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.

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.

Apparently, science and journalism weren't as impartial as I used to believe.

 

[Photonic]

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.

As an astrophysicist I find this somewhat insulting. Facts are certainly not "for sale." and I would rather die than be forced to present misinformation for monetary gain.

Money has little meaning. It's the science itself that I care about.

 

[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?

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.

There has been evidence that those promoting Climate Change are following a political agenda, and not true science. Even when I try to ignore the right wing views on it I have to ask questions like "Why was there a need to be deceptive? Why is there a need to stiffle dissent? And why is the answer to Climate Change socialism?

I have had arguments with creationists in the past and they like to point out the sizable number of scientists who are on their side. Supposedly these scientists also use scientific methods to arrive at their conclusions. Of course i think that they are full of shit, but it still makes me wonder that if even a small number of them can be bought, then why not even a majority? Who do you believe? How can anyone who looks objectively, be sure?

 

[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.

As an astrophysicist I find this somewhat insulting. Facts are certainly not "for sale." and I would rather die than be forced to present misinformation for monetary gain.

Money has little meaning. It's the science itself that I care about.

I certainly don't mean ALL scientists.

 

[Cowman]

Cry me a river, *****.

How can something you never believed in die?

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

I can and will formulate proper responses to threads that deserve them. This just seems to be another thread about how scientists are evil and can't be trusted... and how the "liberal mainstream media" is ruining America.

To believe that science is somehow failing us as we move forward as a species because of political(and sometimes religious views) of what the scientists are telling us is astronomically deceptive. If anything it's not the scientists being political, it's the layman consumer of scientific news. It's the person who thinks it's a giant government conspiracy to say that dumping massive amounts of pollutants into the environment is somehow changing it.

Derp.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Nonsense.

The media are only interested in profit; they couldn’t care less who wins the election. Indeed, they’d love an Obama defeat – it would be great for circulation and ratings.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It wouldn't matter if 99.9999% of all scientists agreed. If one scientist has convincing evidence that so-called "consensus" is wrong, then it's wrong. Anyone who starts blabbering that we should accept global warming as a fact because some committee of scientists says we should is simply an ignoramus who doesn't understand the slightest thing about science.

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

How dare anyone dispute the "consensus" the government has approved and paid for!

How dare anyone donate money to dispute the official government approved conclusion!

 

[paulitician]

I accepted Liberal Media Bias a long time ago. Most of the MSM does lean Left/Democrat. That's just reality. Now i just accept it and hope people go around the MSM and find alternative media sources like i do. They're harder to find but definitely worth the hunt once you find them. It is sad & frustrating watching what the MSM has become though. And Science has unfortunately been infected with the Politics bug too. You see this most in the 'Global Warming' craze. Lots of junk science out there now. So i do feel your pain and you are spot on. Thanks.

 

[8537]

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.

It wouldn't matter if 99.9999% of all scientists agreed. If one scientist has convincing evidence that so-called "consensus" is wrong, then it's wrong.

But they don't.

 

[westwall]

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.

If you havn't heard that there is a debate about AGW it's because you have ignored it. There are far more scientists who feel the AGW theory to be wrong then support it. Far more. The difference is the MSM has been coopted and thus you only hear one side. Look up Climategate's one and two for a more realistic view of the science of AGW. Or rather the lack of it.

 

[Photonic]

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.

It wouldn't matter if 99.9999% of all scientists agreed. If one scientist has convincing evidence that so-called "consensus" is wrong, then it's wrong.

But they don't.

It happens in the present, it happened in the past, and will happen in the future.

 

[geauxtohell]

Creation Science and see how many scientists support creationism.

What the **** is "creation science"?

The number of "scientists" who believe that are so minscule they can be ignored. In fact, the most notable of them, like Kent Hovind, aren't even scientists. They are propagandists.

Maybe you never even knew the thing you think has left you.......

 

[Photonic]

Creation Science and see how many scientists support creationism.

What the **** is "creation science"?

The number of "scientists" who believe that are so minscule they can be ignored. In fact, the most notable of them, like Kent Hovind, aren't even scientists. They are propagandists.

Maybe you never even knew the thing you think has left you.......

Isn't Hovind in jail for something?

 

[frazzledgear]

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.

The politicization of a specific scientific issue is something that has happened over and over again and so often you'd think people had learned their lesson to NOT allow it to happen. And when those who have become politically invested in some theory are in positions of power, they demand it be the basis of LAW. Which invariably ends up harming people and even be responsible for the mass murder of people. Politicizing science has happened several times and not just in this country -the most notable examples occurred in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The politicization of some scientific theory in order to exploit it for political gain and increase their base of power is ALWAYS -as in ALWAYS -done by the left. (And don't bother with the creationism bullshit -that is in response to the politicization of the theory of evolution. Creationism has no place in a science class though and most people recognize the Bible was never intended to be a science book. Now the theory of intelligent design is NOT the same thing although the left in particular likes to pretend these are the same thing -and some creationists like to grab that title to try and gussy up their creationism religious stuff. There are a LOT of scientists who believe the theory of intelligent design is the most scientifically sound answer to explain very specific phenomena in the natural world. But ONLY those specific phenomena. Scientists in nearly every single field of science have proposed the theory as the most scientifically sound answer to very specific phenomena within their field of science and why. Ministers and preachers offer up creationism -but the theory of intelligent design was proposed and supported by scientists themselves as a result of their work only. The fact it HAPPENS to very superficially be consistent with some religious beliefs is COMPLETELY irrelevant. To demand it be rejected because it ISN'T outright contradicting some religious beliefs is JUST as STUPID as demanding we abandon scientific theories because it does contradict religious beliefs. Both are flat earth mentalities and neither are legitimate grounds for adopting or abandoning a scientific theory. Unlike creationism which is NOT scientific theory WHATSOEVER, the theory of intelligent design demands MORE scientific investigation, not less -and the minute a different explanation is found for any of the very specific phenomena for which it was proposed, it makes it less likely to be correct for any of the others as well. There is a way to DISPROVE the theory of intelligent design -while there is actually no way to prove the theory of evolution -and creationism isn't a theory at all but an issue of faith only. No legitimate theory FEARS a challenge and those who proposed the theory of intelligent design welcome challenges because THAT is what will increase our scientific progress. NEVER by demanding we shut down all challenges to whatever theory the left is trying to exploit for political gain.)


