercise, and the bafflement/confusion of the other people.

For instance, I like to take a fundamentalist christian argument to show why evolution has to exist.   I also like to take the conclusion that global warming is manmade, and use it as an argument against recycling, reducing, and reusing (and all that jazz). I also like to take the stance that global warming isn't man made, but naturally occurring, and then make a case for why we need to reduce, reuse, recycle (and all that jazz too).

I also am perfectly willing to accept the fact that I am a societal oddball.

I don't really have arguments for all of those topics however, and didn't even realize that some of them were actually debated.
How old were you when you realized you're a serial killer?

 I can't be a serial killer until I actually carry out more than one/two murders, right?

However,  I think it was around my second week of teaching high school that I realized that I'd never be able to do what other people's thought made me want to do to them, and I'd just have to patiently get my point across in very different ways.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 14, 2017, 09:20:55 PM
In the case of evolutionary theory it cannot be proven and therefore must be understood as theoretical.

Which simply means evolutionary theory is like every other scientific theory.

Quote
It becomes problematic for me when "scientists" insist their theories are right and should be dogmatically worshipped by everyone.

I read a lot of scientific material and can't remember the last time I encountered a case fitting that description. Most likely it's because in their training most scientists have had it drummed into their heads so firmly that all scientific theories are inherently tentative.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: Cougar1 on January 15, 2017, 10:43:01 AM
In the case of evolutionary theory it cannot be proven and therefore must be understood as theoretical.

Which simply means evolutionary theory is like every other scientific theory.

Quote
It becomes problematic for me when "scientists" insist their theories are right and should be dogmatically worshipped by everyone.

I read a lot of scientific material and can't remember the last time I encountered a case fitting that description. Most likely it's because in their training most scientists have had it drummed into their heads so firmly that all scientific theories are inherently tentative.
My experience with public education is that evolutionary theory is taught as fact. The precise manner of which evolution took place may be a matter of disagreement, but not the theory itself. Anyone who takes issue with the fact is considered foolish. The same seems toby applied to the global warming discussion. If you don't accept the fact of global warming you are a climate change denier, and thus a fool. It may be quite different in scientific journals, etc.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 15, 2017, 01:56:26 PM
Those who teach evolutionary theory as fact are doing their students a major disservice, but I don't doubt it's happening. I've been convinced for years that our schools are doing a poor job of teaching how science works.

The case of global warming is somewhat different, since it's not a theory but an observation, the reporting of a series of measurements. The associated theory that human activity has played a significant part in the measured warming is what someone could reasonably take issue with. Those who claim global warming is a hoax in which a worldwide conspiracy has enabled the perpetrators to alter several centuries' worth of temperature records probably have too much time on their hands.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: Cougar1 on January 16, 2017, 01:18:09 PM
Those who teach evolutionary theory as fact are doing their students a major disservice, but I don't doubt it's happening. I've been convinced for years that our schools are doing a poor job of teaching how science works.

The case of global warming is somewhat different, since it's not a theory but an observation, the reporting of a series of measurements. The associated theory that human activity has played a significant part in the measured warming is what someone could reasonably take issue with. Those who claim global warming is a hoax in which a worldwide conspiracy has enabled the perpetrators to alter several centuries' worth of temperature records probably have too much time on their hands.

I have no problem with that n. It's the scare tactics and skewing of data, along with demonizing those who are not in lock step agreement, that I have a problem with. I am all for responsible stewardship of our natural world but not absurd over reactions.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ViseGrip on January 16, 2017, 04:41:07 PM
Those who teach evolutionary theory as fact are doing their students a major disservice, but I don't doubt it's happening. I've been convinced for years that our schools are doing a poor job of teaching how science works.

The case of global warming is somewhat different, since it's not a theory but an observation, the reporting of a series of measurements. The associated theory that human activity has played a significant part in the measured warming is what someone could reasonably take issue with. Those who claim global warming is a hoax in which a worldwide conspiracy has enabled the perpetrators to alter several centuries' worth of temperature records probably have too much time on their hands.
I agree with you on teaching evolutionary theory as fact, but I doubt its being done anywhere but in private Christian schools.

While I dont believe there is a conspiracy, but that does not mean it hasnt happened or that there isnt conflicting data that they sometimes ignore justifying it by telling themselves it will just confuse the public.   
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: scmathlete on January 22, 2017, 10:24:06 PM
I've been purposely throwing away recyclables in the regular trash, driving an SUV around the block by myself for no discernible purpose, and burning almost anything in my backyard for years in hopes that the oceans would rise enough to give me beachfront property for years with no noticeable improvement whatsoever in getting the atlantic any closer to my house.
In fact, it takes our family just as long to get to the darn beach as it did when I was just a little tyke.

At some point, I'm going to believe that I was lied to all through middle and high school, and all of my hard work has been for nothing. 
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 23, 2017, 12:49:33 AM
But have you decided how many millions of people you're willing to be drowned in order to get you some beachfront property?
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ctc on January 23, 2017, 09:05:33 AM
But have you decided how many millions of people you're willing to be drowned in order to get you some beachfront property?
Are they immovable objects?
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 23, 2017, 10:55:35 AM
But have you decided how many millions of people you're willing to be drowned in order to get you some beachfront property?
Are they immovable objects?

Where's that old thinking cap when you need it? Individually no, but as a group of hundreds of millions, yes, in practical terms. Don't forget the earth's oceans are connected. If scmathlete succeeds in getting the Atlantic coast moved near his home, the same movement will occur at every ocean coastline in the world. And he wants a quick result.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ctc on January 23, 2017, 11:19:25 AM
But have you decided how many millions of people you're willing to be drowned in order to get you some beachfront property?
Are they immovable objects?

Where's that old thinking cap when you need it? Individually no, but as a group of hundreds of millions, yes, in practical terms. Don't forget the earth's oceans are connected. If scmathlete succeeds in getting the Atlantic coast moved near his home, the same movement will occur at every ocean coastline in the world. And he wants a quick result.
The Earth's oceans are connected?  When did this happen.   ;D  You said they would drown.  They will if they are stupid enough to stand there and watch the ocean rise over their heads without moving to higher ground.  Are you expecting the oceans to rise extremely fast so as to catch them by surprise?
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ViseGrip on January 23, 2017, 11:23:49 AM
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/an-inconvenient-review-after-10-years-al-gores-film-is-still-alarmingly-inaccurate/
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 23, 2017, 02:00:21 PM
The Earth's oceans are connected?  When did this happen.

Take a look at a globe next time you're close to one.

Quote
Are you expecting the oceans to rise extremely fast so as to catch them by surprise?

Perhaps. It depends on how effective scmathlete's method turns out to be.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ctc on January 23, 2017, 02:12:25 PM
The Earth's oceans are connected?  When did this happen.

Take a look at a globe next time you're close to one.


Hello, McFly.  You can't recognize comedy on my part?  I mean really?
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ViseGrip on January 23, 2017, 02:47:20 PM
But have you decided how many millions of people you're willing to be drowned in order to get you some beachfront property?
I think scmathlete's statement was heavily dipped in sarcasm and not meant to be literal.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: n9531l on January 23, 2017, 03:18:35 PM
But have you decided how many millions of people you're willing to be drowned in order to get you some beachfront property?
I think scmathlete's statement was heavily dipped in sarcasm and not meant to be literal.

As was my reply. As was ctc's reply to my reply, unless I overestimated him. How good is this site if we can't have a little fun sometimes.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ctc on January 23, 2017, 03:19:58 PM
But have you decided how many millions of people you're willing to be drowned in order to get you some beachfront property?
I think scmathlete's statement was heavily dipped in sarcasm and not meant to be literal.

As was my reply. As was ctc's reply to my reply, unless I overestimated him. How good is this site if we can't have a little fun sometimes.
All's good.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: mspart on January 23, 2017, 03:41:28 PM
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7gGausCnnI3QZRimbD7UXuNGYZplWM9yHIyw-0EWDru8ZyZxLNw)

mspart
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: fsgrecofolk on January 23, 2017, 05:54:55 PM
Hard to distinguish sarcasm when the scientifically illiterate and ignornant speak.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: scmathlete on January 23, 2017, 09:37:44 PM
In all honesty if I really thought that I had a chance at getting beachfront property (I live well over 100 miles from the Atlantic) simply by throwing my empty worn out cardboard boxes in the regular trash instead or the recycling bin ... I'd do it in a heartbeat, sell to the first decent bidder, and move like lightning to the highest mountains I can find cause we'd all be in serious trouble.

I've also heard that methane and other gasses cause tons of CO2 issues, and wondered if we could fix it by stopping with all of this vegetable eating, and just eat all of the animals that we can as fast as we can. While it may not be a good long-term solution, can you imagine how awesome it would be "saving the planet" by eating steak, with a side of chicken and bbq instead of veggies/beans, and whatnot cause "you care"
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ViseGrip on January 24, 2017, 11:20:24 AM
In all honesty if I really thought that I had a chance at getting beachfront property (I live well over 100 miles from the Atlantic) simply by throwing my empty worn out cardboard boxes in the regular trash instead or the recycling bin ... I'd do it in a heartbeat, sell to the first decent bidder, and move like lightning to the highest mountains I can find cause we'd all be in serious trouble.

I've also heard that methane and other gasses cause tons of CO2 issues, and wondered if we could fix it by stopping with all of this vegetable eating, and just eat all of the animals that we can as fast as we can. While it may not be a good long-term solution, can you imagine how awesome it would be "saving the planet" by eating steak, with a side of chicken and bbq instead of veggies/beans, and whatnot cause "you care"


Sorry... that wont work. Cow flatulence is one of the main contributors to methane gas. Looks like if we want a clear conscience, we have to eat only fish... caught from the shore or from sailboats.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: mspart on January 24, 2017, 12:34:59 PM
Don't fish also have flatulence?

mspart
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ctc on January 24, 2017, 04:13:47 PM
I do my part to save the planet.  I pee in the shower.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/science-save-earth-peeing-shower-190635500.html?ref=gs
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ViseGrip on January 24, 2017, 06:08:31 PM
Don't fish also have flatulence?

mspart

Yes...but other than fish farms, which will obviously have to go as well, we arent farming them, therefore they are exempt.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: Ray Brinzer on January 24, 2017, 07:15:09 PM
I do my part to save the planet.  I pee in the shower.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/science-save-earth-peeing-shower-190635500.html?ref=gs

I tried that. Unfortunately, I got such bad reactions from the person taking a shower that I was obliged to stop.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ctc on January 24, 2017, 09:16:04 PM
I do my part to save the planet.  I pee in the shower.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/science-save-earth-peeing-shower-190635500.html?ref=gs

I tried that. Unfortunately, I got such bad reactions from the person taking a shower that I was obliged to stop.
Yeah, I know what you mean.  Now I avoid the community showers.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: lkwdsteve on January 25, 2017, 08:54:54 AM
Am I ahead of the curve, or behind the curve, when my thoughts on science are about child psychology, pharma, gender neutrality, and alt-eugenics?
The latest:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/01/24/biologists-breed-life-form-with-lab-made-dna-dont-call-it-jurassic-park/?utm_term=.e5987099e19f

Leftist psychologists are sure to be taking heed! Leftist sociologists agree to put their goal of a gender neutral race in abeyance in favor of the more immediate goal of changing the DNA of Trump voters.
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: ViseGrip on February 06, 2017, 09:57:17 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: mspart on February 06, 2017, 03:42:37 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

Probably should go on the Politics page for discussion.

mspart
Title: Re: Which Battleground in the War on Science?
Post by: Cougar1 on February 07, 2017, 01:42:27 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

Probably should go on the Politics page for discussion.

mspart
Don't do it! RV would pee his pants!  :D