Political Denial & Science: Right and Left

[CrusaderFrank]

Phil Jones and the World's Greatest Scientific Hoax perpetrated by East Anglia have damaged the scientific communities ability to self regulate.

Moreover, real science would have to ask itself, "Is the contemptuous warming on Mars a sign that we are vastly overestimating mankind contribution to warming on Earth?" Nah. We're Warmers, fuck the facts

"The scientific communities ability to self regulate??"

What an ironic statement from a right winger. Does he not know that there were ethical codes in medicine and sicnece before Jesus or Moses, for that matter, walked the Earth? Yet this same individual believes in unregluateld markets and scoff at the idea of regulated markets and such!!

Proof that science can not self regulate--more like this is proof that greed and profit has become a key component of the social fiber of Western Civilization!! I think it is called the "Profit motif", am I right?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/98687-is-deregulation-responsible-for-warmergate.html

 

[Lumpy 1]

+++and WTF happened to critical and rational thinking in American politics?+++

Could it be blind trust in the chosen one?.. yes...yes ..that must be it.

More like idiots like yourself do not have a clue!

I'm guessing you've been passing on the "anger management" classes....

 

[Lumpy 1]

+++and WTF happened to critical and rational thinking in American politics?+++

Could it be blind trust in the chosen one?.. yes...yes ..that must be it.

Yaah my thoughts exactly in 2000 and 2004.

I see Old Rocks has a new hand puppet......... you'll adjust...

 

[midcan5]

No good scientist will exaggerate and/or downplay or upplay results. They will depend on the science to speak for them. The fact that you minimalize that speaks volumes.

Wow! You realize you are placing scientists on a pedestal where only special people (like me) belong. Unless I'm mistaken scientists are people, and you must have met a few of them in your life?


"Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong. ... Also, if the process of computing the consequences is indefinite, then with a little skill any experimental results can be made to look like the expected consequences." Richard Feynman

 

[Si modo]

No good scientist will exaggerate and/or downplay or upplay results. They will depend on the science to speak for them. The fact that you minimalize that speaks volumes.

Wow! You realize you are placing scientists on a pedestal where only special people (like me) belong. Unless I'm mistaken scientists are people, and you must have met a few of them in your life?

....

When formally discussing the science, that is what a good scientist will do. Crappy ones need other crutches to persuade. Now you know.

 

[rdean]

Been following Michael Spector, author of Denialism ..how irrational thinking...

When did it become part of political ideology to be anti science?

We have the progressives spouting nonsense about big pharma and corporate farms and scientifically modified food...and we have right wing conservatives denying climate change (diff than global warming) and trying to stop stem cell research and believing some of the nonsense progressives spout.

We have the crazies shouting about vaccines and chiildhood diagnosis of a variety of syndromes including autism...scares about floride in water supplies...irrational H1N1 vaccine fears.

how many here are deniers of science, and WTF happened to critical and rational thinking in American politics?

deniers of science - They joined and now make up the bulk of the Republican Party.

WTF happened to critical and rational thinking in American politics? - They're still here. Our president is one, but the right wing, the Confederate Party of "Lie, Fraud and Deceit", can't get past their color blindness to see. These folks think Sarah (you betcha) Palin is "intelligent" and our president, who they want to fail, is stupid.

 

[Old Rocks]

No good scientist will exaggerate and/or downplay or upplay results. They will depend on the science to speak for them. The fact that you minimalize that speaks volumes.

Wow! You realize you are placing scientists on a pedestal where only special people (like me) belong. Unless I'm mistaken scientists are people, and you must have met a few of them in your life?

....

When formally discussing the science, that is what a good scientist will do. Crappy ones need other crutches to persuade. Now you know.

More rhetoric from someone yet to post a real scientific site supporting their idiocy.

I have repeatedly posted site where one can access peer reviewed articles. I have posted lectures from the AGU conferance, and other sites as well. These are the real scientists reporting on the science that they do.

You, and others here, refer to people like James Watt that has never done a single peice of scientific research in his life, and specializes in spin and lies. Others go so far at to post ol' Limpbaugh's opinion, as if he were nothing more than a dope head paid big bucks to lie to the public.

 

[antagon]

No good scientist will exaggerate and/or downplay or upplay results. They will depend on the science to speak for them. The fact that you minimalize that speaks volumes.

Wow! You realize you are placing scientists on a pedestal where only special people (like me) belong. Unless I'm mistaken scientists are people, and you must have met a few of them in your life?

....

