• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Science vs. Science™!

lurchadams said:
I think the National Review has an extreme right-wing bias. I also think it's ignorant to deny science.
Click to expand...

Did you read the article?
 
Josie said:
Take a gander and tell me what you think.

Science & Politics -- Left?s Religion | National Review
Click to expand...

Its amazing to me how people who are ignorant about what science is.. claim that science is a religion.

I recall a discussion I had with someone who was an ardent "intelligent design" (aka Creationist in sheeps clothing)..

Arguing that the THEORY of evolution is taught as a religion and then pointed out the flaws in the theory of evolution that sciences has found. :doh
 
jaeger19 said:
Its amazing to me how people who are ignorant about what science is.. claim that science is a religion.

I recall a discussion I had with someone who was an ardent "intelligent design" (aka Creationist in sheeps clothing)..

Arguing that the THEORY of evolution is taught as a religion and then pointed out the flaws in the theory of evolution that sciences has found. :doh
Click to expand...

But what is your comment about the article?
 
Josie said:
But what is your comment about the article?
Click to expand...

It's usual to give a jumping off point when linking an article. What did you find interesting enough about the article that you decided to post it? What did you think of it?
 
Gina said:
It's usual to give a jumping off point when linking an article. What did you find interesting enough about the article that you decided to post it? What did you think of it?
Click to expand...

I know that's the usual -- I'm unusual. :)

I don't want people to comment on MY opinion of the article -- I would like to hear straight-from-reading-the-article-and-nothing-else opinions. :)
 
Josie said:
I know that's the usual -- I'm unusual. :)

I don't want people to comment on MY opinion of the article -- I would like to hear straight-from-reading-the-article-and-nothing-else opinions. :)
Click to expand...

What you're doing is like posting a YouTube and without comment.
 
I read the article. The author's summary could be "I don't like how the left uses science to justify their principles while my own principles are not allegedly supported by science".

Basically his problem comes down to the left justifying their political positions by basing them on scientific principles and results.

It's not necessarily a bad argument (since science at it's core is just raw data, which will give you results but interpretations will vary based on various circumstances), but the way the author presents it is poor. It sounds more like he's annoyed with the left constantly spouting "Science" as justification for their beliefs. Rants do not make for good political discussion.
 
Gina said:
What you're doing is like posting a YouTube and without comment.
Click to expand...

So? Why do you need my comment in order to have an opinion?
 
jaeger19 said:
Its amazing to me how people who are ignorant about what science is.. claim that science is a religion.

I recall a discussion I had with someone who was an ardent "intelligent design" (aka Creationist in sheeps clothing)..

Arguing that the THEORY of evolution is taught as a religion and then pointed out the flaws in the theory of evolution that sciences has found. :doh
Click to expand...

Most disconcerting to me are the teachers who preach ID as science in their classrooms .
 
Josie said:
But what is your comment about the article?
Click to expand...

The author demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what the science march was about.. and why scientists support funding such things as the EPA etc.
 
NIMBY said:
Most disconcerting to me are the teachers who preach ID as science in their classrooms .
Click to expand...

You aren't just whistling Dixie on that one...:shock:

Years ago.. my wife and I were being strongly recruited to send our sons to a private school. Once they broke out the intelligent design schtick.. I was outta there. They wanted to know why I wasn't interested. Well.. never ask me for my opinion of you don't want it.

I pointed out that ID was an anathema to science.
 
jaeger19 said:
The author demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what the science march was about.. and why scientists support funding such things as the EPA etc.
Click to expand...

Those who want to get rid of the EPA are forgetting all the 'love canals' .
 
Lutherf said:
When Rubio came out with the "small hands" comment I knew that the next 4 years (maybe 8) were going to involve an inordinate amount of genitalia talk but I've got to tell you, it's worse that I ever imagined it could get.
Click to expand...

Talking vaginas --- sounds like something Trump would come up with.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
I read the article. The author's summary could be "I don't like how the left uses science to justify their principles while my own principles are not allegedly supported by science".

Basically his problem comes down to the left justifying their political positions by basing them on scientific principles and results.

It's not necessarily a bad argument (since science at it's core is just raw data, which will give you results but interpretations will vary based on various circumstances), but the way the author presents it is poor. It sounds more like he's annoyed with the left constantly spouting "Science" as justification for their beliefs. Rants do not make for good political discussion.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I'd say the main idea is here:

This is the dirty little secret of the Left’s sudden embrace of Science™ — it’s not science they support, but religion. They support that which they believe but cannot prove and do not care about proving.
Click to expand...

In essence, he's saying that many people on the left say they're all about facts, evidence, empirical data, etc. but only when it supports their political opinions. If the scientific facts don't support their political opinions, they'll go out of their way to ridicule, criticize, manipulate and disregard scientific facts. Therefore, their top priority isn't facts -- it's belief.
 
Redress said:
I want that 5 minutes of my life back. Stupidity that will only appeal to the hard of thinking, people who need to be told what to think, instead of doing it themselves.
Click to expand...

How is that any different than any other political opinion article? He's giving his opinion just like numerous people on all sides do.
 
NIMBY said:
Those who want to get rid of the EPA are forgetting all the 'love canals' .
Click to expand...

The ones that want to get rid of the EPA would think that you should be censored for saying vulgar language (love canal) ... ;)

"those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it"...
 
Josie said:
How is that any different than any other political opinion article? He's giving his opinion just like numerous people on all sides do.
Click to expand...

I did not say it was different much. A little more noxious, but still the same. I criticize political opinion articles in bipartisan fashion. On the topic of science, when some one uses Bill Nye to criticize science, you know they are either totally ****ing retarded(and Ben Shapiro isn't), or they are being totally ****ing disingenuous(and Shapiro does that alot).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom