Antiscience Beliefs Jeopardize U.S. Democracy

[Winehole23]

if we don't, democracy is in danger. obviously.

[MannyIsGod]

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.

So its the fault of the communicator when people disregard facts backed by evidence? Pointing at a history of getting things done isn't going to get it done? LOL @ aggreived over en led scientists. Your personal bias against scientists is shining through quite clearly here. I'm not sure how it developed, but apparently it is causing you to argue that scientists are over en led (LOL!) because they're annoyed when people ignore reality. Oh, and its also their fault.

The article is arguing that the evidence and facts should set the parameters on public debate. If you don't agree with that, then you are in favor of fairy tales being the bounds of public debate. That is not me characterizing your argument. That IS your argument.

[MannyIsGod]

Very simple question: Are you in favor of ignoring mountains of evidence for political gain?

[Winehole23]

The article is arguing that the evidence and facts should set the parameters on public debate. If you don't agree with that, then you are in favor of fairy tales being the bounds of public debate. That is not me characterizing your argument. That IS your argument.

that people will set the parameters of public debate according to their own perceived political interests rather than scientifically vetted facts?

yep. that's just as it should be. you wish the world were otherwise, but it isn't.

[symple19]

There is some subtle and rather hilarious trolling going on in here (LOL!)

[Winehole23]

Very simple question: Are you in favor of ignoring mountains of evidence for political gain?

people are free to attach credence to whatever. you do know what freedom of conscience is, right?

[MannyIsGod]

people are free to attach credence to whatever. you do know what freedom of conscience is, right?

You did not answer my question. I asked you a very simple question. I did not ask if people were free to ignore mountains of evidence for political gain. The obvious answer to that is yes. I asked you what you were in favor of.

[Winehole23]

So its the fault of the communicator when people disregard facts backed by evidence?

partly, yes. ifr you've failed to make your case, you failed to make it. blame that on the audience all you want, but you've failed just the same.

[boutons_deux]

people are free to attach credence to whatever. you do know what freedom of conscience is, right?

conscience is not license to fantasize, to fill up conscience with garbage rules, esp not in the public sphere. Along with conscience, there is an obligation to doubt conscience and correct it.

[Winehole23]

You did not answer my question. I asked you a very simple question. I did not ask if people were free to ignore mountains of evidence for political gain. The obvious answer to that is yes. I asked you what you were in favor of.

I'm in favor of people deciding for themselves and not bowing reflexively to the majesty of science. Presumably that would include viewpoints cutting both ways on this question.

[clambake]

it would take a scientific breakthrough to reach someone thats wired to reject science.

[Winehole23]

conscience is not license to fantasize, to fill up conscience with garbage rules, esp not in the public sphere.

why not? isn't it commonly done?

[Winehole23]

it would take a scientific breakthrough to reach someone thats wired to reject science.

I'm not wired to reject science. Far from it. It's the arrogance and high-handedness of the prac ioners that gets me.

[MannyIsGod]

Why can't you simply answer a very simple question instead of being so afraid of the answer that you continue to dodge it? How is analyzing the evidence bowing reflexively to anything? I didn't say anything about taking anyone's word for it. What I asked you was if you were in favor of people ignoring evidence for political gain. This is not a very simple question simply meant to boil down the argument to its simplest point and you have now avoided answering it twice.

[clambake]

I'm not wired to reject science. Far from it.

i wasn't suggesting that, at all.

[Winehole23]

What I asked you was if you were in favor of people ignoring evidence for political gain.

I answered it, you just didn't like my answer. I suggested political interests can trump scientifically verifiable truth and falsity, and that's just as it should be. Not because I want it that way, but because that's the way it is.

[MannyIsGod]

It would be one thing if the article was arguing that people should listen to scientists and simply take their word for it. Then WH's argument as I see it would have merit. Of course, science goes to extensive measures to provide reasoning for everything and nothing that is advanced from a scientific endeavour is done without detailed explanations and reasoning. There is no such thing as "take my word for it" in science.

[Winehole23]

so no, I don't think politics should be rigged to produce outcomes favorable to science. Optimally, it produces outcomes favorable to real people and real political interests.

[MannyIsGod]

I answered it, you just didn't like my answer. I suggested political interests can trump scientifically verifiable truth and falsity, and that's just as it should be. Not because I want it that way, but because that's the way it is.

There's no doubt that political interests can trump the truth, WH. This is not up for debate. That it happens is not up for debate. The fact that the article is written about that very subject pretty much precludes that from being an item of contention. Why do you keep coming back to this? I'm not sure what the point of acknowledging what the initial OP was about as some end all be all point is.

What I asked was your opinion on whether or not this situation was one you were in favor of.

[MannyIsGod]

so no, I don't think politics should be rigged to produce outcomes favorable to science. Optimally, it produces outcomes favorable to real people and real political interests.

I don't even know what you mean by politics being rigged to produce outcomes favorable to science.

[Winehole23]

It would be one thing if the article was arguing that people should listen to scientists and simply take their word for it. Then WH's argument as I see it would have merit. Of course, science goes to extensive measures to provide reasoning for everything and nothing that is advanced from a scientific endeavour is done without detailed explanations and reasoning. There is no such thing as "take my word for it" in science.

btw, why is science so bad at winning the public debate if it's so good at discovering knowledge and improving life?

[clambake]

he's saying that personal interests will always trump science....or anything else, for that matter.

[Winehole23]

I don't even know what you mean by politics being rigged to produce outcomes favorable to science.

you think it should conform to scientifically verifiable facts. presumably, politics would have to be made to conform to that. obviously, it lacks the self-discipline to do so now.

[Blake]

btw, why is science so bad at winning the public debate if it's so good at discovering knowledge and improving life?

What debate?

[Winehole23]

What I asked was your opinion on whether or not this situation was one you were in favor of.

Asked and answered. At least twice.

It's just as it should be. I sure don't think a bunch of scientists could invent a more suitable system of public affairs.