The Republican Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

The President makes $400k/yr

 

Ah, guess I never heard that the pay was bumped. Still, that's a ton of money for that guy.

[StrangeSox]

In that the Pope and certain scientists are so hell-bent on their view of the world that they're completely closed off from any other possible explanation.

 

Go read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." There's some merit in saying that scientists become closed-minded to newer theories that supplant their own work. There's no merit in comparing that to the infallible Catholic Pope who claims to be speaking for his God. There's no merit in equivocating on the word "faith" and saying religion and science take equal amounts of it.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Go read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." There's some merit in saying that scientists become closed-minded to newer theories that supplant their own work. There's no merit in comparing that to the infallible Catholic Pope who claims to be speaking for his God. There's no merit in equivocating on the word "faith" and saying religion and science take equal amounts of it.

 

I'm not equivocating the word faith since i'm not equating the means in which the Pope arrives at his belief/faith and a scientist arrives at his. I'm merely equating the stubbornness of both sides to consider the fact that they could be wrong.

 

But you can't deny that scientific theory still relies on SOME faith (or belief, whatever the word you want to use) because theories require guess work. Yes, it's educated and tested guesswork, but it's still a calculated guess as to the reason why something happens without knowing for certain. You have to have faith/belief that the unknown fact you rely upon to reach your conclusion is as you think it to be. It's not to the same degree as religious faith, but it still exists.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

I'm not equivocating the word faith since i'm not equating the means in which the Pope arrives at his belief/faith and a scientist arrives at his. I'm merely equating the stubbornness of both sides to consider the fact that they could be wrong.

 

But you can't deny that scientific theory still relies on SOME faith (or belief, whatever the word you want to use) because theories require guess work. Yes, it's educated and tested guesswork, but it's still a calculated guess as to the reason why something happens without knowing for certain. You have to have faith/belief that the unknown fact you rely upon to reach your conclusion is as you think it to be. It's not to the same degree as religious faith, but it still exists.

 

Sure, that's why I posted the Relativity of Wrong and frequently mention provisional truth whenever this topic comes up.

 

"A healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing," which appears to be what you're advocating in this last post, isn't a defense for the anti-intellectual, anti-science crap from a good portion of the right.

 

edit:here's a good link explaining provisional truth. See #3 and #4.

http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=..._and_reason.php

Edited March 9, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Sure, that's why I posted the Relativity of Wrong and frequently mention provisional truth whenever this topic comes up.

 

"A healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing," which appears to be what you're advocating in this last post, isn't a defense for the anti-intellectual, anti-science crap from a good portion of the right.

 

I'm saying that IMO you misconstrue the anti-intellectual/anti-science crowd when in reality it's more the "a health dose of skepticism is good" crowd (ignoring the extreme people obviously). Just because you question portions of evolutionary theory doesn't mean that you're anti-science. It means you're a skeptic. Just because you argue against the government spending hundreds of billions on global warming doesn't mean you're just a hillbilly with your head in the sand. It means you're a skeptic. There's nothing wrong with that, and to assume that those people are merely uneducated (like the NPR guy) leads to the elitist labels and just further kills any actual progress on these issues.

 

[StrangeSox]

No, sorry, you're wrong. There's no other way to put it if you think it's the "healthy-skepticism" crowd instead of the "willfully and proudly ignorant" crowd.

 

We are talking about the anti-evolution, "I'm not a monkey!" crowd here. We're talking about the "GLOBAL WARMING IS THE GREATEST HOAX EVER!" crowd here. We're talking about the significant portion of Americans who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. There's a strong correlation between these groups and right-wing politics. It's apparent in their policies and their legislation. It comes up again and again with anti-evolution, anti-science bills in state legislatures.

 

It's not about skepticism. It's about rejection of scientific theories because they conflict with pre-conceived notions of how the world works.

Edited March 9, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Here's an excellent article from Nature recently.

[Jenksismyhero]

No, sorry, you're wrong. There's no other way to put it if you think it's the "healthy-skepticism" crowd instead of the "willfully and proudly ignorant" crowd.

 

We are talking about the anti-evolution, "I'm not a monkey!" crowd here. We're talking about the "GLOBAL WARMING IS THE GREATEST HOAX EVER!" crowd here. We're talking about the significant portion of Americans who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. There's a strong correlation between these groups and right-wing politics. It's apparent in their policies and their legislation. It comes up again and again with anti-evolution, anti-science bills in state legislatures.

 

It's not about skepticism. It's about rejection of scientific theories because they conflict with pre-conceived notions of how the world works.

 

Well, we'll agree to disagree. I don't think the right's position is "we know how the world operates because a book tells us so." That might be a small minority, but not the majority. Nor do I think that's a right-only belief since the country itself is overwhelmingly christian.

 

[StrangeSox]

No, I'll agree that your statements are absurd and easily contradicted by examining stated policy and legislative action.

[Jenksismyhero]

No, I'll agree that your statements are absurd and easily contradicted by examining stated policy and legislative action.

 

Lol, whatever man. Continue to believe that the 5 loudest people on cable and radio speak for the millions of conservatives out there.

[StrangeSox]

"Agree to disagree" is code for "I can't support my argument, but I still think I'm right"

[Jenksismyhero]

"Agree to disagree" is code for "I can't support my argument, but I still think I'm right"

 

Yep, that's it.

[StrangeSox]

Healthy skepticism bill, not anti-science bill, from Florida!

 

New Mexico healthy skepticism bill!

 

Efforts to repeal creationism in Louisiana!

 

Let's not forget the whole debacle with the Texas BOE last year!

 

Those are just some easy links to recent conservative anti-science policy and legislation. Which was largely supported by the conservative bases in teh area. But please keep pretending that it only happens to be all of the conservatives on TV and radio with massive conservative support with those beliefs, and not millions of everyday conservatives. Even though plenty of polls show otherwise. Even though elections and proposed bills and trials like Dover and the reaction from much of the right show otherwise.

 

Now tie those in with the wide-spread rejection of climate science, go so far as to call it a deliberate liberal hoax for tax and control. A common conservative meme. Add in the frequent derision of "intellectuals" and "academia" and ivory towers. Frequent attacks on funny-sounding science like "volcano monitoring" or fruit fly research in stump speeches. Opposition to stem cell research. Proposed massive budget cuts for NIH and NSF.

 

And then try to tell me it's just about healthy skepticism. All of this outside attack on the entire establishment of science is just a needed dose of skepticism, as if there isn't plenty of disagreement and skepticism within the scientific community.

Edited March 9, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Healthy skepticism bill, not anti-science bill, from Florida!

 

New Mexico healthy skepticism bill!

 

Efforts to repeal creationism in Louisiana!

 

Let's not forget the whole debacle with the Texas BOE last year!

 

Those are just some easy links to recent conservative anti-science policy and legislation. Which was largely supported by the conservative bases in teh area. But please keep pretending that it only happens to be all of the conservatives on TV and radio with massive conservative support with those beliefs, and not millions of everyday conservatives. Even though plenty of polls show otherwise. Even though elections and proposed bills and trials like Dover and the reaction from much of the right show otherwise.

 

Are you actually looking at the language of these? Examples:

 

"The bill says the state "shall not prohibit any teacher, when a controversial scientific topic is being taught in accordance with adopted standards and curricula, from informing students about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses pertaining to that topic. A teacher who chooses to provide such information shall be protected from reassignment, termination, discipline or other discrimination for doing so."

 

20 (2) Members of the instructional staff of the public

21 schools, subject to the rules of the State Board of Education

22 and the district school board, shall teach efficiently and

23 faithfully, using the books and materials required to that meet

24 the highest standards for professionalism and historic accuracy,

25 following the prescribed courses of study, and employing

26 approved methods of instruction, the following:

27 (a) A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the

28 scientific theory of evolution.

 

 

Oh gawd, how terrible! Analysis and skepticism isn't allowed in school!

 

These are so broad and unspecific, what's the problem? If anything these are added protections for teachers. Shouldn't you be in favor of that?

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Healthy skepticism bill, not anti-science bill, from Florida!

 

New Mexico healthy skepticism bill!

 

Efforts to repeal creationism in Louisiana!

 

Let's not forget the whole debacle with the Texas BOE last year!

 

Those are just some easy links to recent conservative anti-science policy and legislation. Which was largely supported by the conservative bases in teh area. But please keep pretending that it only happens to be all of the conservatives on TV and radio with massive conservative support with those beliefs, and not millions of everyday conservatives. Even though plenty of polls show otherwise. Even though elections and proposed bills and trials like Dover and the reaction from much of the right show otherwise.

 

Now tie those in with the wide-spread rejection of climate science, go so far as to call it a deliberate liberal hoax for tax and control. A common conservative meme. Add in the frequent derision of "intellectuals" and "academia" and ivory towers. Frequent attacks on funny-sounding science like "volcano monitoring" or fruit fly research in stump speeches. Opposition to stem cell research. Proposed massive budget cuts for NIH and NSF.

 

And then try to tell me it's just about healthy skepticism. All of this outside attack on the entire establishment of science is just a needed dose of skepticism, as if there isn't plenty of disagreement and skepticism within the scientific community.

 

Right, and tell me the liberal agenda of proposing global warming as an immediate danger requiring hundreds of billions is just Al Gore's great bleeding heart for the people of the world and not at all connected to the money that he and his buddies can make from it. GMAFB.

 

[StrangeSox]

Nope, please go back and read through the history of the whole "strengths and weaknesses" and "teach the controversy" bulls***. It's not about skepticism. At all. It's deliberate, targeted attacks strictly on evolution in favor of Christian creationism. It gives teachers cover to hand out religious pamphlets and worksheets attacking evolution.

Edited March 9, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Right, and tell me the liberal agenda of proposing global warming as an immediate danger requiring hundreds of billions is just Al Gore's great bleeding heart for the people of the world and not at all connected to the money that he and his buddies can make from it. GMAFB.

 

Yep, decades of scientific research around the world by thousands of people are just a conspiracy! It's all about a liberal agenda and Al Gore and his buddies making money! It's just a HOAX!

 

Thanks for demonstrating your anti-science bias so clearly and repeatedly in this thread.

[Jenksismyhero]

Nope, please go back and read through the history of the whole "strengths and weaknesses" and "teach the controversy" bulls***. It's not about skepticism. At all. It's deliberate, targeted attacks strictly on evolution in favor of Christian creationism. It gives teachers cover to hand out religious pamphlets and worksheets attacking evolution.

 

Both of those that I posted specifically say they have to be in line with the State Board of Education guidelines. You think those boards are full of academic types or priests attempting to convert the nation?

[StrangeSox]

Both of those that I posted specifically say they have to be in line with the State Board of Education guidelines. You think those boards are full of academic types or priests attempting to convert the nation?

 

Hmm, did you see the link about Texas? Did you miss their deliberate efforts last year to blatantly re-write history and science standards with a heavily pro-conservative bias?

 

Seriously, I'll understand just not being that familiar with the history behind that exact language in various bills over the past several decades since creation science was deemed unconstitutional. But it's incredibly loaded, incredibly anti-science and incredibly pro-religion.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yep, decades of scientific research around the world by thousands of people are just a conspiracy! It's all about a liberal agenda and Al Gore and his buddies making money! It's just a HOAX!

 

Thanks for demonstrating your anti-science bias so clearly and repeatedly in this thread.

 

Whatever, I'm feeding into your bulls*** conspiracy theory. I've readily admitted my position that I don't disagree with global warming. But I see no problem with people who are skeptical about human involvement and the proper way of fixing the problem. They're not "anti-intellectual" and "anti-science." Why can't you see the difference? Look through your GOP-hate.

[Jenksismyhero]

Hmm, did you see the link about Texas? Did you miss their deliberate efforts last year to blatantly re-write history and science standards with a heavily pro-conservative bias?

 

Seriously, I'll understand just not being that familiar with the history behind that exact language in various bills over the past several decades since creation science was deemed unconstitutional. But it's incredibly loaded, incredibly anti-science and incredibly pro-religion.

 

I will not attempt to explain Texas policy or the people from there.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I see a problem with people who are immune to learning new facts and critically examining something.

 

Why don't you agree with anthropological global warming? Most everything I've seen you post on it amounts to "AL GORE MONEY HOAX!", not any amount of healthy skepticism or questioning. What are your intellectual reasons for questioning it? Why are you throwing out a good amount of scientific studies and conclusions to reject it?

 

Why do most people reject it? Because they see it as part of environmentalism, which is seen a liberal p**** plot to ruin everything and cost jobs. They're not rejecting it on an intellectual basis. They've no interest in actually understanding the models, the projections, the criticisms and the responses. It's entirely political and emotional. It is anti-science and anti-intellectual.

 

I don't think Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Hannity and the millions of people who follow them have any real interest in climate science. They look at the issue purely from an ideological viewpoint.

Edited March 9, 2011 by StrangeSox

[BigSqwert]

I see a problem with people who are immune to learning new facts and critically examining something.

 

Why don't you agree with anthropological global warming? Most everything I've seen you post on it amounts to "AL GORE MONEY HOAX!", not any amount of healthy skepticism or questioning. What are your intellectual reasons for questioning it? Why are you throwing out a good amount of scientific studies and conclusions to reject it?

 

Why do most people reject it? Because they see it as part of environmentalism, which is seen a liberal p**** plot to ruin everything and cost jobs. They're not rejecting it on an intellectual basis. They've no interest in actually understanding the models, the projections, the criticisms and the responses. It's entirely political and emotional. It is anti-science and anti-intellectual.

[StrangeSox]

I'd just like to add that science has a built-in mechanism for skepticism: peer review and intellectual curiosity. People don't spend years of their lives getting a PhD just to defend some piece of dogma. They do it to learn how some particular part of the world works. Others who are also highly knowledgeable in the same field investigate the validity of their work. The most respected journals go to great lengths to verify data and claims, to ask questions of offers.

 

Skepticism that comes from outside, from people with little or no knowledge of the field and relevant science but with a strong ideological bent, well, that isn't really skepticism. It's denialism. It's not from a desire to understand, but from a desire to simply reject out of hand.

[mr_genius]

Al Gore is clearly exploiting global warming for monetary gain. So please don't come into this thread and tell us he's some scientist saving the world.

Edited March 9, 2011 by mr_genius