Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    10 May '16 13:06
    http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/gop-war-on-science-gets-worse

    Yessir, republicans have our best interest at heart.


    NOT.
  2. 10 May '16 14:53
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/gop-war-on-science-gets-worse

    Yessir, republicans have our best interest at heart.


    NOT.
    Most of the "scientists" are not really. They are ideologues, who already believe a myth, and want government to enforce their views.

    As long as there are credible differing views, government ought not be taking sides with the view that promotes more government and more taxation. You do see the conflict of interest, don't you?
  3. 10 May '16 15:24
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Most of the "scientists" are not really. They are ideologues, who already believe a myth, and want government to enforce their views.

    As long as there are credible differing views, government ought not be taking sides with the view that promotes more government and more taxation. You do see the conflict of interest, don't you?
    Who do you imagine will be able to discern what views are "credible," if not the experts in the field (i.e. scientists)?
  4. 10 May '16 15:35
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Who do you imagine will be able to discern what views are "credible," if not the experts in the field (i.e. scientists)?
    When "scientist" hide behind the title, they become not scientists, but elitists. Ordinary people can understand science it it is properly presented.

    If you throw dung at me and say its good for me, that I'm too stupid to see the truth, then you are the stupid one. In science, truth is never decided by consensus, or majority vote. In the past scientific consensus was almost always wrong and overturned by some kook minority.
  5. 10 May '16 15:41
    Originally posted by normbenign
    When "scientist" hide behind the title, they become not scientists, but elitists. Ordinary people can understand science it it is properly presented.

    If you throw dung at me and say its good for me, that I'm too stupid to see the truth, then you are the stupid one. In science, truth is never decided by consensus, or majority vote. In the past scientific consensus was almost always wrong and overturned by some kook minority.
    When "scientist" hide behind the title, they become not scientists, but elitists.

    Which scientists have "hidden behind their title" and have thus become "elitists"?

    Ordinary people can understand science it it is properly presented.

    Some (incomplete) level of understanding, sure. But what's your point?

    If you throw dung at me and say its good for me, that I'm too stupid to see the truth, then you are the stupid one. In science, truth is never decided by consensus, or majority vote. In the past scientific consensus was almost always wrong and overturned by some kook minority.

    Can you give some recent examples of the scientific consensus being "wrong" and "overturned by some kook minority"?
  6. 10 May '16 15:59 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Most of the "scientists" are not really. They are ideologues, who already believe a myth, and want government to enforce their views.

    As long as there are credible differing views, government ought not be taking sides with the view that promotes more government and more taxation.
    "They are ideologues, who already believe a myth, and want government to enforce their views"
    yes, those damn evil tyrannical scientists, bent on world domination.


    "You do see the conflict of interest, don't you?"
    do you? oil industry gives bribes to your elected representatives and pay up a couple of "scientists" to downplay the harm they are causing. your elected representatives pass laws favoring oil and coal industry. no conflict of interest there, huh?

    meanwhile, large clean energy industry lobbyist are paying millions of dollars to US congressmen... pfff, wait no they don't, there are no such millionaires.
  7. 10 May '16 16:14
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "They are ideologues, who already believe a myth, and want government to enforce their views"
    yes, those damn evil tyrannical scientists, bent on world domination.
    Scientists, just like other professions, disagree.

    There are many scientists who don't buy into the consensus. If you took the time to actually read some of the conflicting evidence, you might not either.
  8. 10 May '16 16:16
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    [b]When "scientist" hide behind the title, they become not scientists, but elitists.

    Which scientists have "hidden behind their title" and have thus become "elitists"?

    Ordinary people can understand science it it is properly presented.

    Some (incomplete) level of understanding, sure. But what's your point?

    If you throw dung at ...[text shortened]... ecent examples of the scientific consensus being "wrong" and "overturned by some kook minority"?
    Yes, I could, but it would be a waste of time.
  9. 10 May '16 19:14
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Yes, I could, but it would be a waste of time.
    If you are not prepared or unwilling to defend your positions on this forum, I recommend you don't posit them.
  10. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    10 May '16 21:10
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Yes, I could, but it would be a waste of time.
    So you are ok with fluking repubs killing science and therefore letting the US become second or third class scientifically in the world and China, Brazil, India and the like become world leaders in science.

    Just another sign of the decline in the US. I hope you choke on your derision and paranoia.
  11. 10 May '16 23:04
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So you are ok with fluking repubs killing science and therefore letting the US become second or third class scientifically in the world and China, Brazil, India and the like become world leaders in science.

    Just another sign of the decline in the US. I hope you choke on your derision and paranoia.
    Democrats are no more scientifically inclined than are Republicans, in fact less so, because they tend to use bogus science to support their pet projects which usually involve more taxation and government spending. Some "scientists" enjoy working for the government, always having a teat to suck on. True scientists work without government support, and in many cases buck the trends. Man caused global warming is the biggest science/government scam in a while, although there have been others.
  12. 10 May '16 23:13
    Originally posted by normbenign to Sonhouse
    Democrats are no more scientifically inclined than are Republicans, in fact less so, because they tend to use bogus science to support their pet projects which usually involve more taxation and government spending. Some "scientists" enjoy working for the government, always having a teat to suck on. True scientists work without government sup ...[text shortened]... obal warming is the biggest science/government scam in a while, although there have been others.
    "Democrats are no more scientifically inclined than are Republicans, in fact less so."
    --Normbenign

    Does Normbenign believe that more American scientists are Republicans rather than Democrats?
    As far as I know, there's a correlation (with some exceptions) between being highly educated in science and not adhering to right-wing political ideologies?
  13. 11 May '16 06:44
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "Democrats are no more scientifically inclined than are Republicans, in fact less so."
    --Normbenign

    Does Normbenign believe that more American scientists are Republicans rather than Democrats?
    As far as I know, there's a correlation (with some exceptions) between being highly educated in science and not adhering to right-wing political ideologies?
    It's no secret that the well-educated favour Democrats - which also to me seems like the obvious least worst of two poor choices - but I suppose that in normbenign's world, only non-scientists can be true scientists.
  14. 11 May '16 08:08
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Scientists, just like other professions, disagree.

    There are many scientists who don't buy into the consensus. , you might not either.
    "Scientists, just like other professions, disagree. "
    not on this. the overwhelming majority of scientists agree on the main issue. but yes, you are right, they do disagree on who will be screwd by our actions, our children or our grandchildren.

    "There are many scientists who don't buy into the consensus. "
    no. they are few. and bought.

    "If you took the time to actually read some of the conflicting evidence"
    i did. it reeks of oil industry ordered science. there isn't one scientist out there who disagrees on the science who can't be linked in some way with someone interested in profiting from oil or coal or whatever.