quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Actually, I do know what it means. I have extensive scientific and engineering experience. I am known by friends sometimes as Mr. Spock, not as Dr. McCoy, so you're simply wrong. Objectivity is an epistemological matter, indicating the strength of the relationship of the proposition at hand to reality. When the correspondence is low, well you have a problem. Popper had a few things to say about that, you know. What you are missing is that while ALL reputable scientists reject creationism because it has no falsifiable hypotheses and it posits the existence of a being whose existence cannot be proven because of a lack of objective attributes, among other things, it is false that ALL reputable scientists embrace anthropogenic global warming. Records have been falsified. Data have been backfilled. That's not science. Further, predictions made have -- not come true! When predictions fail, your model is faulty. Now, is this due to sunspot cycles, to the precession of the axes, to secular (i.e., long-term) climatologic variations, to volcanic activity? Well, there are so many confounding variables that it is notably hard to determine for sure. What we can do is say that the models' predictions have not worked. The apocalypse has not arrived. Al Gore is not a scientist. He's a politician. His ramblings mean pretty much nothing. There are Nobel Laureates who have questioned the state of climate science. There are thousands of reputable scientists who have done the same. Therefore, you cannot objectively conflate this matter with the preposterousness that is Creationism. So I recognize that you patronize my knowledge. But objectively speaking, not only are you wrong in terms of my knowledge of the scientific method, but you are also wrong in the conclusions you draw. Perhaps it is you who needs a course in the politicization of science! Science isn't decided by majority opinion, as you know. So why should we start now?

WRONG. In reality the models do work and they could better as they get refined. But its been a decade since anyone could claim that climate modeling didn't work.

And no there are not thousands of reputable scientists questioning the reality of anthropogenic climate change. If you actually look all you will find is some cranks and a bare handful of scientists who are somehow in the employ of the fossil fuel industry.

So all these scientists are hacks,, cranks or paid mouthpieces? http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/un_scientists_speakout.pdf

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
So all these scientists are hacks,, cranks or paid mouthpieces? http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/un_scientists_speakout.pdf

Why is there a 97% expert consensus?

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/28/global-warming-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristics
97% global warming consensus meets resistance from scientific denialism
The robust climate consensus faces resistance from conspiracy theories, cherry picking, and misrepresentations

Because if you say something enough, something without statistical validity or foundation becomes treated as fact. Here's an explanation of a common source of the numbers. Small sample size, self-selecting qualifying questions, hell you could almost -- but not quite -- prove the earth is flat this way:

http://blog.heartland.org/2012/10/im-here-to-chew-bubble-gum-and-debunk-the-97-global-warming-myth-and-im-all-out-of-bubble-gum/

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Actually, GotSteel...a concensus occurs when the parties involved quit arguiung. As to the 97% figure, there's this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

First allow me to greet you to the forum. Second, it might help you to understand...why...I tore into you. Lets just say life has been...unpleasant...on my end for the last few days, and usually I'm more patient. Second, that this forum does see individuals from time to time that try to 'hide' their identity, support their original comments, and try to slink away. This is known as 'sock' or 'sock puppet' on here. Maybe in my....frustration of life....I figured you were such.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3
And what uncontroversial science isn't being taught? Catastrophic global warming caused by a human induced runaway greenhouse effect? Disproven. Global temperature anomaly fell outside of the IPCC's own error bars, and has continued to fall further outside of those error bars. That means that theory is disproven. The theory that race is a social construct? That's a rejection of the well established scientific concept of phenotype, and the underlying cause of phenotype, genotype. In other words, anyone who claims that race doesn't exist is a DENIER of science (or in all fairness, is scientifically ignorant, and that isn't really their fault, most people simply don't have the capacity to understand science and it's implications).

And I suppose you can give us links to each of these ideas, right?

The last one, 'race', is a social construct. Where does it exist in your brain, filtering out all you have learned of the world, to treat someone whose skin color is different from yours? Do you treat the opposite or same sex differently? When I see a black person, I see a person. Yes, they are black. They are also short, alittle on the over-weight side, with glasses, short black hair, and missing a finger. Should I treat this individual any differently due to any of these features? In your view, 'yes'. But I do not accept your view. I've known plenty of individuals from all different ethnic and regions of the world whom are really gifted, skilled, and intelligent. You might look at someone and assume a stereotype; I would not. Since I've known many individuals that look dumb as shit, but were very insightful, intelligent, and wise. A person that judges another based on the skin color tells me the person is of low education and intelligence. And that has more to do with their social upbringing than any physical genetics to date.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

I believe there was such a study. And that it was food for political theater for a couple of days. The study was trying to link the idea that conservative and libertarian viewpoints tend to suffer more a likelihood to different forms of mental/emotional problems. An has been observed, any time science has entered into the political world, there is huge debate and the facts are mushed to nothing by those that wish to undermine it.

But thanks to science, we can observe.

Why did scientists (hard and soft sciences) vote for President Obama in the 90% range in both elections? Why those lacking a high school degree voted for McCain and Romney? We could say anything we want in a political forum. But for a study, it would have to be researched, analyzed, and a conclusion based on evidence made. An its been observed that people told they have a harsh mental/emotional issue is very similar to those told they have weeks or months to live when they feel completely healthy.

Do conservatives and libertarians suffer from one or more possible mental/emotional issues? Yes. So do liberals and moderates. What percentage is the difficult factor. And what percentage of each mental/emotional issue even further difficult.

Gun nuts are paranoid of the unknown. Those supporting Voter Photo ID laws say voter fraud is out of control when its not. An libertarians? I've understood them in the following way: They are against what they are for, and for what they are against. It makes no rational sense to anyone but them. That there are people that REALLY do believe President Obama is not a US Citizen given the evidence and facts know, and not just saying it for political theater. An who is more pessimistic about our nation and the future of this nation? Conservatives? Liberals? Libertarians? Moderates?

We have less studies on "How does one's political view point affect/effect their mental and emotional health' than we have studies on 'actual firearm use in real life situations'. Its like comparing 'actual firearm use in real life situations' to firearm studies based solely on statistics. To put another way, like comparing a Boeing 747 to a bubble bee on size of cargo carried.

If you thought yourself free of any and all mental/emotional problems, could you handle the idea that your political viewpoints might be causing said mental/emotional problems to be created? And would you be willing to accept therapy? For some Americans, they would resist that their political views might be causing their mental/emotional problems. Or that those problems are amplified due to their political views. Trying to treat such a condition fairly, honestly, without conditioning the person out the good political viewpoints; I would imagine is extremely difficult.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Now if you look at what the left-wing media says? God help us all. Insane, crazy shit all the time, some of which others and I have touched on in other posts. I leave it to others to gather further evidence should you so desire it. Fact is, there are fucking loons who are left-wing and right-wing. To assert the loons belong only to one political persuasion is fatuous.

You can not give the correct answer to what the following phrase means in English: Liberal Media. You want/demand the very opposite without a clue of what that opposite actually means. And then claim your for a free America.....LOL!

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Thank you, Heather. You should know I'm an atheist, pro-gay rights, pro-abortion (well I support abortion availability, although I find repellent the fact that the murderous Philadelphia doctor didn't get the media coverage that a single religious rightist gets for far less -- he was and is a monster). I am also well versed in probability and statistics, not just Huff's book. Indeed, it's rather easy to make almost any point if you find the right statistic, but when you look at regressions, confidence levels, methodologies, etc., a lot becomes more suspect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3

@DomKen

Are you actually defending Common Core? I was under the impression that NOBODY thinks Common Core is good program. It's basically No Child Left Behind (Bush administration policy) on steroids. Both of these programs have the effect of hurting funding for inner city schools, because inner city schools have the most trouble meeting the goals of the program. Failure to meet those goals then causes those already financially starved school districts to be punished with even greater lack of funding. I'm not intimately familiar with sentiments among the black community in Chicago, but it seems to me they are acknowledging that Chicago Public Schools have utterly failed to deliver positive educational outcomes to their communities (and that this has gotten even worse under the leadership of Obamanite, Rahm Emmanuel), and they are embracing charter schools and voucher programs as a result.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/rahm-emmanuel/ <----- And that's what's being reported in leftist media

All I'm doing is actually reading the standard as a mathematics professional. They are quite good. That is the opinion of many other math people. The math standards were written by the best math educators in the country with the single goal of improving math education and that certainly looks like what they did. the rest looks like hype by people with vested interests in opposing change.

No, the left in Chicago is not embracing charter schools. We are campaigning against Rahm and are going to support the head of the Chicago Teachers Union if she runs against Rahm for Mayor this spring.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Hey critical thinking is great and I wish a very significant portion of conservatives would learn how to do it however that's not the same thing as trolling for Jesus. The time to "teach the controversy" is when there's an actual scientific controversy.

And what uncontroversial science isn't being taught?

Geology, Cosmology and Biology all immediately come to mind as subjects that are being compromised by christian extremists for reasons which have nothing to do with science.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3
Catastrophic global warming caused by a human induced runaway greenhouse effect? Disproven.

