Who is really anti-science?

If I add a poll to this article, will you vote in it?


  • Total voters
    0
#1

RespectTradition

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
1,831
Likes
0
#1
Let's Prize Climate Skepticism | Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar | Cato Institute: Commentary

excerpts
The latest Nobel Prize for chemistry has confirmed what science students are taught early on: that all scientific theories are intrinsically uncertain; that science progresses through skepticism and attacks on existing theories, and that successful attacks are sometimes rewarded with Nobel Prizes. It follows that skepticism about global warming, far from being antiscience, is in keeping with the standard scientific approach — and could one day fetch a skeptic a Nobel Prize
...
When Schechtman first announced his discovery, his superiors were scornful, telling him he should review his basic chemistry textbooks. When he persisted, he was asked to leave his research group. His first paper on the topic was rejected by the Journal of Applied Physics. But Schechtman persevered, and he proved that what 99.9 percent of scientists believed was wrong.
...
Science proves nothing beyond all doubt. Rather, it progresses by knocking down existing theories in favor of better ones, which in turn are subject to fresh attacks. Skepticism is at the very heart of the scientific method. The scientific approach is at odds not with climate-change skeptics, but with those who claim global warming is completely proven, contestable only by madmen and blackguards paid by oil companies.
Very good read. It doesn't try to defend climate change, nor does it condemn it. It simply talks about how science is supposed to work and how a great many people in the Extreme Environmental crowd wants to act like people who question climate change are anti-science. This is sad, since, as the article reminds us, real science is skeptical and is about questioning.
 
#3
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
50,806
Likes
12,934
#3
Here's an article that fits this thread:

The Biology Files: Huffington Post: Irresponsible mouthpiece for the World of Woo

I think the attacks that Republicans are anti-science because of GW skepticism are far too broad of generalizations. The truth is, anti-science (if you want to call it that) is often belief dependent. Many liberals question medical science (as is called into question in the above article) prefering instead "natural" or "homeopathic" or "holistic". It would be wrong to label Democrats as anti-science eventhough some Dems choose to be anti-science when it comes to health. Ironically, a hard-core homeopathic person who is completely anti-medical science is probably a hard-core GW believer (believing the worst possible consequences of GW).
 
#5

lawgator1

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
54,491
Likes
31,167
#5
I've never labeled conservatives anti-science because of their skepticism of global warming. I do believe that the business community is ideologically and financially vested in disparaging global warming and any research that supports it, yes, but there's room to debate it, at many levels. So its not so much anti-science as perhaps too much pro-business and dismissive of research the results of which they oppose.

Now Evangelical Christians and Crestionism, that's a more complicated issue.
 
#7

OrangeYankee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
1,056
Likes
81
#7
I've never labeled conservatives anti-science because of their skepticism of global warming. I do believe that the business community is ideologically and financially vested in disparaging global warming and any research that supports it, yes, but there's room to debate it, at many levels. So its not so much anti-science as perhaps too much pro-business and dismissive of research the results of which they oppose.

Now Evangelical Christians and Crestionism, that's a more complicated issue.
And that argument can be easily flipped the other way too, with the majority of the Global Warming advocates being heavily invested in Government and it's growth. This is why this particular debate is so infuriating because honestly I think the truth on this one is somewhere in the middle.

And yes the latter can be complicated and I am one that to this day, does not understand why we waist so much time and energy trying to win that battle. To me True Science is all about discovering new technologies and how does us coming from apes or if a dude in a beard spoke us into being from dirt have anything to do with discovering the cure to cancer or how to drive a car off of rotten banana peels?
 
#8

VOLatile

BRB Pooping
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
14,627
Likes
786
#8
Here's an article that fits this thread:

The Biology Files: Huffington Post: Irresponsible mouthpiece for the World of Woo

I think the attacks that Republicans are anti-science because of GW skepticism are far too broad of generalizations. The truth is, anti-science (if you want to call it that) is often belief dependent. Many liberals question medical science (as is called into question in the above article) prefering instead "natural" or "homeopathic" or "holistic". It would be wrong to label Democrats as anti-science eventhough some Dems choose to be anti-science when it comes to health. Ironically, a hard-core homeopathic person who is completely anti-medical science is probably a hard-core GW believer (believing the worst possible consequences of GW).
Wut? The only people I have ever heard of that believe in homeopathy (pray the pain away) are ultra-conservative Christians and they are usually creationists and anti-GW. That right there is anti-science. God created all, God will heal all.

