Reply With Quote
Show me some solid science, and I am happy to change my mind.
Until then stand in the corner with the magic chakra crowd.
Quite frankly the tone and wording sounds so much like the magic crystal, and 9-11 twoofer crowd.
Riddle me this:
What would people who really understand the science say about people who pull out of their ass about a topic?
Sounds like the human tendency to overestimate competence, and do so in increasing gaps the less they know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect
I think in this case there are a lot of bottom quartiles on the information spectrum thinking they are above average about their knowledge of the topic.
Start here, and this guy will take you through what actual scientists say. I will say he isn't very nice to Al Gore.
Show me some solid science, and I am happy to change my mind.
Until then stand in the corner with the magic chakra crowd.
The article isn't about climate change. It's about intolerance.
The left only hears what they want to.
I wonder if we can bemoan the "debate is over" about evolution?
Creationists make the same complaints.
"boo- ing-hoo, the scientists dont' take us seriously"....
Too bad the bad science from climatologists make people weary about evolution.
RG with the whiff
I don't think many people with PhDs are idealists, quite frankly. Grad school tends to really bring out the cynic in people. Many people have an impression of academics that is very very far from the truth and I think this is a good example. I really doubt even those with PhDs in the humanities are very idealistic. In fact, they are likely more jaded and cynical than those who are on a STEM path.
From my exposure to academics in the geosciences, most are definitely progressive. But its not because of an idealistic views. Its because the GOP's stances. Most people I've come across tend to be very much against GOP actions when it comes to gay marriage, science, and the war on terror. If you do find any idealism, its likely to be in the last category but I don't know for sure as most of my conversations with these people involve science or subjects we enjoy more (BEER) than politics. Its basically hard for trained scientists to back a party who for the last decade has been bent on denying some fundamental science and focusing on subjects such as gay marriage.
In other disciplines, YMMV.
I've read things that show that the political identification among professors has shifted to the left but perhaps what people should consider is that the shift hasn't occurred among college faculty but rather in the GOP shifting to the right. Perhaps it was easier for professors to identify with GOP principles in the 70s than it has been after the 90s.
The tired ass 97% consensus bull again?
Do you know the origin of that figure?
And Obama's birth certificate still looms large. I think he was last an Egyptian.
Actually, it doesn't loom large.
Nah, they just don't like being associated with apes.
Created specially and all that. If anything you got it backwards imo.
Weary from the constant battering, or wary, as in skeptical, not trusting?
Dont tell Glen Beck... and his listeners.
Glen Beck is a birther? I doubt it.
Sounds like what happens to boutons' posts, tbh...
The reality is that there's a lot of debate about the "accepted" point of view, new/different theories, etc, within the realm of science. The actual problem is when you start hearing "god of the gaps", "trickle down", etc, and at this point, why would anybody be surprised they're ignored?
He's the kind described in the OP as getting ignored/vilified... rightly so if you ask me.
there is a reason, and as an academic, i see it everywhere. it isn't anything new though. it has been around a long time.
to debate the status quo in academics is a huge gamble. chances are you'll be completely ostracized from the field. if not, you start your own "black box" so to speak.
that's the beauty of academics though. without "follow the leader" academics, nothing really substantial gets done. however, it takes one screwy theory or academic to throw it all out of line. that's why academics are so cynical because it takes one asshole to spoil a whole field of work and every one will be out of the job or have to translate their work without sounding like a hypocrite.
or as often the case, two (or more) different schools of thought spring up and academics usually feel they have to "assign" themselves to one or the other.
usually your best bet is to agree with the consensus and add your own brick to the wall.
Last edited by The Reckoning; 04-08-2014 at 12:13 AM.
But if you really uncover a significant flaw everyone missed and effectively present this flaw, respect.
There are also academics that love to point out flaws or conclusions that don't necessarily follow the evidence. They lie in wait ready to pounce. I know exactly who they are, they relish slamming a paper that might follow the leader if it is not worthy. It may be different depending on which field you are in. I don't know.
And there clearly are gadflies just out for attention.
we had this guy fly in from out of country to give a seminar on something...his research was meticulously done, his methods and analysis were solid and presentation great.
then some random academic drills this dude during questioning about ethics and how he didn't go through the right mediums....all the guy could do was sit there in silence because the whole ethics portion of the study was done by someone else in the very department that invited him to talk.
i swear there are some real McAssholes in academia. and as far as everyone else was concerned, the ethics were fine. they had to be approved by a committee anyway...
I don't really care. 97%, 92%, 89.3%, 62.33333%, etc.
A general consensus among the people who actually study something is about all I would look to.
If you really want to delve into the science, the other series by potholer54 is better.
(Playlist)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KL...fHsWPfAIyI7VAP
He addresses the actual science, as well as what you would term alarmism by the likes of Al Gore. Let me know when you get to the end.
I would point out, that mouse, Cosmored, parker, et al., never watch anything of similar length that challenges their pre-existing beliefs.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-08-2014 at 04:45 PM.
https://www.google.com/search?q=glen...+birther+quote
He isn't.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2010/01/120992/#mAvdERiUr6xZ6cAk.99On the air today, popular radio host Glenn Beck mocked “birthers” and claimed there is a concerted campaign to get those questioning Barack Obama’s cons utional eligibility onto the airwaves – a strategy Beck said would actually benefit Obama.
People should be intolerant of intellectual dishonesty and pseudoscientific garbage.
Do you think that people who say that crystals have magic healing powers should be held to the same level of credibility that someone who graduated from medical school would have?
Yes they should be show empirical evidence.
If they are shown rank dishonesty, what should they think?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions