• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you deny science if it conflicts with your "morality"?

Do you deny science if it conflicts with your "morality"?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • No

    Votes: 21 95.5%

  • Total voters
    22

Viking11

Banned
Joined
May 2, 2016
Messages
174
Reaction score
60
Location
New Hampshire
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Conservatives deny things like climate change because it conflicts with their individualist "morality" (climate change = more regulation = "bigger" government.)
Liberals deny things like racial differences in intelligence and violent behavior because it goes against their egalitarian "morality."

 

David_N

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
6,562
Reaction score
2,769
Location
The United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Conservatives deny things like climate change because it conflicts with their individualist "morality" (climate change = more regulation = "bigger" government.)
Liberals deny things like racial differences in intelligence and violent behavior because it goes against their egalitarian "morality."


Liberals deny things like racial differences in intelligence and violent behavior
Great, stormfront is here. :doh
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
30,804
Reaction score
10,228
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is a large gap between denying Science, and being skeptical of the conclusion reached based on
limited data.
In the case of AGW, people are trying to rush legislation to correct a problem, that may not exists.
 

HonestJoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
5,619
Reaction score
2,868
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There’s a difference between flatly denying simple facts and denying claimed causes. It’s a fact that the Earth’s climate is changing but there’s legitimate debate on the extent and balance of causes. It’s a fact that IQ tests give different results from different racial/national groupings but there’s legitimate debate on why those differences occur.

There can be both socio-political and honest reasons for positions in those debates (usually a combination of both if we’re honest). Condemning someone for denying facts when they’re actually denying proposed causes remains flawed.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Conservatives deny things like climate change because it conflicts with their individualist "morality" (climate change = more regulation = "bigger" government.)
Liberals deny things like racial differences in intelligence and violent behavior because it goes against their egalitarian "morality."


Not when it conflicts with my morality. But I hate it, when I contradicts my opinions. Luckily my opinions are built on state of the arts science. ;)
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
30,804
Reaction score
10,228
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Is science always right?
Not always, but if done properly, includes a methodology of self correction.
Theories are usually postulated with falsifiable predictions.
I.E. if this happens, the theory is invalidated.
 

Riveroaks

Banned
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
10,230
Reaction score
2,081
Location
Peoples' Republic Of CALIF
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Science consists of data and inferences about the data.

Data consists of observations and calculations.

Inferences about the data consists essentially of a-posteriori tentative conclusions subject to future revision, also known as hypotheses, theories, and laws.

They are NOT truly "laws" because laws are the words spoke by a king or legislature, and science has no king nor legislature.

And referring to a consensus of scientists to infer a "law" is a fallacy of argumentum populum.

Morality is an ethical requirement derived from your particular brand of philosophy.

As east is east and west is west, n'ary the twain shall meet.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Conservatives deny things like climate change because it conflicts with their individualist "morality" (climate change = more regulation = "bigger" government.)
Liberals deny things like racial differences in intelligence and violent behavior because it goes against their egalitarian "morality."
In a sense, the question is meaningless. Even if they do AND know it, they're not going to admit it.
 

Riveroaks

Banned
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
10,230
Reaction score
2,081
Location
Peoples' Republic Of CALIF
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In a sense, the question is meaningless. Even if they do AND know it, they're not going to admit it.

The question is meaningless because it requires a person to violate a sound philosophical principle of mixing religion, science, and philosophy.

In other words the O/P wants you to compare apples and oranges, to use more homespun language.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
66,512
Reaction score
33,871
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Great, stormfront is here. :doh

You have no idea whatsoever who the guy in the OP is, do you.

TheGoverness said:
Like a good neighbor, stormfront is there!

His name is Jonathan Haidt. He's a professor at NYU, and, while I disagree with his personal belief system (he's a moderate-liberal), he's legitimately fascinating, original, and capable of honestly assessing his own side as well as the other.

His Ted Talk, in particular, I highly recommend for anyone who actually wants to try to understand people they disagree with.
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Conservatives deny things like climate change because it conflicts with their individualist "morality" (climate change = more regulation = "bigger" government.)
Liberals deny things like racial differences in intelligence and violent behavior because it goes against their egalitarian "morality."

There are very few aspects of your other posts with which I can say that I agree; however, this is a point that has been verified by others. Duke University did a study that found a significant and positive correlation between skepticism towards a particular topic and whether you agree with the political ramifications of that topic.

For example, individuals who will be skeptical of climate science can usually be identified beforehand because they are the same individuals who dislike the political ramifications if the science is correct. The same applies to the left with gun control.
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
You have no idea whatsoever who the guy in the OP is, do you.



His name is Jonathan Haidt. He's a professor at NYU, and, while I disagree with his personal belief system (he's a moderate-liberal), he's legitimately fascinating, original, and capable of honestly assessing his own side as well as the other.

His Ted Talk, in particular, I highly recommend for anyone who actually wants to try to understand people they disagree with.

I believe David_N was referencing the actual OP of this thread. After all, he is a self-declared white nationalist. Presumably, David_N recognizes that the OP is using Jonathan Haidt's message as further justification for his own beliefs.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
66,512
Reaction score
33,871
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I believe David_N was referencing the actual OP of this thread. After all, he is a self-declared white nationalist. Presumably, David_N recognizes that the OP is using Jonathan Haidt's message as further justification for his own beliefs.

According to his "About Me" section: Economic left/right: -5.8, Social libertarian/authoritarian: -1.8

So that would make some sense.
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
31,791
Reaction score
35,461
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Then you are a prostitute.

Remember what Beavis and Butthead said about that --

- a whore does it for money

- a slut does it for free.

Buddy comes home to find his wife packing her bags.

"Where are you going?" He asked, confused.

"Toronto, I hear they pay girls fifty bucks a pop, to do what I do to you for free!"

After thinking about this for a second the man proceeds to another room and starts packing his bags.

"What are you doing" she hastily inquired.

"I'm coming with you!" He retorted.

"WHY?!?!?" She screeched.

"Because I want to see you live off $100 a year".
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Not always, but if done properly, includes a methodology of self correction.
Theories are usually postulated with falsifiable predictions.
I.E. if this happens, the theory is invalidated.

I would say science is always right because it is self-correcting. ScientISTS might not always be right and IDEAS might not always be right, but because science is never absolute, because theories are always provisional, based on what we know today and not what we will learn tomorrow, science is always right in the long run.
 

Ntharotep

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
1,503
Reaction score
663
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Wish there was an "Other". This isn't really a yes or no question based on the video and the OP.
Science doesn't have morality to deny. Science is simply theory, tested or untested, and hypothesis based on theory.
What I deny is when people cling to science to the point that they are blind of any other possibilities. When people use science as the "final" solution which rarely is it ever intended to be.
I always deny stagnation of the mind and possibility no matter who is participating.

To me science is like the Commodore 64.
When I was young, the 64 was the "end all" to computers. I couldn't imagine the world we have today with VERY realistic CGI, with wireless capabilities instead of the droning modems of old.
But now the Commodore 64 and all of its software can fit on a thumb drive.

The point is that is what science is. Science does not explain anything in its entirety, there is always more. So when people go "This is science. Fact. End of Discussion." then that is limiting possibilities and I'm always against that.
As exciting and wonderful as science is today. There is always more tomorrow.

So science has no morality, and sometimes neither do the people wielding it like a weapon to "smite idiots".
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I would say science is always right because it is self-correcting. ScientISTS might not always be right and IDEAS might not always be right, but because science is never absolute, because theories are always provisional, based on what we know today and not what we will learn tomorrow, science is always right in the long run.
This was funny to read. The Bible says it is the inerrant Word of God, and talk to any fervent Christian and they will tell you so and they'll have a spin to explain everything that may seem incorrect to others.

And that is EXACTLY what you did here. You say science is never wrong, then you go on to spin how, when it is wrong, it's still not wrong. LOL, classic.

So, basically, science is your religion.
 

Russell797

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2015
Messages
4,394
Reaction score
1,063
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This was funny to read. The Bible says it is the inerrant Word of God, and talk to any fervent Christian and they will tell you so and they'll have a spin to explain everything that may seem incorrect to others.

And that is EXACTLY what you did here. You say science is never wrong, then you go on to spin how, when it is wrong, it's still not wrong. LOL, classic.

So, basically, science is your religion.

The difference between religion and science lies in the fact that religious beliefs are never changing dogma while science is a process of continuing advancement in understanding. The point being that if evidence indicates that what is understood to science requires revision, then the scientific method allows for that change in thinking. This is nothing like religion at all.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
The difference between religion and science lies in the fact that religious beliefs are never changing dogma while science is a process of continuing advancement in understanding. The point being that if evidence indicates that what is understood to science requires revision, then the scientific method allows for that change in thinking. This is nothing like religion at all.
In theory, yes. In practicality, no. Religions change, albeit slowly and subtly, all the time trying to keep up with society.

Just one example: How many religions allow women as high officials today that would never have done so as recent as 50 years ago?
 
Top Bottom