It is? Why is it that climatologists overwhelmingly disagree with you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
I asked why climatologists, the people who are the most knowledgeable on this subject have consensus. Sure there's all sorts of fiscal and superstitious controversy and all sorts of other such consense. However, there's no scientific controversy and as I've said the time to teach the controversy is when there's an actual scientific controversy, faux controversy opinion pieces aren't actually the same thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Why is there a 97% expert consensus?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3

Most importantly, what is the consensus these 97 percent of the world's "experts" have come to? Have they reached consensus that catastrophic global warming caused by a human induced runaway greenhouse effect is imminent? Or is it something else? Perhaps 97 percent agree that the greenhouse effect is a legitimate scientific phenomena, and that all other things equal, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations should lead to SOME warming? Hint: It's the latter, and I fit into that group.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3

@DomKen

Are you actually defending Common Core? I was under the impression that NOBODY thinks Common Core is good program. It's basically No Child Left Behind (Bush administration policy) on steroids. Both of these programs have the effect of hurting funding for inner city schools, because inner city schools have the most trouble meeting the goals of the program. Failure to meet those goals then causes those already financially starved school districts to be punished with even greater lack of funding. I'm not intimately familiar with sentiments among the black community in Chicago, but it seems to me they are acknowledging that Chicago Public Schools have utterly failed to deliver positive educational outcomes to their communities (and that this has gotten even worse under the leadership of Obamanite, Rahm Emmanuel), and they are embracing charter schools and voucher programs as a result.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/rahm-emmanuel/ <----- And that's what's being reported in leftist media

All I'm doing is actually reading the standard as a mathematics professional. They are quite good. That is the opinion of many other math people. The math standards were written by the best math educators in the country with the single goal of improving math education and that certainly looks like what they did. the rest looks like hype by people with vested interests in opposing change.

No, the left in Chicago is not embracing charter schools. We are campaigning against Rahm and are going to support the head of the Chicago Teachers Union if she runs against Rahm for Mayor this spring.

Define "quite good". The standards are decidedly not good for majority black schools, which are rarely or ever able to meet the standards, and are subsequently punished financially for not meeting those standards. It doesn't take a "mathematics professional" to see this. Also, the left is not synonymous with the black community. As for your prediction about what will happen politically, you may be right. What the "talented tenth" want, and what communists like yourself want are at odds. It's entirely plausible that you and your ilk will drown out those desperate voices.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=charter+schools+chicago&FORM=HDRSC3
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/chicago-charter-schools_n_3757911.html

FYI, I'm "pathologically" honest. You're move, Chief.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3

@DomKen

Are you actually defending Common Core? I was under the impression that NOBODY thinks Common Core is good program. It's basically No Child Left Behind (Bush administration policy) on steroids. Both of these programs have the effect of hurting funding for inner city schools, because inner city schools have the most trouble meeting the goals of the program. Failure to meet those goals then causes those already financially starved school districts to be punished with even greater lack of funding. I'm not intimately familiar with sentiments among the black community in Chicago, but it seems to me they are acknowledging that Chicago Public Schools have utterly failed to deliver positive educational outcomes to their communities (and that this has gotten even worse under the leadership of Obamanite, Rahm Emmanuel), and they are embracing charter schools and voucher programs as a result.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/rahm-emmanuel/ <----- And that's what's being reported in leftist media

All I'm doing is actually reading the standard as a mathematics professional. They are quite good. That is the opinion of many other math people. The math standards were written by the best math educators in the country with the single goal of improving math education and that certainly looks like what they did. the rest looks like hype by people with vested interests in opposing change.

No, the left in Chicago is not embracing charter schools. We are campaigning against Rahm and are going to support the head of the Chicago Teachers Union if she runs against Rahm for Mayor this spring.

Define "quite good". The standards are decidedly not good for majority black schools, which are rarely or ever able to meet the standards, and are subsequently punished financially for not meeting those standards. It doesn't take a "mathematics professional" to see this. Also, the left is not synonymous with the black community. As for your prediction about what will happen politically, you may be right. What the "talented tenth" want, and what communists like yourself want are at odds. It's entirely plausible that you and your ilk will drown out those desperate voices.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=charter+schools+chicago&FORM=HDRSC3
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/chicago-charter-schools_n_3757911.html

FYI, I'm "pathologically" honest. You're move, Chief.

Have none of you heard of the practice called "being black"? It is the intentional refusal to learn or do well in school by otherwise intelligent black children.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
Have none of you heard of the practice called "being black"? It is the intentional refusal to learn or do well in school by otherwise intelligent black children.

