Science vs. Science™!

[calamity]

Except that's not what he was saying. Science is science. Science(tm) is his tongue-in-cheek name for what some people on the left believe - beliefs that aren't grounded in scientific fact or evidence at all -- they just believe it because they want to believe it.

Just because Righties don't believe it doesn't mean it's not real science.

 

[Linc]

Except that's not what he was saying. Science is science. Science(tm) is his tongue-in-cheek name for what some people on the left believe - beliefs that aren't grounded in scientific fact or evidence at all -- they just believe it because they want to believe it.

Who would those some people on the left be with your broad brush ?

 

[Josie]

I don't see that the author referred to transgendered persons. Can you quote it?

"Science is actually just the name for anything the Left likes. Worried about the humanity of an unborn child? Concerned that fetuses have their own blood types and their own DNA? Stop it! You’re quoting science, not Science™! Wondering how it is that a genetic male is actually a woman? You’re worrying about science, not Science™!"

......

 

[Josie]

Just because Righties don't believe it doesn't mean it's not real science.

I agree with you. Science isn't something you believe in -- it just is whether you believe it or not.

 

[Redress]

......

Can you show me an example of people claiming that fetuses do not have a blood type or DNA? It seems like he is making a kinda silly argument there.

In the case of transgender, I do not think any one is claiming that the chromosomes are anything but what they are. It seems like he is making a kinda silly argument there.

He is trying to obfuscate what people are actually saying. Ironically, his editorial makes me think of Alinsky...

 

[Parrish]

Quote me when you're actually interested in discussing the article, k?

Get a life, man.

 

[Harshaw]

You didn't have to! Again, who are you to talk about another poster being taken seriously? Do you think your longevity and lean give you special privileges on DP ?

OK, I'm going to leave you to babble over whatever you're on about at your own leisure. Nighty-night, now.

 

[spud_meister]

I don't read this as him being angry at all. Just matter-of-fact. I agree that he's saying that liberals have a different definition -- that's his whole point.

Except he doesn't say what is so unscientific about the definitions he doesn't like. He just says he doesn't like them. His argument lacks any sort of substance. And, as an aside, his own definitions are unscientific, DNA and blood type can't define humanity, because then identical twins are the same human. And if sex chromosomes define gender, then we'll need more genders to cover those with sex chromosome disorders.

Agreed.

Which proves my point that he's failed to actually show an objective basis to draw the line between science and Science™! other than things he doesn't like fall under the latter.

 

[Harshaw]

Why don't you prove it's not?

You made the claim. You need to prove it is.

 

[Josie]

Can you show me an example of people claiming that fetuses do not have a blood type or DNA? It seems like he is making a kinda silly argument there.

You mean the gazillion times I've heard an unborn child is "just a clump of cells," "not human until it's born," "a blob," etc. etc. etc.? How much time do you have?

In the case of transgender, I do not think any one is claiming that the chromosomes are anything but what they are. It seems like he is making a kinda silly argument there.

What happened in the Bruce Jenner threads when people said he's not a woman?

He is trying to obfuscate what people are actually saying. Ironically, his editorial makes me think of Alinsky...

So what are "people" actually saying?

 

[Linc]

OK, I'm going to leave you to babble over whatever you're on about at your own leisure. Nighty-night, now.

Should public schools teach Intelligent Design ?

 

[Gina]

......

I found it:

EDIT: Found it thanks to Absent's quote up there:

Wondering how it is that a genetic male is actually a woman? You’re worrying about science, not Science™!

There are numerous threads on the topic in which CC explains the science behind transgender. You can go look for yourself. But there is science behind it and I don't want to derail the thread in any case. Because the author doesn't agree with the research, doesn't mean it isn't so. Which is really his gripe.

It's been repeated through the thread, he disagrees with liberals using science to back up their positions, so it must be a religion.

 

[lurchadams]

You made the claim. You need to prove it is.

You then made a counter-claim. Since you made the last claim, by your own rules, you have to prove it isn't.

 

[Linc]

You mean the gazillion times I've heard an unborn child is "just a clump of cells," "not human until it's born," "a blob," etc. etc. etc.? How much time do you have?
What happened in the Bruce Jenner threads when people said he's not a woman?

So what are "people" actually saying?

Your disengenuous agenda is becoming quite apparent to all, to bring abortion and transgender into your thread .

 

[Harshaw]

You then made a counter-claim. Since you made the last claim, by your own rules, you have to prove it isn't.

I actually didn't. I asked you what makes them "extreme." Since then, I've been waiting for you to provide something credible.

 

[Josie]

Except he doesn't say what is so unscientific about the definitions he doesn't like. He just says he doesn't like them. His argument lacks any sort of substance.

Can you give an example?

And, as an aside, his own definitions are unscientific, DNA and blood type can't define humanity, because then identical twins are the same human. And if sex chromosomes define gender, then we'll need more genders to cover those with sex chromosome disorders.

No, it simply means they are human, not that they're the same human.

Which proves my point that he's failed to actually show an objective basis to draw the line between science and Science™! other than things he doesn't like fall under the latter.

Disagree. The line is scientific fact versus belief. Climates evolving is a scientific fact. That we can use government resources to prevent the climate from changing is a belief.

 

[Josie]

Your disengenuous agenda is becoming quite apparent to all, to bring abortion and transgender into your thread .

Um, it's in the article. Apparently, you didn't read it.

 

[lurchadams]

I actually didn't. I asked you what makes them "extreme." Since then, I've been waiting for you to provide something credible.

No, in one of your posts you actually said, "they're just conservative" or words to that effect. Look, I'm going to concede now. The NR is not extreme, it's just conservative.

Have a nice night!

 

[Josie]

I found it:

EDIT: Found it thanks to Absent's quote up there:



There are numerous threads on the topic in which CC explains the science behind transgender. You can go look for yourself. But there is science behind it and I don't want to derail the thread in any case. Because the author doesn't agree with the research, doesn't mean it isn't so. Which is really his gripe.

It's been repeated through the thread, he disagrees with liberals using science to back up their positions, so it must be a religion.

No, he disagrees with liberals using beliefs and calling it science.

 

[Harshaw]

No, in one of your posts you actually said, "they're just conservative" or words to that effect. Look, I'm going to concede now. The NR is not extreme, it's just conservative.

Have a nice night!

No, my words were "they're conservative. What makes them 'extreme'?"

You never said.

 

[Linc]

Um, it's in the article. Apparently, you didn't read it.

You mean the article you didn't give your opinion on?

I'm a Chemistry/Physics/Math guy---'hard' science, not 'soft' science .

 

[Linc]

No, he disagrees with liberals using beliefs and calling it science.

Which liberals are you talking about with your broad stroke ?

 

[ecofarm]

Should public schools teach Intelligent Design ?

The difference between evolution and ID is adding "and maybe God planned it all". To my knowledge, ID accepts natural selection, they just say it was planned.

 

[Parrish]

He/She can't defend it, Nimby. And frankly, I'm not really interested anymore.

 

[Linc]

Can you give an example?



No, it simply means they are human, not that they're the same human.



Disagree. The line is scientific fact versus belief. Climates evolving is a scientific fact. That we can use government resources to prevent the climate from changing is a belief.

Climate change denial; more of the far right's agenda; College age students 100 years from now will not look on your GOParty very kindly .