quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
Lol, there is only one type of science: science. Anything else isn't science, or is classified as psuedoscience. Sadly those on the right have an inability to understand that, most likely because science kinda ruins their fabricated reality with uncomfortable truths.

right---because all "real" scientists are only liberals and other leftists. there are no conservative or libertarian scientists out there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html
A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is alienating scientists to a startling degree.

Only six percent of America's scientists identify themselves as Republicans;

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Anecdotal obviously. But at my university science stuff was all done in a couple of buildings way off away from other parts of the university. I spent a lot of time in the science buildings and found most of the scientists there to be very conservative. Then, I remember reading, oh maybe seven years ago so I'm not going to find a link, about how politically correct leftists we're going to make science more amiable to political correctness. It was going to be the new academic wave. They were just going to begin defining the answers they wanted and ignoring any science that didn't yeild those answers because that was, after all, what the left needed science to do. The rest was just all mumbo jumbo and needed to be ignored.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory. That you don't have any evidence does help to support that notion. It relieves you of having to back up your rumors and speculation with solid evidence. Science is not about political correctness; its about finding answers to questions through a process known as the scientific method.

If you view science directly, politics should not enter the equation at any point.

That politics comes into science just as it does for any other concept is not unique either. We find evidence that by actions being taken have a negative impact on the health conditions of the population; is it the responsibility of these scientists to explain this to government and have laws created that stop or mitigate those actions? Yet, your saying that should not happen. Being an engineer I would think you would value the understanding of taking stuff we found though science an using it for good applications that improve humanity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Tkman117, here is the report of a biological research paper that says we may have to rethink the theory of evolution. So, still just one science? Also, can you find me a link in an mainstream evolution paper that discusses the evolution of life as opposed to the evolution of species?

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080928/full/news.2008.1134.html

There is nothing in that link that would force anyone to rethink the Theory of Evolution. There are organisms that have obtain characteristics due to environmental factors. Natural and artificial. That it is possible for some characteristics to be dormant or absent when born. Its an interesting read, but I really do not see it shattering any concepts as of yet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Not even the part of the article where the scientist said, "We're going to have to rethink the theory of evolution."

I'm not seeing that quote in the article. I believe this may be what you want:

Horizontal gene transfer with the animals is going to turn out to be more widespread than anybody believes now. When that realization comes down, it will definitely change the way people think about evolution.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Anecdotal obviously. But at my university science stuff was all done in a couple of buildings way off away from other parts of the university. I spent a lot of time in the science buildings and found most of the scientists there to be very conservative. Then, I remember reading, oh maybe seven years ago so I'm not going to find a link, about how politically correct leftists we're going to make science more amiable to political correctness. It was going to be the new academic wave. They were just going to begin defining the answers they wanted and ignoring any science that didn't yeild those answers because that was, after all, what the left needed science to do. The rest was just all mumbo jumbo and needed to be ignored.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory. That you don't have any evidence does help to support that notion. It relieves you of having to back up your rumors and speculation with solid evidence. Science is not about political correctness; its about finding answers to questions through a process known as the scientific method.

If you view science directly, politics should not enter the equation at any point.

That politics comes into science just as it does for any other concept is not unique either. We find evidence that by actions being taken have a negative impact on the health conditions of the population; is it the responsibility of these scientists to explain this to government and have laws created that stop or mitigate those actions? Yet, your saying that should not happen. Being an engineer I would think you would value the understanding of taking stuff we found though science an using it for good applications that improve humanity.

What an idiot. What you are doing is projecting. I provided plenty of links in the next comment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43


No basic alteration of theory in Horizontal Gene Transfer, it just speeds up evolution from previous estimates through natural analogs of artificial GMO. Which is Totally based in the same understandings as Evolution. The gene transfer is exactly like random, chemically induced or radiation damage produced new genotypes except it involves bigger strings of nucleotides substitutions as opposed to less productive random deletions and unusual linkings. ALL of which have to prove themself by the normal evolutionary selection cellular processes to full phenotype, which has to survive as a living cell, blastula and embryo and emerge as a living organism. Each then has to run the same evolutionary gauntlet of survival to mating, reproduction and living off-spring that in turn reproduce the new genotype in successful offspring. What Darwin and others recognized and modern cellular biology has elucidated.
NO scientist or actual intellect thinks our understanding of life is complete or definitive. It's political ideologues who can't tolerate the unknown, the undefined or dissent from their chosen Revealed Truth who see the natural processes of accumulating and cross checking knowledge as fundamentally flawed.
Students of Nature look at facts and processes to refine, advance or even transform theory. Political ideologues Have their Truths in hand and look at facts and processes for support and attack any contraindications. Guess which is self-correcting?
Those thinking there are pure scientists or pure ideologues are to be disappointed. Even the tinfoil hat crew have some areas where they stay rational, like crossing the street or choosing food over offal to eat. No mind is purely objective, but those who have advanced human culture and it's understanding often have that as a goal and a aspiration. Many like Darwin; Aristotle, Galileo, the many pivotal mathematicians, and modern minds like von Neumann and Hawkings have done astoundingly well looking around and Seeing more than anyone before had. I'd add Gautama Buddha. This same clear seeing what hadn't been looked at before is happening today with the new astronomy instruments and at the cellular and atomic levels in Physics and Biology. It's basis is the attitude of Looking for what is there, not what is assumed to be there beforehand. Evolution is a complex subset (Venn Diagram?) of a number of biological disciplines, all as unpolitical as it's critics are political and religious. The progress is Not coming from people with an ax to grind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43