Even people that believe in "natural" ways of curing things (herbs, yoga, etc) still use science as their foundation.

I'm not sure what anti-science actually means...

I would say that most of the people that want to teach Intelligent Design are somewhat anti-science because some just plug their ears when anyone mentions evolution. There's not a lick of scientific method basing for ID.
 
#9
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
50,806
Likes
12,934
#9
Wut? The only people I have ever heard of that believe in homeopathy (pray the pain away) are ultra-conservative Christians and they are usually creationists and anti-GW. That right there is anti-science. God created all, God will heal all.

Even people that believe in "natural" ways of curing things (herbs, yoga, etc) still use science as their foundation.

I'm not sure what anti-science actually means...

I would say that most of the people that want to teach Intelligent Design are somewhat anti-science because some just plug their ears when anyone mentions evolution. There's not a lick of scientific method basing for ID.
Not sure where you came up with that definition of homeopathy but it is incorrect.

Did you read the article? Plenty of "natural" ways folks are not scientific at all - the article has several good examples. They routinely ignore scientific evidence make all sorts of claims regarding the evils of modern medicine. Jenny McCarthy tells people that vaccinations cause autism and thousands of people believe her and refuse to get their kids vaccinated.
 
#10

Weezy

Diaper Dandy
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
3,726
Likes
210
#10
Do people here not believe in climate change/global warming or do they rather just question the contributions of man and the costly policies that follow it?
 
#12

VOLatile

BRB Pooping
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
14,627
Likes
786
#12
Not sure where you came up with that definition of homeopathy but it is incorrect.

Did you read the article? Plenty of "natural" ways folks are not scientific at all - the article has several good examples. They routinely ignore scientific evidence make all sorts of claims regarding the evils of modern medicine. Jenny McCarthy tells people that vaccinations cause autism and thousands of people believe her and refuse to get their kids vaccinated.
No, it's blocked at work. Who's Jenny McCarthy? Guess I did have the wrong definition... I wonder if I've been using the wrong word this whole time. What's the word I'm looking for? A quick Google search turned up the same use of that word for people that don't go to the doctor and put all of their faith in God healing them.

But anyways... my point was this: what defines anti-science?
 
#13

RespectTradition

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
1,831
Likes
0
#13
Do people here not believe in climate change/global warming or do they rather just question the contributions of man and the costly policies that follow it?
I believe in fluctuations in the average temperatures of regions on the planet. I have a lot of skepticism about the concept known as 'global warming' and that its cause is manmade. The problem, for me, is that since there is, without a doubt, a concerted effort to prevent any contrary evidence or papers to be published, then it makes me wonder what is being hidden and why. This lack of objectivity and intellectual honesty causes me problems. I tend not to believe what I am told. Especially when you can look at every major prediction by a warmer scientist for the last 40 years that have reached maturity and see that they are wrong.
 
#14

VOLatile

BRB Pooping
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
14,627
Likes
786
#14
I believe in fluctuations in the average temperatures of regions on the planet. I have a lot of skepticism about the concept known as 'global warming' and that its cause is manmade. The problem, for me, is that since there is, without a doubt, a concerted effort to prevent any contrary evidence or papers to be published, then it makes me wonder what is being hidden and why. This lack of objectivity and intellectual honesty causes me problems. I tend not to believe what I am told. Especially when you can look at every major prediction by a warmer scientist for the last 40 years that have reached maturity and see that they are wrong.
Can I get a non-blog source of proof of "a concerted effort to prevent any contrary evidence or papers to be published?"
 
#15

RespectTradition

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
1,831
Likes
0
#15
No, it's blocked at work. Who's Jenny McCarthy? Guess I did have the wrong definition... I wonder if I've been using the wrong word this whole time. What's the word I'm looking for? A quick Google search turned up the same use of that word for people that don't go to the doctor and put all of their faith in God healing them.

But anyways... my point was this: what defines anti-science?
Homeopathy is the belief that the cure is what ails ya. In a nutshell. Vaccines were originally pursued under the homeopathic principle. Now, homeopathic practitioners tend to be very anti-vaccine, but that is a complicated topic anyway. I think you are referring to what is commonly called 'faith-healing' or 'idiocy'.

Anti-science can be summarized as the intellectual rejection of any scientific evidence or theory that contradicts a strongly held belief.

Who is Jenny McCarthy? Are you gay? or 12? lol
 
#17

VOLatile

BRB Pooping
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
14,627
Likes
786
#17
Homeopathy is the belief that the cure is what ails ya. In a nutshell. Vaccines were originally pursued under the homeopathic principle. Now, homeopathic practitioners tend to be very anti-vaccine, but that is a complicated topic anyway. I think you are referring to what is commonly called 'faith-healing' or 'idiocy'.

Anti-science can be summarized as the intellectual rejection of any scientific evidence or theory that contradicts a strongly held belief.

Who is Jenny McCarthy? Are you gay? or 12? lol
THAT Jenny McCarthy? People listened to a supermodel?

Faith-healing... yeah, I thought that was the same as homeopathy. Either way, it's all idiotic.

So we can all agree that intelligent design advocates are anti-science since they refute the scientific claims of evolution while having really no scientific grounds to stand on? They just point to the "gaps*" and run...

*which are continuously being filled.

On a slightly unrelated note: Jenny McCarthy is hotter now than ever, IMO.
 
#19

RespectTradition

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
1,831
Likes
0
#19
THAT Jenny McCarthy? People listened to a supermodel?

Faith-healing... yeah, I thought that was the same as homeopathy. Either way, it's all idiotic.

So we can all agree that intelligent design advocates are anti-science since they refute the scientific claims of evolution while having really no scientific grounds to stand on? They just point to the "gaps*" and run...

*which are continuously being filled.

On a slightly unrelated note: Jenny McCarthy is hotter now than ever, IMO.
:boobies: She has a way of getting your attention! :p
 
#21

VOLatile

BRB Pooping
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
14,627
Likes
786
#21
I respectfully suggest that we read them differently.

I have also read papers by Patrick J. Michaels and others that have been refused publication in peer reviewed journals due to editorial bias.
I won't argue that it doesn't happen. Unfortunately, money has corrupted the scientific community like every other facet of life.
 
#22

Weezy

Diaper Dandy
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
3,726
Likes
210
#22
I believe in fluctuations in the average temperatures of regions on the planet. I have a lot of skepticism about the concept known as 'global warming' and that its cause is manmade. The problem, for me, is that since there is, without a doubt, a concerted effort to prevent any contrary evidence or papers to be published, then it makes me wonder what is being hidden and why. This lack of objectivity and intellectual honesty causes me problems. I tend not to believe what I am told. Especially when you can look at every major prediction by a warmer scientist for the last 40 years that have reached maturity and see that they are wrong.
The reason I ask is because I read this today about an often cited skeptic:

The scientific finding that settles the climate-change debate - The Washington Post

Richard Muller, a respected physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, used to dismiss alarmist climate research as being “polluted by political and activist frenzy.” Frustrated at what he considered shoddy science, Muller launched his own comprehensive study to set the record straight. Instead, the record set him straight.
...
“Global warming is real,” Muller wrote last week in The Wall Street Journal.
...
In other words, the deniers’ claims about the alleged sloppiness or fraudulence of climate science are wrong. Muller’s team, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, rigorously explored the specific objections raised by skeptics — and found them groundless.
...
The Berkeley group’s research even confirms the infamous “hockey stick” graph — showing a sharp recent temperature rise — that Muller once snarkily called “the poster child of the global warming community.” Muller’s new graph isn’t just similar, it’s identical.
And Muller's article in WSJ:
Richard A. Muller: The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism - WSJ.com

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.
I think the door is still open to man's contributions and the policies enacted, but I'm not sure about outright denying it.
 
#23

lumberjack4

My Facts > Your Facts
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
2,726
Likes
0
#23
Do people here not believe in climate change/global warming or do they rather just question the contributions of man and the costly policies that follow it?
Based on what I've seen/read, I personally believe that giant ball of gas 93 million miles away and the planet itself have more of an impact on the climate than man. Doesn't mean I discount the possibility that GW exists or that it could very well be man made. But I don't believe the evidence today passes scientific muster, particularly pertaining to the fact that science is strongly discouraged from questioning it. When a group resorts to the line of reasoning, "but what if you're wrong?" I don't believe that they have proven their side of the issue.
 
#24

OrangeYankee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
1,056
Likes
81
#24
Do people here not believe in climate change/global warming or do they rather just question the contributions of man and the costly policies that follow it?
I personally believe fully that climate does indeed change... England was once a vineyard paradise, Greenland used to be a lush green area. We also were much colder in the States during the 17th and 18th Centuries. However, I'm EXTREMELY dubious to the man made angle of that argument just because it reeks of ant-industry whack jobs.
 

VN Store



Sponsors
 

Top