When formally discussing the science, that is what a good scientist will do. Crappy ones need other crutches to persuade. Now you know.

fail.

research scientists know their living is made in the persuasive arts.

science is a 21st century religion. people are working with what 'science says' sure as they used to work with what 'god said' in the 16th century.

 

[Si modo]

Wow! You realize you are placing scientists on a pedestal where only special people (like me) belong. Unless I'm mistaken scientists are people, and you must have met a few of them in your life?

....

When formally discussing the science, that is what a good scientist will do. Crappy ones need other crutches to persuade. Now you know.

More rhetoric from someone yet to post a real scientific site supporting their idiocy. ....

Bullshit.

Liar.

 

[Si modo]

Wow! You realize you are placing scientists on a pedestal where only special people (like me) belong. Unless I'm mistaken scientists are people, and you must have met a few of them in your life?

....

When formally discussing the science, that is what a good scientist will do. Crappy ones need other crutches to persuade. Now you know.

fail.

research scientists know their living is made in the persuasive arts.

science is a 21st century religion. people are working with what 'science says' sure as they used to work with what 'god said' in the 16th century.

As one who knows a wee bit about research science, I have full confidence in my statements.

 

[rdean]

When formally discussing the science, that is what a good scientist will do. Crappy ones need other crutches to persuade. Now you know.

fail.

research scientists know their living is made in the persuasive arts.

science is a 21st century religion. people are working with what 'science says' sure as they used to work with what 'god said' in the 16th century.

As one who knows a wee bit about research science, I have full confidence in my statements.

I can't believe that someone actually said, "research scientists know their living is made in the persuasive arts."

 

[Si modo]

fail.

research scientists know their living is made in the persuasive arts.

science is a 21st century religion. people are working with what 'science says' sure as they used to work with what 'god said' in the 16th century.

As one who knows a wee bit about research science, I have full confidence in my statements.

I can't believe that someone actually said, "research scientists know their living is made in the persuasive arts."

There must be a polarity inversion somewhere because I agree with you, rdean.

 

[antagon]

When formally discussing the science, that is what a good scientist will do. Crappy ones need other crutches to persuade. Now you know.

fail.

research scientists know their living is made in the persuasive arts.

science is a 21st century religion. people are working with what 'science says' sure as they used to work with what 'god said' in the 16th century.

As one who knows a wee bit about research science, I have full confidence in my statements.

im presuming some defiitions of 'crappy' and 'scientist' that puts persuasion in the toolbox of any scientist, or their boss or benefactor. crappy would be the idealist scientist living in a cardboard box, or unable to comprehend forces beyond his lab-coat pay grade... from one perspective

wee bits aside, look at climate change research, pshychiatric or dietary research and tell me the industry isnt on the take. dont let the cynicism of that statement overshadow the validity of scientific ideals or the practitioners who pursue them, but see that the transition from research to application, conclusion or prognosis is facillitated by persuasion all the time. firms and universities publish parts of their research which fit their commission, like editing an interview for effect.

 

[Si modo]

fail.

research scientists know their living is made in the persuasive arts.

science is a 21st century religion. people are working with what 'science says' sure as they used to work with what 'god said' in the 16th century.

As one who knows a wee bit about research science, I have full confidence in my statements.

im presuming some defiitions of 'crappy' and 'scientist' that puts persuasion in the toolbox of any scientist, or their boss or benefactor. crappy would be the idealist scientist living in a cardboard box, or unable to comprehend forces beyond his lab-coat pay grade... from one perspective

....

Crappy in my book is one who does not value his/her scientific integrity above all else. Once that is blown, grant awards will be few and far between. One's reputation in integrity is one's largest asset.

Lack of scientific integrity is using rhetoric other than logic and the science to persuade, among other things.

.... wee bits aside, look at climate change research, pshychiatric or dietary research and tell me the industry isnt on the take. dont let the cynicism of that statement overshadow the validity of scientific ideals or the practitioners who pursue them, but see that the transition from research to application, conclusion or prognosis is facillitated by persuasion all the time. ....

I will agree that there are different styles of rhetoric between the pure and applied sciences and between those in a foundation/university/research institution and industry. However, in peer-review, by far, the rhetoric is logic and science. And, that is quite persuasive when the science is strong.

.... firms and universities publish parts of their research which fit their commission, like editing an interview for effect.

That is very rare, as we see with the climategate scandal. Most scientists are appalled by that.

 

[antagon]

Crappy in my book is one who does not value his/her scientific integrity above all else. Once that is blown, grant awards will be few and far between. One's reputation in integrity is one's largest asset.

