Reply With Quote
you calling anyone butthurt after your infoeriority complex shines through from your diatribe in this thread.
Again you did not read the article.
But there are two main reasons. First, because government, military and the higher educational system most scientists have removed themselves from the public debate. This is not the early 19th century when Edison, Westinghouse and Tesla were trying to fund their projects.
Second, because the lay American is ignorant. You are more intelligent than the average bear WH but can you have an intelligent discussion about partial differential equations, harmonic analysis or thermodynamics? Perhaps you can, I do not know but if you can you should have a good idea of the inability of most Americans to function on that level. Ambassador's like Carl Sagan are important no doubt but it's hard to appeal to a person's reason when they do not have the background to be appealed to. The trend is to educate the masses less than more and they serves to widen the divide.
The above is exacerbated by a phenomenon that has been getting worse over the last 20 or so year where people turn their inferiority complexes into an excuse to dismiss out of hand. the most common example that I see of this is the 'big word' complaint. Go read a ing book, dolt. But the undesirable socially awkward intelligent person has been stereotyped as someone you do not want to be. By extension intelligent = bad. In WW2 it became readily apparent that the truth wins wars not what you want the truth to be. Since then that understanding the efficacy of the truth has diminished in stature.
At the end of the day logic and empricism is the best way of finding an objective truth. I feel very strongly that policy should be based on the truth ie what actually happened and with the best understanding of the 'mechanics' of what causes rather than theological and wishful thinking. I don't like seeing policy like we have seen for the past thirty years hoping that the increasing temperature trends will stop or not liking abortion so you claim that rape victims have mechanisms to not get pregnant. It goes on and on and it's getting worse.
Yeah you do that.
should have stipulated "among conservatives." among liberals it skews the other way:
http://www.people-press.org/2008/05/...lobal-warming/
This is something I expect out of WC. Yeah basing decisions on the best predictors of future, present and past events would not be the better course of action. Who wants theings to work?
I'd be interested to know how someone who has a bachelors of science might be anti-science.
politics ain't physics, and best predictors guarantee nothing. assuming we would all be better off if we had the scientific method instead of politics determining policy is an example of the arrogance and high handedness I've been talking about.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-19-2012 at 01:17 PM.
posted, above
Your not very good at analyzing data.
A) you said science, this is just one very politically charged aspect of science.
B) 9 out of 10 scientist are democrat.
Thats form the OPPresident Ronald Reagan argued in his 1981 inaugural address. “Government is the problem.” This antiregulatory-antiscience alliance largely defines the political parties today and helps to explain why, according to a 2009 survey, nine out of 10 scientists who identified with a major political party said they were Democrats.
C) Look at the link
In addition, college graduates are more likely than those with a high school education or less to say that human activity is causing global warming (51% college graduate vs. 43% high school or less).
Blake: google "smart idiot effect"
my memory was fuzzy and my initial generalization overbroad. post #158 reflects that.
isn't this, in itself, a metaphysical assertion ?
So you are proposing to not take the best bet because of an inferiority complex. You can check the work but you want to run off of intuition. You are a irrational romantic poetry boy.
I remembered the study slightly before I checked to read it. You got me dead to rights there.
Over broad? How about specifically wrong.
Maybe. I deny that what you say is knowable in advance. Science doesn't know the best bets for policy, because there is no science of politics. Like everyone else, science gets a policy recommendation.
But sometimes, it dreams of taking over. . .
Sure but at the point you are talking everybody is. It's what Hume was getting at. There can really be no true objective truth because everyone's sense are independent and different. There can be no certainty. At that point though I can question whether or not you exist or if WH is really a person etc.
I choose not to go that path because quite frankly it leads to despair. I accept that you, he and I exist. I accept that you can observe the same world that I do and that through said observations we can come to a consensus. Perhaps it is the proverbial invisible cosmic monkey banging out the rhythm of the universe but if you can experience it and it can be repeated such that other's can experience it then I define that as objective truth.
sure, man. I said my memory was fuzzy.
You are personifying it and being a romantic idiot. Science is not an independent consciousness. What individuals in science in the last 200 years have dreamed of taking over? I can think of a whole slew of romantics and ideologues that have.
Robespierre and Hitler come to mind.
And again it's not science. It's empiricism and inductive logic. You are fearmongering an ins ution.
btw, I was correct as to conservatives at high levels of education.
yeah, I'm just like those guys
Science is a field of study. It's like saying geography or math dreams of taking over.
can't you just hate me for being me, Fuzzy? I don't see why Hitler and Robespierre need to get dragged into this at all.
I never said you were but the point is that romantics and ideologues are the ones that become the worst of the worst. You said science tries to take over. Who is this technocrat not in fiction?
For s sake dude, now you are personalizing that? I don't hate you. I feel the need to defend myself from you but I don't hate you. I don't know you well enough nor have you done anything to me to merit that. The reason I brought those two into it was because you said science tries to take over. I honestly don't know of any technocrats but i do know of romantics and ideologues ie irrational leaders that have become the absolute worst tyrants of history.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions