• 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™!

ecofarm said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do they agree with uranium having a half life of 4.5 billion years ?
 
NIMBY said:
Do they agree with uranium having a half life of 4.5 billion years ?
Click to expand...

I guess that depends if it's a YEC ID. Doesn't ID reject YEC?
 
Josie said:
No, he disagrees with liberals using beliefs and calling it science.
Click to expand...

What beliefs? Nothing in his rant directly refutes the science. As has been said in other posts before this one. He rejects the science behind climate change, for instance, but then doesn't provide any evidence of his own. He only provides one link to an article by a man with a B.A. in political economy and J.D. (not a scientist) who disagrees with liberal climate policy, but does not refute the science either.
Climate change may or may not bear responsibility for the flood on last night’s news,
Click to expand...

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-03-21/problem-climate-catastrophizing
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/expert/oren-cass
 
Josie said:
Clearly science isn't science to some. If anyone dares to say that a male dressed up as a female is still a man, what kind of reaction does that get from most people on the left?
Click to expand...

The reason why that kind of rhetoric (You're still a man!) is met with a negative reaction on the Left, is because it is demeaning, and demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the transgender condition.

Like for example, I understand that a trans woman like Blaire White, is biologically male, and always will be. However, instead of being a complete asshole, and refusing to accept trans people for who they are (like many people on here act), I understand the stressful condition that transgender people have to go through, and out of respect I choose to address these individuals by the gender pronouns of which they identify with.
 
Gina said:
What beliefs? Nothing in his rant directly refutes the science. As has been said in other posts before this one. He rejects the science behind climate change, for instance, but then doesn't provide any evidence of his own. He only provides one link to an article by a man with a B.A. in political economy and J.D. (not a scientist) who disagrees with liberal climate policy, but does not refute the science either.


https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-03-21/problem-climate-catastrophizing
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/expert/oren-cass
Click to expand...

He listed several beliefs in the article on topics liberals love to believe in -- abortion, gender issues, gun control, government intervention to save the world from climate change, etc.

Let's take abortion, for example. Pro-choice people frequently say a fetus is just a "clump of cells" as if a fetus really doesn't have a completely separate body, DNA, lungs, arms, legs, eyes, brain, heart. They disbelieve scientific facts because they desperately want to believe that a fetus IS just a clump of cells.

Then gun control -- I'd say most liberals believe that strict gun control will reduce gun-related deaths. But the facts have shown that in places where there already IS strict gun control, gun-related deaths are out of control. But they still believe that gun control will work -- their beliefs aren't based on facts, but their desire for it to be true.
 
Last edited:
Josie said:
He listed several beliefs in the article on topics liberals love to believe in -- abortion, gender issues, gun control, government intervention to save the world from climate change, etc.

Let's take abortion, for example. Pro-choice people frequently say a fetus is just a "clump of cells" as if a fetus really doesn't have a completely separate body, DNA, lungs, arms, legs, eyes, brain, heart. They disbelieve scientific facts because they desperately want to believe that a fetus IS just a clump of cells.

Then gun control -- I'd say most liberals believe that strict gun control will reduce gun-related deaths. But the facts have shown that in places where there already IS strict gun control, gun-related deaths are out of control. But they still believe that gun control will work -- their beliefs aren't based on facts, but their desire for it to be true.
Click to expand...

No, what he said about abortion was this:

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™!
Click to expand...

It's not the position of pro-choice advocates that a fetus doesn't have their own blood blood type and DNA. (As Redress said earlier.)

I don't know that you could say gun control is a scientific issue. The CDC is not permitted to study death by guns. What he, and you, are referring to are crime statistics. Not science. I may be wrong, but that's the way I've always thought of it.
 
Josie said:
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?
Click to expand...

Not mutually exclusive with what I asked about. Nice try, but kinda a fail.

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

When I refer to most people's gender, I do so without checking their chromosomes. Do you?

So what are "people" actually saying?
Click to expand...

Do you really want me to list off why people oppose restrictions on abortion and think transgender people should be treated decently? When you cannot show a single example of what you are claiming people say?
 
Gina said:
No, what he said about abortion was this:



It's not the position of pro-choice advocates that a fetus doesn't have their own blood blood type and DNA. (As Redress said earlier.)

I don't know that you could say gun control is a scientific issue. The CDC is not permitted to study death by guns. What he, and you, are referring to are crime statistics. Not science. I may be wrong, but that's the way I've always thought of it.
Click to expand...

The author of this article is basically arguing against a bunch of strawmans.
 
Josie said:
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.
Click to expand...

The fact that the climate is in a state of change is a fact.

The fact that we are significantly changing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a fact.

The fact that we can use government resources to reduce the change in atmospheric composition, which can pose a risk, is a fact.

These are just facts your side doesn't like, so your article redefining these things as something else, which is a leap of faith that you might find convenient.
 
ecofarm said:
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.
Click to expand...

If that were always true, no one ever would have fought evolution education in schools.
 
Absentglare said:
If that were always true, no one ever would have fought evolution education in schools.
Click to expand...

IDs don't fight it. Creationists do. IDs accept the scientific age of the Earth and natural selection, as far as I know. They just claim God planned it all; like, God knew these selections would occur because he planned it. It's a rather innocuous claim and doesn't really take away from evolution.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm no expert in ID, that's just my disinterested understanding.
 
Last edited:
Josie said:
He listed several beliefs in the article on topics liberals love to believe in -- abortion, gender issues, gun control, government intervention to save the world from climate change, etc.

