Science denialism: The problem that just won’t go away

orogenicman

Darwin was a pastafarian
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
8,546
Reaction score
826
Points
175
All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.

More at the link.
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,033
Points
280
Location
Earth
All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.

More at the link.
Can deny science to their heart's content. Great thing about science is if it's wrong it gets changed. If it isn't, it doesn't.

Climate deniers though are worse than just denying science in how they misrepresent facts as with claiming GW isn't happening because Antarctic sea ice is increasing. Which it is. But "sea ice" is seasonal and not contributing to sea level rise. "Land ice" however is. But they don't mention that.
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,565
Reaction score
4,181
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
We are on a roll in terms of geopolitical structuring since 2001..........NWO unless you aren't paying attention..........and they will get here via use of science as engineered by the big banks. Because post-industrial society must be planned for s0ns........and has been for well over a century........for Christsakes, brain-chip technology already exists.......just need to condition the people to think its normal. They are doing an outstanding job too.........


 
Last edited:

Mr. H.

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
44,171
Reaction score
9,809
Points
2,030
Location
A warm place with no memory.
Why do Liberals deny the science of abortion, the science of the Keystone XL, the science of ethanol and the RFS mandate? :dunno:
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,496
Reaction score
22,516
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Why do Liberals deny the science of abortion, the science of the Keystone XL, the science of ethanol and the RFS mandate? :dunno:
Isn't it a bit early in the day to be running science-of-ethanol experiments, H? :alcoholic:
 

Freewill

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
31,158
Reaction score
5,061
Points
1,130
Here is the problem with any theory:


I see anti-global warming mentioned. Which is just a way for people to argue without saying anything of substance. Label a person anti or a denier and that is all it takes is some people's mind to win an argument. Which i think everyone can agree is ludicrous. Are people really anti-global warming or in reality not convinced there really is a problem? I say the latter more then the former. Why would anyone be anti anything? Just to be contrary? That again is ludicrous.

I saw Anti-evolution mentioned, again with the "anti" label. But consider, if the knowledge of genes that Darwin had when he wrote his book is used then his own theory goes down in flames. If we get right to it I seriously doubt if anyone is asked, do you believe in natural selection, I am thinking they will say of course we see that happening. Then if asked if they believe in evolution the answer may not be as clear because the question is not clear. Natural selection is observable thus believable. But evolution is just a word it is not really a process per se. In other words, what does someone mean when they say evolution? Evolution of a specie through natural selection? If so then if explained in that way I would think most would agree. But Evolution as the vehicle of the creation of life on Earth and everything on the Earth, then there is a problem because it is impossible for the TOE to explain the creation of life. So the blanket answer to evolution is no unless qualified which seldom do those who use words like anti and deniers seldom qualify.

What is even more ludicous is when those who accept whatever a "scientist" tells them use the term anti-science to describe those who don't.
 

Freewill

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
31,158
Reaction score
5,061
Points
1,130
All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.

More at the link.
Ask yourself, if you were around with Einstein would you have argued with his position on a static universe? Or would you ceded to him being an genius scientist?
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,512
Reaction score
12,476
Points
1,430
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.

More at the link.
The use of the word 'denier' makes this article nothing more than left wing propaganda meant to demonize. You have no science only the dogma of a lie meant to place all under socialism.. Two Words for you and your cult of anti-science left wing nut case people.. F**K OFF!
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,496
Reaction score
22,516
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.

More at the link.
The use of the word 'denier' makes this article nothing more than left wing propaganda meant to demonize. You have no science only the dogma of a lie meant to place all under socialism.. Two Words for you and your cult of anti-science left wing nut case people.. F**K OFF!
So that's your argument is it? "Fuck off"?

Informative.
 

PredFan

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
39,930
Reaction score
6,165
Points
1,170
Location
In Liberal minds, rent free.
All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.

More at the link.
The problem with you left wing nut jobs, well one of many, is that you don't actually know shit about science, you just know that this particular science agrees with you. In fact you can't stand science when it conflicts with you, such as forensic science when it proves that a young black thug tried to kill a cop.

People like me love science AND history. When you love science, you know how science works and you know science's history. When you know both of these things you know right away that climate change is most likely garbage.

Here's a little tidbit for you; historically science has been more wrong than right. Chew on that for a while.
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,512
Reaction score
12,476
Points
1,430
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.

More at the link.
The use of the word 'denier' makes this article nothing more than left wing propaganda meant to demonize. You have no science only the dogma of a lie meant to place all under socialism.. Two Words for you and your cult of anti-science left wing nut case people.. F**K OFF!
So that's your argument is it? "Fuck off"?

Informative.
TO idiot morons who think using the term "denier" is funny and thought provoking? Demonizing those who do not share your point of view? Blocking publication of those who disagree? Telling people int he EPA who work there that if you dont believe to get the fuck out? That's not science and what they present is not science. SO YES... Fuck Off is appropriate!
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,405
Reaction score
28,676
Points
2,180
All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.

More at the link.
The use of the word 'denier' makes this article nothing more than left wing propaganda meant to demonize. You have no science only the dogma of a lie meant to place all under socialism.. Two Words for you and your cult of anti-science left wing nut case people.. F**K OFF!
I agree, but also note the technique of lumping scepticism of the AGW hoax in with disbelief in evolution. That's a propaganda meme designed to discredit AGW scepticism with guilt by association. It totally ignores people like me who are stone cold believers in evolution but still reject AGW alarmism. One of the main reasons I became a sceptic is the way AGW alarmist use so many logically fallacies and dishonest propaganda techniques to defend their claims.
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,512
Reaction score
12,476
Points
1,430
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
The big push today is the rewriting of the historical temperature record to give "proof" of their AGW agenda. Between that and the attempt to silence those who do not agree with their fallacy and propaganda., it is coming close to outright fighting because they will not defend their premise openly in debate. They use these terms so that they avoid having to provide proof of their fallacy and having to defend their positions when empirical evidence lays their crap waste.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,496
Reaction score
22,516
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.

More at the link.
The use of the word 'denier' makes this article nothing more than left wing propaganda meant to demonize. You have no science only the dogma of a lie meant to place all under socialism.. Two Words for you and your cult of anti-science left wing nut case people.. F**K OFF!
So that's your argument is it? "Fuck off"?

Informative.
TO idiot morons who think using the term "denier" is funny and thought provoking? Demonizing those who do not share your point of view? Blocking publication of those who disagree? Telling people int he EPA who work there that if you dont believe to get the fuck out? That's not science and what they present is not science. SO YES... Fuck Off is appropriate!
I hear ya. Rationality is always so convincing. :eusa_think:

Those emotional basket cases, they can uh... they can fuck off.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
25,655
Reaction score
5,718
Points
280
Location
Washington
Why do Liberals deny the science of abortion, the science of the Keystone XL, the science of ethanol and the RFS mandate? :dunno:
Those are strictly political, moral, or economic issues, not scientific.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top