R.I.P. Science and Journalism.

[PredFan]

In my lifetime, I have seen the death of two honorable professions; science and journalism.

Growing up, I was taught that the free press was objective and impartial. Up until recently, I didn't see any evidence to the contrary, perhaps i was naive but I don't think so. Now, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The Tribunce Corporation and almost every single news source not connected to FOX is a wholely owned subsidiary of the Democrat party. FOX of course is a wholely owned subsidiary of the GOP. This election Obama will have to run against whomever the GOP nominee is, but the GOP nominee will have to run against Obama, the mainstrwam media, all of the newspapers and magazines in the US, and against Hollywood. All of them are solidly in Obama's camp and determined to get him re-elected.

R.I.P. Journalism.

Science used to also be impartial. "Just the facts ma'am!" like they said on Dragnet. Now of course scientists are for sale. They are hired by either corporations or political interest groups to use science to prove whatever benifits the entity paying the bills, wether it's government (climate change), corporations (too many things to count) or even Creation Science). Just google Creation Science and see how many scientists support creationism.

R.I.P. Science.

 

[Cowman]

Cry me a river, bitch.

How can something you never believed in die?

 

[8537]

I don't know if those industries have died, but certainly both have fallen prey to intense politicism. It is difficult to gain consensus on science when there are cottage industries on both sides determined to deny such consensus when there are policy implications.

Meanwhile, the scientific community continues to work towards consensus on a wide range of issues that do not have policy implications. It rarely achieves that consensus, but over time certain theories are confirmed to be true and others are tossed aside.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Cry me a river, bitch.

How can something you never believed in die?

I thought the Democrats were all about civility? Oh, excuse me, that's only after one of theirs catches a cranial ventilation. If Newt, Mitt, Michelle, or Sarah should catch one, they'd be waxing ecstatic for months.

 

[Seawytch]

When was science impartial? Back when the cigarette companies were paying scientists to tell everyone that smoking was just dandy?

 

[Si modo]

When was science impartial? Back when the cigarette companies were paying scientists to tell everyone that smoking was just dandy?

It's been impartial for a long time. And when it is not, it's corrected.

Accepting misconduct simply because isolated incidents happened in the past is beyond ridiculous.

 

[blastoff]

Oh c'mon with this lefty media bias b.s. Time ran all those Obama covers last election go-round because he's just such a handsome devil.

 

[Seawytch]

When was science impartial? Back when the cigarette companies were paying scientists to tell everyone that smoking was just dandy?

It's been impartial for a long time. And when it is not, it's corrected.

Accepting misconduct simply because isolated incidents happened in the past is beyond ridiculous.

You mean like the OP is doing? Okay...

 

[Si modo]

When was science impartial? Back when the cigarette companies were paying scientists to tell everyone that smoking was just dandy?

It's been impartial for a long time. And when it is not, it's corrected.

Accepting misconduct simply because isolated incidents happened in the past is beyond ridiculous.

You mean like the OP is doing? Okay...

The OP is not accepting scientific misconduct.

 

[PredFan]

Cry me a river, bitch.

How can something you never believed in die?

So you are trying to tell me what i believe and don't believe?

You have nothing, go away.

 

[PredFan]

I don't know if those industries have died, but certainly both have fallen prey to intense politicism. It is difficult to gain consensus on science when there are cottage industries on both sides determined to deny such consensus when there are policy implications.

Meanwhile, the scientific community continues to work towards consensus on a wide range of issues that do not have policy implications. It rarely achieves that consensus, but over time certain theories are confirmed to be true and others are tossed aside.

I have always been a fan of science, medical science being my chosen profession. More and more you cannot believe anything that "scientists" say these days. Scientists say that there is no debatwe that global warming is occuring yet they ignore the growing number of scientists who in fact say that it isn't. Who do you trust? there's a couple of websites that tout a large number of scientists who say that things happened the way the Bible says it did. i know who i trust on that score but why are these scientists out there? Who do you trust. And if you know who you trust, why do you trust them?

 

[Ringel05]

In my lifetime, I have seen the death of two honorable professions; science and journalism.

Growing up, I was taught that the free press was objective and impartial. Up until recently, I didn't see any evidence to the contrary, perhaps i was naive but I don't think so. Now, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The Tribunce Corporation and almost every single news source not connected to FOX is a wholely owned subsidiary of the Democrat party. FOX of course is a wholely owned subsidiary of the GOP. This election Obama will have to run against whomever the GOP nominee is, but the GOP nominee will have to run against Obama, the mainstrwam media, all of the newspapers and magazines in the US, and against Hollywood. All of them are solidly in Obama's camp and determined to get him re-elected.

R.I.P. Journalism.

Science used to also be impartial. "Just the facts ma'am!" like they said on Dragnet. Now of course scientists are for sale. They are hired by either corporations or political interest groups to use science to prove whatever benifits the entity paying the bills, wether it's government (climate change), corporations (too many things to count) or even Creation Science). Just google Creation Science and see how many scientists support creationism.

R.I.P. Science.

Journalism in this country hasn't changed, just the technology.
History of Journalism :: 1900s

As for science and politics, why don't you ask Galileo about that one. Both have been used and abused by scientists and politicians since the beginning, sometimes honestly, sometimes for more nefarious reasons.

