Antiscience Beliefs Jeopardize U.S. Democracy

[boutons_deux]

"In the end people will see what they want to see,"

And if people deny that objectivity and scientific method are suspect, untrustworthy, then they make up and push their own reality, ie, Repugs/VRWC denying the science of AGW, denying that Ms of people depend on govt spending, yelling down anybody who dares question the sacredness of the free market to provide all best solutions (while the Repugs/VRWC actually detest free markets).

[dbestpro]

It always amazes me when people, who are confronted with logical information, tend to rely on insults and political correction. Whether you are ignorant of how the process works has very little to do with the fact you are democrat or republican. It also tends to be a warning sign that there can be no intellectual exchange.

Foul language in most intellectual cricles is considered the vehicle of the lesser intelligent. You may want to try and and do a little better the next time you wish to engage someone is a discussion regarding science.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I also want to expand on this a little bit. Locke was big on being able to prove your claims empirically. He was the one to formalize the notion. In the mid-19th century, Emerson came into what is now a through and through American tradition, the notion of self reliance. it's bas ized nowadays to mean that you rely on yourself in all means but if you read Self Reliance it talks about coming to conclusions and how at the end of the day you need to rely on yourself for that. He wraps it up in cosmic pulse transcendental mumbo jumbo but the message is clear: think for yourself.

Science through its requirement of being empirical and thus repeatable gives an avenue for each man to be independent. No one tells you because you can look for yourself to see whether or not something is true.

It's the difference between taking air samples and thermometer readings to come to a conclusion about climate and claiming that universities are all making up to come to a conclusion about climate.

[dbestpro]

"In the end people will see what they want to see,"

And if people deny that objectivity and scientific method are suspect, untrustworthy, then they make up and push their own reality, ie, Repugs/VRWC denying the science of AGW, denying that Ms of people depend on govt spending, yelling down anybody who dares question the sacredness of the free market to provide all best solutions (while the Repugs/VRWC actually detest free markets).

I agree that it does go both ways. The solutions for our country will always begin on where we agree.

[dbestpro]

I also want to expand on this a little bit. Locke was big on being able to prove your claims empirically. He was the one to formalize the notion. In the mid-19th century, Emerson came into what is now a through and through American tradition, the notion of self reliance. it's bas ized nowadays to mean that you rely on yourself in all means but if you read Self Reliance it talks about coming to conclusions and how at the end of the day you need to rely on yourself for that. He wraps it up in cosmic pulse transcendental mumbo jumbo but the message is clear: think for yourself.

Science through its requirement of being empirical and thus repeatable gives an avenue for each man to be independent. No one tells you because you can look for yourself to see whether or not something is true.

It's the difference between taking air samples and thermometer readings to come to a conclusion about climate and claiming that universities are all making up to come to a conclusion about climate.

I happen to agree with everything you presented in this post.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Logical? What's the original premise? What are you inducing off of?

And your proper diction whining can off.

studies are funded by grants - okay

grants are made with a conclusion in mind - substantiate this bull

there are few studies that really ask for empirical proof - bull prove it. what studies?

the grants are structured such they assume certain truths already - well that is a matter of degree. more than likely you are talking about creation science not getting credence but for the most part things like oxidation, gravity, thermodynamics, etc have been fully fleshed out and don't need to be reproven each and every time. Creation science has no empirical backing so why should every study give it credence? You dont have Aquinas forcing the issue any more. Sorry.

the whole process is biased - were you stamping your foot as you said this? you say that foul language is indicative of low intelligence. Well I posit that saying stupid is a sign of low intelligence. this is a convenient blanket dismissal though.

[velik_m]

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that the state has decided to crack down on free education, notifying California-based startup Coursera that it is not allowed to offer its online courses to the state’s residents. Coursera, founded by Stanford computer science professors Daphne Koller and Andrew Ng, partners with top-tier universities around the world to offer certain classes online for free to anyone who wants to take them. You know, unless they happen to be from Minnesota.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...education.html

[DMC]

I also want to expand on this a little bit. Locke was big on being able to prove your claims empirically. He was the one to formalize the notion. In the mid-19th century, Emerson came into what is now a through and through American tradition, the notion of self reliance. it's bas ized nowadays to mean that you rely on yourself in all means but if you read Self Reliance it talks about coming to conclusions and how at the end of the day you need to rely on yourself for that. He wraps it up in cosmic pulse transcendental mumbo jumbo but the message is clear: think for yourself.

Science through its requirement of being empirical and thus repeatable gives an avenue for each man to be independent. No one tells you because you can look for yourself to see whether or not something is true.