Let's take abortion, for example. Pro-choice people frequently say a fetus is just a "clump of cells" as if a fetus really doesn't have a completely separate body, DNA, lungs, arms, legs, eyes, brain, heart. They disbelieve scientific facts because they desperately want to believe that a fetus IS just a clump of cells.
Click to expand...

I've never heard anyone claim that a fetus doesn't have DNA, lungs, etc.

Of course, they do NOT have a completely separate body: there's an umbilical cord connecting them. That's a scientific fact.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbilical_cord

Josie said:
Then gun control -- I'd say most liberals believe that strict gun control will reduce gun-related deaths. But the facts have shown that in places where there already IS strict gun control, gun-related deaths are out of control. But they still believe that gun control will work -- their beliefs aren't based on facts, but their desire for it to be true.
Click to expand...

I can guarantee to you that it is possible for gun control to reduce the number of gun related deaths.

Let's suppose i had a magical device that instantly destroyed every firearm in the world and prevented them from ever being constructed again. In such a case, i can guarantee that there would be zero firearm related deaths. For some reason, you seem to believe that science proves that guns play no role in gun related deaths.
 
Absentglare said:
I can guarantee to you that it is possible for gun control to reduce the number of gun related deaths.

Let's suppose i had a magical device that instantly destroyed every firearm in the world and prevented them from ever being constructed again. In such a case, i can guarantee that there would be zero firearm related deaths. For some reason, you seem to believe that science proves that guns play no role in gun related deaths.
Click to expand...

One can proven virtually anything by ignoring context and substituting fantasy. Come on, you know your response is intellectually dishonest, right?
 
ecofarm said:
IDs don't fight it. Creationists do. IDs accept the scientific age of the Earth and natural selection, as far as I know. They just claim God planned it all; like, God knew these selections would occur because he planned it. It's a rather innocuous claim and doesn't really take away from evolution.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm no expert in ID, that's just my disinterested understanding.
Click to expand...

Oh, i think you're right, i was being careless with the term 'ID'. Thank you.
 
Josie said:
Clearly science isn't science to some. If anyone dares to say that a male dressed up as a female is still a man, what kind of reaction does that get from most people on the left?
Click to expand...

Oh look, bashing trans people. Awesome, Josie.

Scheisse.
 
ecofarm said:
One can proven virtually anything by ignoring context and substituting fantasy. Come on, you know your response is intellectually dishonest, right?
Click to expand...

Sufficiently strict gun control necessarily has impact on gun related deaths. This is trivially obvious- you do understand the causal role a firearm plays in producing a gunshot wound?
 
Absentglare said:
Sufficiently strict gun control necessarily has impact on gun related deaths. This is trivially obvious- you do understand the causal role a firearm plays in producing a gunshot wound?
Click to expand...

Listen to yourself. Read it as if someone else wrote it. And tell me what you think.
 
ecofarm said:
Listen to yourself. Read it as if someone else wrote it. And tell me what you think.
Click to expand...

That's not a valid substitute for an actual argument.

If you think that you can use science to prove that strict gun control has no effect on gun related deaths, i would encourage you to make your case. So far, you've basically demonstrated an inability to understand a reductio ad absurdum as well as basic cause-and-effect.
 
Absentglare said:
That's not a valid substitute for an actual argument.

If you think that you can use science to prove that strict gun control has no effect on gun related deaths, i would encourage you to make your case. So far, you've basically demonstrated an inability to understand a reductio ad absurdum as well as basic cause-and-effect.
Click to expand...

The context is the US, current day. Stats prove stricter gun control does not reduce crime or gun related deaths, often the opposite. Statistics is a science.

Everyone knows guns are needed for gun violence. Stop acting like anyone doesn't. Dropping context and employing childish rhetoric does not constitute a counter-point.
 
Last edited:
Josie said:
Clearly science isn't science to some. If anyone dares to say that a male dressed up as a female is still a man, what kind of reaction does that get from most people on the left?
Click to expand...

That kinda depends. For me, if they are completely uneducated on transsexual issues, I will point that out and help to educate them. Of course it also depends on whether the individual is a transsexual or a transvestite. Also, if they choose to remain uneducated on the issue even after attempts I've made, they I will just point out their lack of education and dismiss them as choosing to be anti-science. So, it certainly depends.
 
Josie said:
You seem to be missing the point of the article. I'll repeat it again:



He's not equating science to religion -- he's making a very clear distinction between the two. He used the example of a transgender person. The scientific facts are that a man dressed as a woman is still a man and always will be a man. What is the response from people on the left when someone says that? They vehemently disagree with scientific facts. They believe he's a woman - so he's a woman. That's not science.
Click to expand...

Again, that depends on whether the individual is a transvestite or a transsexual. If they are the former, then your comment would be correct. If they are a transsexual then your comment would be uneducated and overly simplistic. I've posted THOUSANDS of posts on this topic, much of which encompasses science and research, citing scores of studies across many fields such as biology, neurology, psychology, and endocrinology. Ignoring all that information... THAT is not science. If one makes a judgement based SOLELY on their observation, that's being ignorant and not being inquisitive or investigative at all.
 
Josie said:
No, that's not what he was saying, spuddy. He's saying that some liberals believe things that aren't backed up by science, but they still claim that it's science. Hence, the cheeky "TM" notation.
Click to expand...

No. Lowry is saying such folks support science to the extent that it supports their ideological beliefs.
 
Josie said:
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.
Click to expand...

His article would have some validity if he explored the situation, universally. Plenty of right wing "science" that are not grounded in science or evidence but just beliefs (I could refer you to the Family Research Council, but going on their website can certainly lower one's IQ). But he focused on liberal issues... because he's a right winger. Makes his article right wing hack worthlessness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom