Science Denial on the Rise (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Brain -> Science Denial on the Rise (1/7/2010 6:11:26 PM)



I am a pretty scientific person these days and if you can prove something to me based on evidence and facts I'm okay with it.


Science Denial on the Rise

From evolution to global warming to vaccines, science is under assault from denialists--those who dismiss well-tested scientific knowledge as merely one of many competing ideologies. Science denial goes beyond skeptical questioning to attack the legitimacy of science itself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-newton/science-denial-on-the-ris_b_413848.html




Real0ne -> RE: Science Denial on the Rise (1/7/2010 6:18:41 PM)

yeh no shit!  after farce of global warming and 911 they will be lucky if they can get enough funding to do fart stink testing.




DarkSteven -> RE: Science Denial on the Rise (1/7/2010 6:30:50 PM)

That article is hideous.

First off, it does not properly define "science".  At one point, it implies that it is the scientific method itself.  At another, it implies that it is the sum total of what is generally accepted conclusions which have been arrived at via the scientific method.

The author makes the claim that because science must pass rigorous review by experts (which he defines as people who have a certain unspecified level of education and "competence"), it's gotta be right.  Then he derides the criticism by people who evidently don;t have the education or competence he likes.  That's called elitism, and he handles it as deftly as a meat cleaver.

The guy really cheesed me off when he claimed that the "denialists" pick their battles and that somehow that is wrong.  Tough noogies - if someone believes in creationism, then he will disagree with evolution, and expecting them to pick another disagreement is ridiculous.




thornhappy -> RE: Science Denial on the Rise (1/7/2010 6:48:51 PM)

The Huffington Post generally has a sucky reputation for any medical articles - it doesn't surprise me that they're getting science wrong.

But, referring back to the subject of the article - I don't think we'd have half the issues with "denialism" if we had decent science education in the primary and secondary schools.  In addition it would be good to teach the history of science, and to see that theories can change over time as new discoveries are made.




luckydawg -> RE: Science Denial on the Rise (1/7/2010 7:05:08 PM)

anyone who has noticed your rants about vaccines, realises that you don't have even a casual grasp of science Brain....




DCWoody -> RE: Science Denial on the Rise (1/7/2010 8:18:30 PM)

Science denial is on the rise perhaps because science has been weakened by the way it's used in the media. The vaccine scare that occured over here was started by science. Very very bad science, but it was a scientist, not religion. Scientists say this, scientists say that, scientifically formulated anti aging formula adverts.
Scientists prove the average person eats 7 spiders per year while sleeping. How did that experiment go exactly.

The global warming thing could prove incredibly damaging if it turns out to be rubbish.....it seems very tenuous science to me, which doesn't mean wrong.....merely, difficult....far from certain....yet is presented as inarguable fact by much of the media. It's a consequence of newspapers/etc liking to sum things up as simple definites.


It is a tricky subject to solve, if you try to organise official ways of finding scientific truths, you get things like IPCC, which has an inbuilt conflict of interest......if you don't....from what I hear, areas of the usa would have voted evolution out of schools.

I think ya just have to take subject by subject, and I disagree with people trying to stop 'science denial' in general....science should (is) constantly arguing with itself, large doses of scepticism and denial are a very good thing IMO. I don't see that there can be such a thing as 'science denial' outside of considering the most fundamental taliban style religious types....science isn't an organisation, or a specific set of beliefs or opinions.




Arpig -> RE: Science Denial on the Rise (1/7/2010 8:24:11 PM)

quote:

In addition it would be good to teach the history of science, and to see that theories can change over time as new discoveries are made.
I couldn't agree more if I were paid to.




Fellow -> RE: Science Denial on the Rise (1/7/2010 9:35:25 PM)

Scientism and "materialism euphoria" has became too dominant and it is turning into inhibiting force. I do not agree with denial attempts but we need to understand the limits of natural sciences.




Kirata -> RE: Science Denial on the Rise (1/7/2010 9:59:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

yeh no shit! after farce of global warming and 911 they will be lucky if they can get enough funding to do fart stink testing.