When a scientists comes up with a theory the left believes can be politically exploited for THEIR political gain -they grab it and immediately start politicizing it. It becomes a POLITICAL issue that becomes totally divorced from sound scientific practices and just outright manipulated in order to try and maximize its political exploitation. Those who glom onto a scientific theory do it ONLY because they believe it can be exploited for their own political gain -and once politically invested in it, can tolerate NO dissent. If they are in positions of power, they start demanding all challenges to it be silenced and those who would challenge it be PUNISHED. They start demanding everyone treat it as "fact" even though it never is. In spite of the very real fact that 99.8% of all scientific theories end up in the TRASH! It is the nature of science and how scientific discovery is made -a theory is proposed to try and explain a specific phenomenon and then scientists try to prove it correct -by trying to prove it is WRONG and does not explain that phenomenon after all. Only when the theory holds up to all challenges including those that change variables to see if it still holds up, is a theory EVER accepted as scientific fact. So the purpose of the left demanding all challenges to their pet theory be stopped and those who challenge it punished -is a demand to abandon sound scientific practices. There is only ONE reason to do that -it is because of their belief it is vulnerable to challenge and likely to end up proven wrong. Legitimate theories WELCOME the challenge -because that is how science moves FORWARD. Demanding it be accepted without putting it through established and sound scientific challenge is POLITICS only and when that happens, it means that theory has been corrupted and manipulated.

Politics and science are a LETHAL mix responsible for the MISERY, starvation, deaths and mass murder of MILLIONS. Just to toss out a few -the Holocaust was based on the scientific theory of eugenics. The Soviets based their entire agricultural practices on a particular scientific theory called Lysenkoism -a disastrous theory about how to increase crop yields but only resulted in massive crop failures, increased poverty and resulted in several regions that suffered near starvation. Year after year after year, with those who became politically invested in the theory refusing to abandon it in spite of the obvious failures that proved it was a crock of shit. Scientific dissent from this crock of shit theory were officially OUTLAWED and opponents were often imprisoned or even killed and all were purged from the Communist party. Lysenko himself was instrumental in bringing about the imprisonment and death of hundreds of scientists. For the "crime" of DISAGREEING with his bullshit THEORY. Oh gee, does any of this sound familiar? THAT is what "science" looks like under the control of the far left. The Holocaust is what "science" looks like under the control of the far left. (And yes, Nazism was LEFTWING extremism, not rightwing.)

The left MUST be challenged as soon as they demand we all bow down at the altar of science anytime they find a new theory they believe can be exploited for their own political gain -and global warming was just one more theory they did this to as well. And they WILL continue doing it. For whatever reason, the rest of the world seems to forget the valuable lesson of what really happens by allowing the left to try and exploit science for political gain. Politicizing science invariably results in increasing human misery.

Sadly, although several scientific theories have been politicized by the left over the decades -in the end not ONE ended up being true. NOT ONE. NOT ONE!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

It is sad that all scientific progress has been halted, yes indeed.

CERN Narrows Search For Higgs Boson - Science News - redOrbit

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Creation Science and see how many scientists support creationism.

What the **** is "creation science"?

The number of "scientists" who believe that are so minscule they can be ignored. In fact, the most notable of them, like Kent Hovind, aren't even scientists. They are propagandists.

Maybe you never even knew the thing you think has left you.......

Hovind! I love that guy. I was first introduced to him by a makeshift CD stand in a gas station in Inbred, Mississippi. Listened to him for hours, laughing my ass off.

Also found out his degree is a crock of shit, its from "Patriot Bible University" - which isn't accredited. He was also busted for tax evasion - GO FIGURE.

 

[Photonic]

Oh look, Godwin's Law already.

That didn't take long.

 

[Photonic]

As a scientist myself, I'm slightly disgusted by the overall negative tone of several members towards the scientific community. Insinuating that all scientific progress in the past few years has been the result of greedy scientists looking for a cheap way to pocket as much money as they can from whatever political party can gain leverage over their wallet.

I would like you all to take a look at a site I will link for a while. I want you to see what you are accusing before you continue to spout your political propaganda in your crusade against what you perceive threatens your world view. (science)


arxiv.org

I dare you to go through this massive database of research papers and find a single instance of a politically biased paper.

 

[editec]

I'm not at all sure that either journalism or science has ever been the bastions of noble independent thinking and ethical integrity that your posts suggests, but I certainly agree that elements in both industries have pretty much given up even TRYING to PRETEND to be objective.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

And the same scientists today are telling us that AGW is a hoax. They are whores that will prostitute their credentials to the highest bidder.