 

[8537]

I don't know if those industries have died, but certainly both have fallen prey to intense politicism. It is difficult to gain consensus on science when there are cottage industries on both sides determined to deny such consensus when there are policy implications.

Meanwhile, the scientific community continues to work towards consensus on a wide range of issues that do not have policy implications. It rarely achieves that consensus, but over time certain theories are confirmed to be true and others are tossed aside.

I have always been a fan of science, medical science being my chosen profession. More and more you cannot believe anything that "scientists" say these days. Scientists say that there is no debatwe that global warming is occuring yet they ignore the growing number of scientists who in fact say that it isn't. Who do you trust?

I don't hear many scientists claiming there is no debate. On the other hand, the wide majority of scientists believe that global warming is occurring. There is slightly more debate about its cause, but the wide majority agree that humans play a role.

Are there scientists who genuinely disagree? Sure. There are also scientists paid by industry etc...to disagree and cause doubt about the emerging consensus.

there's a couple of websites that tout a large number of scientists who say that things happened the way the Bible says it did. i know who i trust on that score but why are these scientists out there? Who do you trust. And if you know who you trust, why do you trust them?

In those cases, I think you'll find that the people defending biblical interpretations related t o science are few and far between, and in any case are not using the scientific method to arrive at those conclusions - which is fine, they are free to rely on faith, but faith isn't part of the methodology of science.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Cry me a river, bitch.

How can something you never believed in die?

I see as usual you were incapable of formulating an intelligent articulate response to the topic.

 

[Si modo]

I don't know if those industries have died, but certainly both have fallen prey to intense politicism. It is difficult to gain consensus on science when there are cottage industries on both sides determined to deny such consensus when there are policy implications.

Meanwhile, the scientific community continues to work towards consensus on a wide range of issues that do not have policy implications. It rarely achieves that consensus, but over time certain theories are confirmed to be true and others are tossed aside.

I have always been a fan of science, medical science being my chosen profession. More and more you cannot believe anything that "scientists" say these days. Scientists say that there is no debatwe that global warming is occuring yet they ignore the growing number of scientists who in fact say that it isn't. Who do you trust?

I don't hear many scientists claiming there is no debate. On the other hand, the wide majority of scientists believe that global warming is occurring. There is slightly more debate about its cause, but the wide majority agree that humans play a role.

Are there scientists who genuinely disagree? Sure. There are also scientists paid by industry etc...to disagree and cause doubt about the emerging consensus.

there's a couple of websites that tout a large number of scientists who say that things happened the way the Bible says it did. i know who i trust on that score but why are these scientists out there? Who do you trust. And if you know who you trust, why do you trust them?

In those cases, I think you'll find that the people defending biblical interpretations related t o science are few and far between, and in any case are not using the scientific method to arrive at those conclusions - which is fine, they are free to rely on faith, but faith isn't part of the methodology of science.

You've never heard "the science is settled"? You've never heard the claims of "consensus"?

Hmmmm.

 

[8537]

I have always been a fan of science, medical science being my chosen profession. More and more you cannot believe anything that "scientists" say these days. Scientists say that there is no debatwe that global warming is occuring yet they ignore the growing number of scientists who in fact say that it isn't. Who do you trust?

I don't hear many scientists claiming there is no debate. On the other hand, the wide majority of scientists believe that global warming is occurring. There is slightly more debate about its cause, but the wide majority agree that humans play a role.

Are there scientists who genuinely disagree? Sure. There are also scientists paid by industry etc...to disagree and cause doubt about the emerging consensus.

there's a couple of websites that tout a large number of scientists who say that things happened the way the Bible says it did. i know who i trust on that score but why are these scientists out there? Who do you trust. And if you know who you trust, why do you trust them?

In those cases, I think you'll find that the people defending biblical interpretations related t o science are few and far between, and in any case are not using the scientific method to arrive at those conclusions - which is fine, they are free to rely on faith, but faith isn't part of the methodology of science.

You've never heard "the science is settled"? You've never heard the claims of "consensus"?

Hmmmm.

I've heard talking heads stating that there is 100% consensus etc...but few scientists have stated as much.

There is a general (though not complete) consensus that global warming is happening - really, no climate scientists are denying that to my knowledge. There's less consensus as to the cause, but again the wide majority of climate scientists agree that humans play a role.

 

[occupied]

Science is doing fine, applied sciences anyway, journalism is fine too if you disregard the corporate media.

 

[Si modo]

Science is doing fine, applied sciences anyway, journalism is fine too if you disregard the corporate media.

Actually, it's not. There is evidence of much scientific misconduct by a few big names. And, that needs to be recognized, admonished, and addressed.

 

[PredFan]

When was science impartial? Back when the cigarette companies were paying scientists to tell everyone that smoking was just dandy?

Well....damn that's a good point as well.

 

[PredFan]

When was science impartial? Back when the cigarette companies were paying scientists to tell everyone that smoking was just dandy?

It's been impartial for a long time. And when it is not, it's corrected.

Accepting misconduct simply because isolated incidents happened in the past is beyond ridiculous.

You mean like the OP is doing? Okay...

How am I doing that?