They may have already done that. I haven't checked the archives. These are among the 2009 Ignoble Awards:

VETERINARY MEDICINE PRIZE: Catherine Douglas and Peter Rowlinson of Newcastle University, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, UK, for showing that cows who have names give more milk than cows that are nameless.

PEACE PRIZE: Stephan Bolliger, Steffen Ross, Lars Oesterhelweg, Michael Thali and Beat Kneubuehl of the University of Bern, Switzerland, for determining — by experiment — whether it is better to be smashed over the head with a full bottle of beer or with an empty bottle.

PHYSICS PRIZE: Katherine K. Whitcome of the University of Cincinnati, USA, Daniel E. Lieberman of Harvard University, USA, and Liza J. Shapiro of the University of Texas, USA, for analytically determining why pregnant women don't tip over.


Science on the march. Keep your checkbook handy, we need to know these things.

K.







DCWoody -> RE: Science Denial on the Rise (1/7/2010 10:14:24 PM)

@Kirata,
Things aren't always as ridicuous as they seem, firstly because unis are constantly doing studies with the students....it's part of the teaching process, they have to find something to do, and secondly....general media oversimplification.
Looking a bit deeper it seems the newcastle study wasn't that you can name cows bill ben bob bruce bill ben bob bruce rather than cow1 cow2 cow3 cow4....and get more milk, it was between cows treated as groups and individually. The....apparently substantial...theory being that cows having regular one to one interaction with humans will be more relaxed with people and milk better.
Which is fairly relevant research for someone whose job title is apparently "Senior Lecturer in Animal Production Science"




AquaticSub -> RE: Science Denial on the Rise (1/7/2010 10:20:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

PHYSICS PRIZE: Katherine K. Whitcome of the University of Cincinnati, USA, Daniel E. Lieberman of Harvard University, USA, and Liza J. Shapiro of the University of Texas, USA, for analytically determining why pregnant women don't tip over.



While this may sound trivial, I suspect the studies were to gain more information on how humans maintain their balence. Which, as it adds to our understanding of our bodies, could prove useful.




Kirata -> RE: Science Denial on the Rise (1/7/2010 10:21:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody

cows having regular one to one interaction with humans will be more relaxed with people

Well damn, who'd've thought! [:D]

K.








DCWoody -> RE: Science Denial on the Rise (1/7/2010 10:32:11 PM)

Well, everyone, good point.....but the info that it makes an average difference of 500+litres* milk per year could be pretty useful.

*They had an exact number, but I forget it.




NihilusZero -> RE: Science Denial on the Rise (1/7/2010 10:39:08 PM)

Anti-intellectualism has be thriving for years now. It's simply much more convenient to claim your dreamed up ideas should demand intellectual affirmative action than to have them be remotely veridical or logical or supportable by consistent testing.




NihilusZero -> RE: Science Denial on the Rise (1/7/2010 10:50:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

The author makes the claim that because science must pass rigorous review by experts (which he defines as people who have a certain unspecified level of education and "competence"), it's gotta be right. Then he derides the criticism by people who evidently don;t have the education or competence he likes.  That's called elitism, and he handles it as deftly as a meat cleaver.

Well, that's how it normally happens in life. I take my car to 10 mechanics with over 80 years of experience between them and they all say my car needs a new starter, but my next door neighbor with the Car & Driver magazine subscription tells me it's actually a spark plug I need (without ever actually looking at my car, no less)...then presumably I shouldn't be elitist and discount his idea because the other guys are more learned?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

The guy really cheesed me off when he claimed that the "denialists" pick their battles and that somehow that is wrong.  Tough noogies - if someone believes in creationism, then he will disagree with evolution, and expecting them to pick another disagreement is ridiculous.

Actually, he insinuated that the cover for "fairness" is actually a lie...which it is. Creationists don't want equal time for creation theories...they only want "equal time" for theirs. It couldn't have been demonstrated more beautifully than during a debate between Michael Shermer and Duane Gish back in '01, in which Shermer recounts a part of the event:

quote:

For me the highlight of the evening was when I polled the audience as to how
many agreed with Gish that the creation story should be taught in public
schools. A veritable phalanx of hands shot up. I then went through a series
of slides of different creation stories from around the world, asking for a
show of hands as to how many think that this creation story or that creation
story should be taught in public schools. Of course, no one raised their
hands because they think all these other creation stories are silly myths.
These are from the chapter in my book Why People Believe Weird Things on how
to debate a creationist:

--No Creation Story from India, where "The world has always existed as it is
now, unchanging from eternity."

