Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Could you please elaborate, westwall? I don't quite understand your point in that last post with respect to the latest rdean post you quoted. Brain surgeons ARE a select group that DO know more about the brain than most people.
If the oncologist has a known history of deliberate misdiagnosis so as to sell expensive unnecessary/ineffective treatments, yeppers I might trust the opinion of the dentist more.
And scientists have that history? Yea, unlike Republicans. Iraq anyone?
Well lets see now, Tuskeegee experiments, Eugenics, the medical establishments ignoring Pellagra and terming it a genetic trait of the lower classes till the rich started suffering from it and it was finally discovered it was a nutritional disorder, Autism caused by vaccines, etc. etc. etc. The list is longer than anything the Republicrats have done boyo.
Much longer. That's why everyone needs to ALLWAYS question everything.
Could you please elaborate, westwall? I don't quite understand your point in that last post with respect to the latest rdean post you quoted. Brain surgeons ARE a select group that DO know more about the brain than most people.
I am alluding to rdeans continuous diatribes on pretty much every thread he/she is involved in. Invariably he/she will drop the bombshell that only 6% of republicans are scientists and then proceed to blather on. In other words a waste of time. You've been on this board longer than I so if you havn't noticed the pattern you weren't paying attention.
I am alluding to rdeans continuous diatribes on pretty much every thread he/she is involved in. Invariably he/she will drop the bombshell that only 6% of republicans are scientists and then proceed to blather on. In other words a waste of time. You've been on this board longer than I so if you havn't noticed the pattern you weren't paying attention.
Do you deny that only 6% of scientists are Republican? Why would you think there would be more?
97% of scientists believe we "evolved" over time and less than half of the Republicans. Just that one fact proves that Republicans aren't really connected to science. Why would they want to their children to work in a field they believe is a lie?
Could you please elaborate, westwall? I don't quite understand your point in that last post with respect to the latest rdean post you quoted. Brain surgeons ARE a select group that DO know more about the brain than most people.
I am alluding to rdeans continuous diatribes on pretty much every thread he/she is involved in. Invariably he/she will drop the bombshell that only 6% of republicans are scientists and then proceed to blather on. In other words a waste of time. You've been on this board longer than I so if you havn't noticed the pattern you weren't paying attention.
Do you deny that only 6% of scientists are Republican? Why would you think there would be more?
97% of scientists believe we "evolved" over time and less than half of the Republicans. Just that one fact proves that Republicans aren't really connected to science. Why would they want to their children to work in a field they believe is a lie?
I am alluding to rdeans continuous diatribes on pretty much every thread he/she is involved in. Invariably he/she will drop the bombshell that only 6% of republicans are scientists and then proceed to blather on. In other words a waste of time. You've been on this board longer than I so if you havn't noticed the pattern you weren't paying attention.
Do you deny that only 6% of scientists are Republican? Why would you think there would be more?
97% of scientists believe we "evolved" over time and less than half of the Republicans. Just that one fact proves that Republicans aren't really connected to science. Why would they want to their children to work in a field they believe is a lie?
I havn't a clue how many Republicans are scientists. How was that factoid derived? What was the statistical methodology used? How large was the sample size? Was it random sampling or was it focused on a single field of science? In the geological field I would guess it runs about 50/50. In the engineering fields I would guess the Republican/Democrat ratio at 80% Republican. This is purely anecdotal on my part and certainly not robust in any sense of the word. But if the sample was based on how many psychologists were Dem/Repub I would not be surprised at only a 6% representation of Repubs.
So answer those questions if you please.
see now you're asking for evidence so you can educate yourself better on the topic. this is generally needed before announcing a conclusion about that topic. again, that appears to be his point, no?
I am alluding to rdeans continuous diatribes on pretty much every thread he/she is involved in. Invariably he/she will drop the bombshell that only 6% of republicans are scientists and then proceed to blather on. In other words a waste of time. You've been on this board longer than I so if you havn't noticed the pattern you weren't paying attention.