It's the difference between taking air samples and thermometer readings to come to a conclusion about climate and claiming that universities are all making up to come to a conclusion about climate.

It's not even about religion, per se. It's about laziness. People are too lazy to think for themselves. It requires research and experimentation. Instead, people want the Cliff Notes version in the form of hearsay. Even then they shun those claims that cause doubt, because doubt leads to desire to research and they are too lazy for that. So they choose the most comfortable explanation, nothing too fancy, but even if that inserts a supernatural force in a black box role, they are ok with it as their thinking doesn't even need to address that block. You cannot research God, and the taboo nature of even considering it keeps them comfortably numb about science.

They will talk about it to others like them however, they just won't discuss it with scientists.

[DMC]

It is very difficult to get pure data from which scientific conclusions are drawn. The problem quite often is the data is obtained through biased means thus providing scientists with faulty conclusions. To understand the value of the conclusion you have to even factor in the funding source of the study as that will skew your results as much as any test methodology.

In the end people will see what they want to see, much like politics only it happens more discreetly in the scientific arena.

I am not disagreeing with you, however the alternative is to allow universities to just meander in science and provide no usable results. There's always a CV in any results, even in your own testing. You still have to take the most reliable source and work from that. That doesn't mean you accept their findings, but it you can build your research upon it's premises and prove or disprove them along the way.

[Blake]

Foul language in most intellectual cricles is considered the vehicle of the lesser intelligent.

that's a ed up stereotype

[Winehole23]

i'll bite. such as......

deference shown to so called forensic science, head shrinkers and other supposedly sceintific experts in courts, for one

[Winehole23]

And let me repeat, that doesn't mean every subject is one where we have a good handle on what is "objective, empirical knowledge". I realize completely that in areas such as sociology and economics our understanding of how the systems work is flawed and incomplete. That doesn't somehow give people carte blanche to make up a reality of their choosing in the subject areas where we do have such a handle on things.

people will, and do. cope with it.

[Winehole23]

Yeah the arrogance of what is by far the most successful way of advancing human knowledge in existence. I asked you above to show me a method that had done more for humanity than the scientific method. I didn't see any response.

Republican government and free trade, by a country mile. Political liberalism sets the table for innovation of all kinds, including scientific innovation. Human freedom > scientific progress.

[clambake]

deference shown to so called forensic science, head shrinkers and other supposedly sceintific experts in courts, for one

well, that stage is set for the dog and pony show......to cloud procedure.

[boutons_deux]

"The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind. "

http://quotes.dictionary.com/the_mos..._follies_is_to

[Winehole23]

That doesn't somehow give people carte blanche to make up a reality of their choosing in the subject areas where we do have such a handle on things.

it's your job to convince people your viewpoint deserves deference. angrily denouncing people as benighted fools and pointing smugly at the accomplishments of science ain't gonna get it done anymore, though it does seem that worked well enough for awhile, given the number of aggrieved, over-en led scientists who believe they deserve to set the parameters of public debate.

[Winehole23]

well, that stage is set for the dog and pony show......to cloud procedure.

civil commitment and criminal conviction are real; the supposedly scientific evidence taken as the basis for them often isn't

[clambake]

its just rebuttal.....to cloud procedure. lawyers often select jurors directly relating to IQ.

[Winehole23]

thanks, I'm not a lawyer. didn't catch the voir dire reference.

problem isn't just the jurors. lawyers often select experts known to be friendly to LE or the defense; some experts are professional pleaders without much of a professional practice to back it all up. then there are things like rifle marks on the bullet, which have been more or less shown to be without probative value, and things like fingerprint analysis, which can be highly subjective and prone to confirmation bias in the absence of meaningful standards (as well as oversight and review amounting to enforcement of said standards.)

[clambake]

pick the right jury and have someone plant the seed of questionable evidence gathering and handling.....whether it exists or not.

dog and pony.

[Winehole23]

yep.

[Winehole23]

civil commitment requires no jury, though. just a head shrinker, a concerned relative and a judge.

[MannyIsGod]

people will, and do. cope with it.

Wow, such an insightful response. Why even bother?

[MannyIsGod]

Republican government and free trade, by a country mile. Political liberalism sets the table for innovation of all kinds, including scientific innovation. Human freedom > scientific progress.

Providing an environment where science is able to expand knowledge does not mean science isn't what is expanding our knowledge.

[Winehole23]

therefore, I will bow to you and accede to your stipulated facts and limitations, and so should everyone else. right?