No basic alteration of theory in Horizontal Gene Transfer, it just speeds up evolution from previous estimates through natural analogs of artificial GMO. Which is Totally based in the same understandings as Evolution. The gene transfer is exactly like random, chemically induced or radiation damage produced new genotypes except it involves bigger strings of nucleotides substitutions as opposed to less productive random deletions and unusual linkings. ALL of which have to prove themself by the normal evolutionary selection cellular processes to full phenotype, which has to survive as a living cell, blastula and embryo and emerge as a living organism. Each then has to run the same evolutionary gauntlet of survival to mating, reproduction and living off-spring that in turn reproduce the new genotype in successful offspring. What Darwin and others recognized and modern cellular biology has elucidated.
NO scientist or actual intellect thinks our understanding of life is complete or definitive. It's political ideologues who can't tolerate the unknown, the undefined or dissent from their chosen Revealed Truth who see the natural processes of accumulating and cross checking knowledge as fundamentally flawed.
Students of Nature look at facts and processes to refine, advance or even transform theory. Political ideologues Have their Truths in hand and look at facts and processes for support and attack any contraindications. Guess which is self-correcting?
Those thinking there are pure scientists or pure ideologues are to be disappointed. Even the tinfoil hat crew have some areas where they stay rational, like crossing the street or choosing food over offal to eat. No mind is purely objective, but those who have advanced human culture and it's understanding often have that as a goal and a aspiration. Many like Darwin; Aristotle, Galileo, the many pivotal mathematicians, and modern minds like von Neumann and Hawkings have done astoundingly well looking around and Seeing more than anyone before had. I'd add Gautama Buddha. This same clear seeing what hadn't been looked at before is happening today with the new astronomy instruments and at the cellular and atomic levels in Physics and Biology. It's basis is the attitude of Looking for what is there, not what is assumed to be there beforehand. Evolution is a complex subset (Venn Diagram?) of a number of biological disciplines, all as unpolitical as it's critics are political and religious. The progress is Not coming from people with an ax to grind.

Oh my goodness, now I don't know who to believe. It's either the guy with the appropriate Phd who made the discovery and wrote the article or some random unknown, unseen guy on the Internet that likes to lecture just like joether. What should I do. I know, I'll act like any self respecting twelve year old girl and pick the random, unknown, unseen guy from the Internet. Okay, I believe you know everything. Just like joether.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

The House of Representatives held a panel on "Politically Driven Science" but failed to ask any actual scientists for their take on politics driving scientific study. Hmmmm, don't ask don't tell?


http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2015/05/house-panel-holds-hearing-politically-driven-science-sans-scientists

So... If some politicians wanted to talk about trees, youre thinking they had ought to invite some trees?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

The House of Representatives held a panel on "Politically Driven Science" but failed to ask any actual scientists for their take on politics driving scientific study. Hmmmm, don't ask don't tell?


http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2015/05/house-panel-holds-hearing-politically-driven-science-sans-scientists

So... If some politicians wanted to talk about trees, youre thinking they had ought to invite some trees?

Nope, not invite the trees but I would expect them to call in some Foresters and Arborists to get straight info from those who actually know what they are talking about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Only an idiot who things he knows enough about trees and isn't an expert on them would hold that opinion. Experts offer a lot more insight into the topic than a moron who thinks he understands them. It's mentalities like that which has resulted in the overconsumption of water in lake mead, the increased severity of forest fires over the past several decades, and the damage caused by CFCs to the ozone layer, just to name a few examples.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Only an idiot who things he knows enough about trees and isn't an expert on them would hold that opinion. Experts offer a lot more insight into the topic than a moron who thinks he understands them. It's mentalities like that which has resulted in the overconsumption of water in lake mead, the increased severity of forest fires over the past several decades, and the damage caused by CFCs to the ozone layer, just to name a few examples.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Only an idiot who things he knows enough about trees and isn't an expert on them would hold that opinion. Experts offer a lot more insight into the topic than a moron who thinks he understands them. It's mentalities like that which has resulted in the overconsumption of water in lake mead, the increased severity of forest fires over the past several decades, and the damage caused by CFCs to the ozone layer, just to name a few examples.

Oh, the natural tendency for a liberal to be butt hurt is showing. Tsk tsk. And you're expertise is what????

Here, just for you. http://news.psu.edu/story/270206/2013/03/26/research/suppression-naturally-occurring-blazes-may-increase-wildfire-risk

A discussion of what all tree people thought they knew and then applied to forest management.