'Anti-Science?'...Who...Me???

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by PoliticalChic, Jan 24, 2013.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,668
    Thanks Received:
    15,567
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,778
    1. We political addicts live on the battlefront. There is a progressive army whose weapons are seductive, but fallacious, seemingly logical arguments. Round after round they fire, and, having the media support, convince the uninformed due to the overwhelming numbers who are repeating the same comments, over and over. Perhaps it helps to recognize the different battalions: sensationalizing-media, climate-hawk bloggers, anti-religion fanatics, political think-tankers.





    2. Progressives regularly claim that it is their beliefs that are based on science, and that conservatives are anti-science….even claiming that progressivism and science are one and the same, or they may conflate technological progress with political progressivism.

    a. Far-Leftists at the Center for American Progress have a website called Science Progress They claim: “Through this work we are building piece by piece the progressive narrative of science and technology policy.”

    b. “The phrase “science progress” is, arguably, a bit awkward. … It reminds us that we are the inheritors of the Enlightenment’s confidence in the possibility of improving the human condition—a possibility predicated on values of individual freedom, social equality, and democratic solidarity,…”
    Time for Science to Reclaim Its Progressive Roots

    c. Science….individual freedom….and social equality? Exactly which part of the scientific method validates social justice? It seems that if one disagrees with their politics, one must be anti-science. QED.

    3. Doesn’t is seem that applying to social justice involves morality? Science has nothing to do with morality.

    a. “ Just who has imposed on the suffering
    human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery,
    pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs,
    attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles,
    military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?”
    Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”
    That would be science, wouldn’t it?





    4. Let’s take a look at who is ‘anti-science’: 93 % of scientists acknowledge the necessity of animal research, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 48% of Democrats. Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

    a. Nuclear power plants? 70 % of scientists favor, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 45% of Democrats Ibid.

    b. The National Academy of Sciences found that genetically engineered food is safe. So say more Republicans (48%) than Democrats (42%)
    Who?s More Anti-Science: Republicans or Democrats? - Reason.com

    5. “Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are”…with respect to belief in astrology, the need for control groups, probability, antibiotics, exposure to radioactivity….Check out the list at: The Audacious Epigone: Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are

    a. Razib Khan reanalyzed the data and found that conservatives and liberals are roughly equal in their knowledge of science, but that both are more knowledgeable than moderates.
    Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p. 212.



    So….Republicans/conservatives less science literate or knowledgeable? Hardly. But do Democrats/liberals win the decibel battle…..seems likely.
     
  2. newpolitics
    Offline

    newpolitics vegan atheist indy

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,931
    Thanks Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +283
    It's insane that you can come on here and claim that progressives have fallacious arguments, when you admitted just yesterday on your anti-speciesist thread that you have no rational justification for your speciesism, other than appealing to an undemonstrated deity. Hence, you employ fallacy. The insane paradox is that you are employing a proof by assertion in saying this, which, itself is a fallacy. As usual, the rest of your highly slanted, nonsensical post is not worth considering seriously when you open up with such poor logic. It must suck to be you. I don't think you understand the idea of sound and valid logic. Rhetoric is not an alternative to logic, but usually something used to try and conceal bad logic. Once one learns to see the logic flaws behind ones argument, all the fancy rhetoric in the world becomes meaningless. Hint: this pertains to you.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2013
  3. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,668
    Thanks Received:
    15,567
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,778


    "...when you admitted just yesterday on your anti-speciesist thread that you have no rational justification for your speciesism,...

    If you cannot provide documentation of this slander....and you cannot....you will be self-identified as the liar that you are.
     
  4. newpolitics
    Offline

    newpolitics vegan atheist indy

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,931
    Thanks Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +283
    Yes, i can, you loon. I said this yesterday, you made no comment. I asked you to rationally justify your position. You resorted to insult. This I'd an admission that you could not rationally justify your position. In other words, you were unable to logically defend yourself.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2013
  5. newpolitics
    Offline

    newpolitics vegan atheist indy

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,931
    Thanks Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +283
    Let me spell this out for you. You make claims and defend positions that you can not rationally justify. You are therefore irrational am appeal to emotion to make your arguments seem valid, when in fact, they are not.
     
  6. newpolitics
    Offline

    newpolitics vegan atheist indy

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,931
    Thanks Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +283
    Have you conveniently forgotten what took place just yesterday?
     
  7. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,668
    Thanks Received:
    15,567
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,778



    1. "..."...when you admitted just yesterday on your anti-speciesist thread that you have no rational justification for your speciesism,..."


    2. " I said this yesterday, you made no comment. "


    3. Admit: to concede as true or valid <admitted making a mistake>
    Admit - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


    So....You've backtracked, confessing that I did no such thing.

    And, by doing so, claimed the title of "lying piece of bottom-feeding slime."


    Did you say "in other words"?

    Well, then....in other words, you should be known as the USMB's very own Morbus gallicus.


    In other words? Syphilis.
     
  8. newpolitics
    Offline

    newpolitics vegan atheist indy

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,931
    Thanks Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +283
    Syphilis? You are so corny. You really are just an insecure bully.

    You obviously know nothing about debate, which is kind of hilarious considering your on a debate forum. If someone makes a point, and you fail to refute it, it stands. One of the surest ways of losing a debate is to not refute what what an opponent asserts. This is known as the burden of refutation. Therefore, given that I asserted you have no rational justification for your speciesism, and asked you to try upon which you failed to do so, this is an IMPLICIT admission of defeat, by the standards of debate. Should I obnoxiously define "implicit" for you like you did for admission? Ill let you sweat it out at dictionary.com
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2013
  9. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    41% of Democrats are young Earth Creationists, what do you expect?
     
  10. TheOldSchool
    Offline

    TheOldSchool Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    45,151
    Thanks Received:
    7,907
    Trophy Points:
    1,870
    Location:
    last stop for sanity before reaching the south
    Ratings:
    +27,771

Share This Page