Do you deny that only 6% of scientists are Republican? Why would you think there would be more?
97% of scientists believe we "evolved" over time and less than half of the Republicans. Just that one fact proves that Republicans aren't really connected to science. Why would they want to their children to work in a field they believe is a lie?
I havn't a clue how many Republicans are scientists. How was that factoid derived? What was the statistical methodology used? How large was the sample size? Was it random sampling or was it focused on a single field of science? In the geological field I would guess it runs about 50/50. In the engineering fields I would guess the Republican/Democrat ratio at 80% Republican. This is purely anecdotal on my part and certainly not robust in any sense of the word. But if the sample was based on how many psychologists were Dem/Repub I would not be surprised at only a 6% representation of Repubs.
So answer those questions if you please.
Do you deny that only 6% of scientists are Republican? Why would you think there would be more?
97% of scientists believe we "evolved" over time and less than half of the Republicans. Just that one fact proves that Republicans aren't really connected to science. Why would they want to their children to work in a field they believe is a lie?
I havn't a clue how many Republicans are scientists. How was that factoid derived? What was the statistical methodology used? How large was the sample size? Was it random sampling or was it focused on a single field of science? In the geological field I would guess it runs about 50/50. In the engineering fields I would guess the Republican/Democrat ratio at 80% Republican. This is purely anecdotal on my part and certainly not robust in any sense of the word. But if the sample was based on how many psychologists were Dem/Repub I would not be surprised at only a 6% representation of Repubs.
So answer those questions if you please.
I'd guess for the fields of Math and hard science is more like 60-65 percent Republican, while the easy arts and field would be more democrat.
And, that appears to be Westall's point - make no decisions until there is adequate evidence - but it went right over your and deanie-do's head.see now you're asking for evidence so you can educate yourself better on the topic. this is generally needed before announcing a conclusion about that topic. again, that appears to be his point, no?
Do you deny that only 6% of scientists are Republican? Why would you think there would be more?
97% of scientists believe we "evolved" over time and less than half of the Republicans. Just that one fact proves that Republicans aren't really connected to science. Why would they want to their children to work in a field they believe is a lie?
I havn't a clue how many Republicans are scientists. How was that factoid derived? What was the statistical methodology used? How large was the sample size? Was it random sampling or was it focused on a single field of science? In the geological field I would guess it runs about 50/50. In the engineering fields I would guess the Republican/Democrat ratio at 80% Republican. This is purely anecdotal on my part and certainly not robust in any sense of the word. But if the sample was based on how many psychologists were Dem/Repub I would not be surprised at only a 6% representation of Repubs.
So answer those questions if you please.
I'd guess for the fields of Math and hard science is more like 60-65 percent Republican, while the easy arts and field would be more democrat.
And, that appears to be Westall's point - make no decisions until there is adequate evidence - but it went right over your and deanie-do's head.see now you're asking for evidence so you can educate yourself better on the topic. this is generally needed before announcing a conclusion about that topic. again, that appears to be his point, no?
When you have a cancer, you give equal weight to the opinion of a dentist to that of an oncologist? For that is what you are suggesting.
.........................
If the oncologist has a known history of deliberate misdiagnosis so as to sell expensive unnecessary/ineffective treatments, yeppers I might trust the opinion of the dentist more.
And scientists have that history? Yea, unlike Republicans. Iraq anyone?
And, that appears to be Westall's point - make no decisions until there is adequate evidence - but it went right over your and deanie-do's head.see now you're asking for evidence so you can educate yourself better on the topic. this is generally needed before announcing a conclusion about that topic. again, that appears to be his point, no?
And, that appears to be Westall's point - make no decisions until there is adequate evidence - but it went right over your and deanie-do's head.see now you're asking for evidence so you can educate yourself better on the topic. this is generally needed before announcing a conclusion about that topic. again, that appears to be his point, no?
And at what point is there "adequate science". If you followed that reasoning, that point would never come.
Scientists don't deal in "absolutes", like the right wing. Of course, "absolutes" makes things so much more, well, "simple".