Lack of scientific integrity is using rhetoric other than logic and the science to persuade, among other things.

i hear ya. agreed. science is moreso being usurped than the root of the issue, however, particularly on issues with as great latitude as climate, lobbyists value more than scientific integrity, and 'ethical' research begets very leading hypotheses.

thats before it gets to the lobbyist's desk.

 

[Si modo]

Crappy in my book is one who does not value his/her scientific integrity above all else. Once that is blown, grant awards will be few and far between. One's reputation in integrity is one's largest asset.

Lack of scientific integrity is using rhetoric other than logic and the science to persuade, among other things.

i hear ya. agreed. science is moreso being usurped than the root of the issue, however, particularly on issues with as great latitude as climate, lobbyists value more than scientific integrity, and 'ethical' research begets very leading hypotheses.

thats before it gets to the lobbyist's desk.

And for exactly such a reason, I insist that if one wishes to use science to argue in favor (or against) AGW, they use the actual science (peer-reviewed work), not blogs, not opinions of environmentalists/activists/journalists/politicians/policy-makers.

If they don't want their argument to have a foundation of 'the science', then fine, use other sources. But if one is going to play the part, I insist that they play it correctly and use actual science.

 

[Old Rocks]

You mean like lectures from conferances of organizations like the AGW? Or articles from Science and Nature?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Been following Michael Spector, author of Denialism ..how irrational thinking...

When did it become part of political ideology to be anti science?

We have the progressives spouting nonsense about big pharma and corporate farms and scientifically modified food...and we have right wing conservatives denying climate change (diff than global warming) and trying to stop stem cell research and believing some of the nonsense progressives spout.

We have the crazies shouting about vaccines and chiildhood diagnosis of a variety of syndromes including autism...scares about floride in water supplies...irrational H1N1 vaccine fears.

how many here are deniers of science, and WTF happened to critical and rational thinking in American politics?

deniers of science ..you are joking...right ?

nope.

so many deniers of science in the public debate.

sad

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Reason and reason are often in the mind of the beholder. lol

Been following Michael Spector, author of Denialism ..how irrational thinking...

When did it become part of political ideology to be anti science?

how many here are deniers of science, and WTF happened to critical and rational thinking in American politics?

You answered your own question. You follow Michael they follow (fill in blank). Is he any more right than say Neil Postman or Lewis Mumford both quoted below. But I agree with the science approach although after much thought and exploration, I've come to the conclusion much of what we think is rational thinking isn't.

Agree, but the deniers of science are very load these days. they have the microphone

How is it that some of the European nations have better reconciled the inherent conflicts of the key ideologies, religion v science? faith v secularism? Or am I wrong here and they too are where we seem to be?

Wrong...they have their issues too. Human nature being what it is...we will keep repeating this shit every once in awhile, until the day the earth dies.

But today all reasons have followers and often the followers have sponsors whether partisan or corporate and so it seems that all things are up in the air. The options open to us far exceed the options earlier people considered.


"But in the end, science does not provide the answers most of us require. Its story of our origins and of our end is, to say the least, unsatisfactory. To the question, "How did it all begin?", science answers, "Probably by an accident." To the question, "How will it all end?", science answers, "Probably by an accident." And to many people, the accidental life is not worth living. Moreover, the science-god has no answer to the question, "Why are we here?" and, to the question, "What moral instructions do you give us?", the science-god maintains silence." Neil Postman

"Western society has accepted as unquestionable a technological imperative that is quite as arbitrary as the most primitive taboo: not merely the duty to foster invention and constantly to create technological novelties, but equally the duty to surrender to these novelties unconditionally, just because they are offered, without respect to their human consequences." Lewis Mumford


Amazon.com: Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives (9781594202308): Michael Specter: Books

Amazon.com: Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (9780679745402): Neil Postman: Books

thank you for adding insight.

it is much appreciated
d.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Phil Jones and the World's Greatest Scientific Hoax perpetrated by East Anglia have damaged the scientific communities ability to self regulate.

Moreover, real science would have to ask itself, "Is the contemptuous warming on Mars a sign that we are vastly overestimating mankind contribution to warming on Earth?" Nah. We're Warmers, fuck the facts

OMFG, Crusader Frank shouts another of his nitwittisms at the dead air.

A few scientits fuck up and all of a sudden the earth is flat and all the climate research done for decades by thousands of people is all of a sudden called into question and viewed as invalid.