--The Slain Monster Creation Story from Sumeria-Babylonia, where "The world
was created from the parts of a slain monster."

--The Primordial Parents Creation Stories from the Zuni Indians, Cook
Islanders, and Egyptians, where "The world was created by the interaction
of primordial parents."

--The Cosmic Egg Creation Stories from Japan, Samoa, Persia, and China, where
"The world was generated from an egg."

--The Sea Creation Stories from the Burmese, Choctaw Indians, and Icelanders,
where "The world was created from out of the sea."

--The Spoken Edict Creation Stories from the Mayans, the Egyptians, and the
Hebrews, where "The world sprang into being at the command of a god."

When I got to this last slide no one raised their hand, so I left if up and
said, "Uh, are you SURE you don't want this last one taught, because THIS
creation story is YOURS." Slowly it dawned on them what I was doing. Some
hands started to go up, but the rest didn't want to be trapped any further. I
then drove home the point that to insist that the government force public
school children to learn one religious creation story to the exclusion of all
others is not only in violation of the First Amendment's establishment
clause, it is religious bigotry. Since they didn't seem to be getting my
point, I went over the top and yelled out "Shame on you. SHAME ON YOU. This
is bigotry. It is racism. And it is wrong."




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Science Denial on the Rise (1/7/2010 11:33:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

PEACE PRIZE: Stephan Bolliger, Steffen Ross, Lars Oesterhelweg, Michael Thali and Beat Kneubuehl of the University of Bern, Switzerland, for determining — by experiment — whether it is better to be smashed over the head with a full bottle of beer or with an empty bottle.




Better as defined.... how? Better in the sense that one doesn't hurt as much as the other, or better in the sense that one doesn't waste as much beer? We need to know what they mean by "better," because their idea of better may not be the same as my idea of better.




popeye1250 -> RE: Science Denial on the Rise (1/7/2010 11:55:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain



I am a pretty scientific person these days and if you can prove something to me based on evidence and facts I'm okay with it.


Science Denial on the Rise

From evolution to global warming to vaccines, science is under assault from denialists--those who dismiss well-tested scientific knowledge as merely one of many competing ideologies. Science denial goes beyond skeptical questioning to attack the legitimacy of science itself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-newton/science-denial-on-the-ris_b_413848.html



Brain, I was never a scientific person until this "global warming" crap came up and I started reading about it.
Do you really think the words "science" and "global warming" belong in the same sentance?
"Political science" maybe. "Might happen," "Could happen," "is possable" is not science it's pure conjecture!
Now in *real science* who's doing all the denying? I don't see any.




EbonyWood -> RE: Science Denial on the Rise (1/8/2010 12:43:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda


Better as defined.... how? Better in the sense that one doesn't hurt as much as the other, or better in the sense that one doesn't waste as much beer? We need to know what they mean by "better," because their idea of better may not be the same as my idea of better.



I've never seen three better sentences.




Fellow -> RE: Science Denial on the Rise (1/8/2010 12:59:29 AM)

I do agree with popeye1250. We have two things here: the one is political agenda (where HP article belongs as well) and the other is an actual scientific discussion. Political agenda tries to ridicule the opposing side. For example instead of covering the debate between climatologists who oppose global warming "consensus" they bring out Rush Limbaugh. The same with Neo-Darwinism; they cover what  some uninformed religious group leaders have to say about the issue. So, the scientists are actually effectively cut off the debate. The Neo-Darwinist theory of evolution is weak and so is the global change theory. However, it does not mean we have to oppose them. The best way to change something would be to offer an alternative that explains things better.




pahunkboy -> RE: Science Denial on the Rise (1/8/2010 3:11:58 AM)

WHAT?

Someone tell me our media did not say this!

JUNK SCIENCE!  

millions of us are dead from h1n1.   remember?   or are you so hypnotized you cant think for yourself?




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875