To Arturas's point: Black teenage girl assaulted violently by other black girl for "acting too white":

http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/07/high-school-girl-taunted-beaten-at-bus-stop-for-acting-too-much-like-a-white-person/

quote:

ORIGINAL: maidheather

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
Have none of you heard of the practice called "being black"? It is the intentional refusal to learn or do well in school by otherwise intelligent black children.

To Arturas's point: Black teenage girl assaulted violently by other black girl for "acting too white":

http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/07/high-school-girl-taunted-beaten-at-bus-stop-for-acting-too-much-like-a-white-person/

I have to say I've never heard of the practice of 'being black', but even so, having pride in your culture and heritage has nothing to do with being lazy or not doing well in school. As far as Arturas' article, I'd be interested in how she was 'acting too white' ... of course, since the story just broke recently (I still can't figure out how the police can't find a known school person, I mean, the school should have her address on file), I know more information should be forthcoming. The definition this alleged attacker is using might go a long way to defining how they view 'being black'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3
As for your response to my contention that race is a biological fact rather than a social construction, you've constructed quite the straw man. Are you going to beat the fuck out of him? That's the fun part! :p

quote:

ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3

@DomKen

Are you actually defending Common Core? I was under the impression that NOBODY thinks Common Core is good program. It's basically No Child Left Behind (Bush administration policy) on steroids. Both of these programs have the effect of hurting funding for inner city schools, because inner city schools have the most trouble meeting the goals of the program. Failure to meet those goals then causes those already financially starved school districts to be punished with even greater lack of funding. I'm not intimately familiar with sentiments among the black community in Chicago, but it seems to me they are acknowledging that Chicago Public Schools have utterly failed to deliver positive educational outcomes to their communities (and that this has gotten even worse under the leadership of Obamanite, Rahm Emmanuel), and they are embracing charter schools and voucher programs as a result.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/rahm-emmanuel/ <----- And that's what's being reported in leftist media

All I'm doing is actually reading the standard as a mathematics professional. They are quite good. That is the opinion of many other math people. The math standards were written by the best math educators in the country with the single goal of improving math education and that certainly looks like what they did. the rest looks like hype by people with vested interests in opposing change.

No, the left in Chicago is not embracing charter schools. We are campaigning against Rahm and are going to support the head of the Chicago Teachers Union if she runs against Rahm for Mayor this spring.

Define "quite good". The standards are decidedly not good for majority black schools, which are rarely or ever able to meet the standards, and are subsequently punished financially for not meeting those standards. It doesn't take a "mathematics professional" to see this. Also, the left is not synonymous with the black community. As for your prediction about what will happen politically, you may be right. What the "talented tenth" want, and what communists like yourself want are at odds. It's entirely plausible that you and your ilk will drown out those desperate voices.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=charter+schools+chicago&FORM=HDRSC3
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/chicago-charter-schools_n_3757911.html

FYI, I'm "pathologically" honest. You're move, Chief.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3
As for your response to my contention that race is a biological fact rather than a social construction, you've constructed quite the straw man. Are you going to beat the fuck out of him? That's the fun part! :p

Race is still a social construct. You cannot identify a gene or a set of genes and say these genes make a person white or black. People have tried that and failed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Have none of you heard of the practice called "being black"? It is the intentional refusal to learn or do well in school by otherwise intelligent black children.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3
As for your response to my contention that race is a biological fact rather than a social construction, you've constructed quite the straw man. Are you going to beat the fuck out of him? That's the fun part! :p

Race is still a social construct. You cannot identify a gene or a set of genes and say these genes make a person white or black. People have tried that and failed.

Technically true. But let's look at the result. The color of your skin if you are Dikembe Mutombo is really black. That's a fact. Whether he is officially "African" doesn't really matter. He is as black as Edgar Winter was albino (which of course is not a race; it's a medical condition, but genetic to be sure). So social construct or not, 100% of people are going to call Dikembe black and Edgar (RIP) white. Now, Halle Berry? You wouldn't get 100% of people calling her black to be sure. Nor white.

In this case, I'm presume that she was "acting white" because perhaps she spoke correct English, or perhaps she wasn't listening to the hip-hop artist du jour (although plenty of whites listen, too) or perhaps she excelled academically. That tends to be viewed as "acting white." Just as wanting to be a lawyer or a doctor could be called "acting Jewish." The stereotypes have some validity but they are freely chosen. Here I imagine she was being punished for not wanting to run with the thug crowd, since obviously a thug beat her up. Now there could have been bad blood between the two anyhow, but then the accusation would have been "you fucked my boyfriend" not "acting white." So you have to revert to stereotypes to see what is likely meant here.