• 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™!

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
50,164
Reaction score
26,442
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Do you read Salon articles?

Yep -- do you have one you'd like to discuss?


On Saturday, leftists around the nation took to the streets to sound off about their new religion: Science™! No, not testable hypotheses and well-constructed experiments. Science™! You know, like gay rights and abortion and global redistributionism and dying polar bears ’n’ stuff. Leading the charge was eminent scientific revolutionary Bill Nye the Science Guy, a mechanical-engineering-degree holder who got famous as a children’s television presenter. Nye was a keynoter at the March for Science, where he stated, “We are marching today to remind people everywhere, our lawmakers especially, of the significance of science for our health and prosperity.” What sort of science was Nye standing up to defend? Budget increases for the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health, of course! He explained how all of this was scientific and not political: “Somewhere along the way, there has developed this idea that if you believe something hard enough, it’s as true as things discovered through the process of science. And I will say that’s objectively wrong.” Belief isn’t science. This is a good point.



Sounds like someone failing utterly because they are trying to snarkily call something stupid, while wearing their underwear on their head. The rest of that, erm, blog thing, reads like the author's fingernails spewed their own spittle.

This is something you call a source? It reads like a HuffPo post that's had its polarity reversed and was amplified by a few orders of magnitude at the least.

It's not a "source" - it's an opinion piece. Hence, why I asked for opinions on the article.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
50,164
Reaction score
26,442
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I am going to tell you the truth about what "science" says about gun control, and none of you will like it:

Looking at other countries is a fail, as it does not isolate variables. Other countries have other economic situations, other cultural situations, and on and on. This makes it impossible to tell with any type of reliability what effect actual gun bans have vs other factors in crime rates. On the other hand, since the US has a second amendment, and therefore no significant gun control laws, we have zero data what effect, long term, short term, medium term, banning or significantly restricting guns would have on crime rates. Sometimes, and this is one of those cases, the answer science provides is "**** if I know".

Josie, you inm particular should know better as an educator, and your making claims that are not accurate about what "science" shows is hilariously ironic.

Redress, I'm very aware of what I'm saying and there's no need to insult. In the US, strict gun control laws do not reduce gun-related deaths --- fact.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
50,164
Reaction score
26,442
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
From the wiki on Shapiro:
"In an article in National Review, Shapiro wrote: "I’ve experienced more pure, unadulterated anti-Semitism since coming out against Trump’s candidacy than at any other time in my political career. Trump supporters have threatened me and other Jews who hold my viewpoint. They’ve blown up my e-mail inbox with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. They greeted the birth of my second child by calling for me, my wife, and two children to be thrown into a gas chamber."[49]"

I know all about that -- I follow him on Twitter and saw some of the crap that was said to him.
 

AtlantaAdonis

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
629
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Call me an unapologetic defender of "Science™"

I trust science. I don't trust corporate science or any science that deems Monsanto's frankenfoods to be safe for the environment. I don't trust science showing Big pharma's vaccines to be safe. I don't trust "science" showing organic foods to not be more nutritious because big ag has tainted it.

I also don't trust the alt-right "science" showing there to me difference in male and female brains or science showing there to be meaningful genetic differences between races and ethnic groups. It's mostly sexists and racists that know their white and male privilege is the main reason they're scientists justifying why they deserve the jobs they got.

The left is the side of science and objective reason, and we need to be unapologetic about it and not worry about trying to appear "balanced". I was quite pleased that the march for science was about promoting the science behind the ideology of progressivism and was mostly free of the toxicity of corporate and alt-right "science".
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
111,033
Reaction score
56,924
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Redress, I'm very aware of what I'm saying and there's no need to insult. In the US, strict gun control laws do not reduce gun-related deaths --- fact.

That is not fact. The US does not have strict gun control laws. That is fact. The irony of you misusing "science" in this thread is extreme.
 

Absentglare

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
36,073
Reaction score
6,861
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
We're talking about the US here. Strict gun control laws HERE --- like in Chicago --- don't help reduce gun-related deaths.

No, you didn't specify that. If you exclude data without justification, you can hardly call it science.
 

Eric7216

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
3,050
Reaction score
698
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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
Not sure that you read the article. I would be as worried about someone who is "ardent" about "intelligent design" as I would about someone like Paul Krugman who wrote a book called The Conscience of a Liberal. Scientists are supposed to be objective and follow the evidence where it leads and therefore understands what Feynman meant when he said "Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers of the preceding generation" and "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
A scientist should be a skeptic and never ardently believe anything but continues to follow the evidence. Liberalism is a value system and if one approaches a scientific question with a value system framework one will be blind to some evidence that presents itself.

There is a difference between real science and politicized science. Nye was trained as an engineer. Certainly there are similarities between science and engineering but the big difference is the scientific method and the philosophy of science which you do not find in engineering.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Its amazing to me how people who are ignorant about what science is.. claim that science is a religion.

Speaking of "ignorance," he didn't claim that.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Call me an unapologetic defender of "Science™"

I trust science. I don't trust corporate science or any science that deems Monsanto's frankenfoods to be safe for the environment. I don't trust science showing Big pharma's vaccines to be safe. I don't trust "science" showing organic foods to not be more nutritious because big ag has tainted it.

I also don't trust the alt-right "science" showing there to me difference in male and female brains or science showing there to be meaningful genetic differences between races and ethnic groups. It's mostly sexists and racists that know their white and male privilege is the main reason they're scientists justifying why they deserve the jobs they got.

The left is the side of science and objective reason, and we need to be unapologetic about it and not worry about trying to appear "balanced". I was quite pleased that the march for science was about promoting the science behind the ideology of progressivism and was mostly free of the toxicity of corporate and alt-right "science".

^^
"I only trust the 'science' which tells me what I want to hear!"

The self-pwnage is strong in this post.
 

Eric7216

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
3,050
Reaction score
698
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Call me an unapologetic defender of "Science™"

I trust science. I don't trust corporate science or any science that deems Monsanto's frankenfoods to be safe for the environment. I don't trust science showing Big pharma's vaccines to be safe. I don't trust "science" showing organic foods to not be more nutritious because big ag has tainted it.

I also don't trust the alt-right "science" showing there to me difference in male and female brains or science showing there to be meaningful genetic differences between races and ethnic groups. It's mostly sexists and racists that know their white and male privilege is the main reason they're scientists justifying why they deserve the jobs they got.

The left is the side of science and objective reason, and we need to be unapologetic about it and not worry about trying to appear "balanced". I was quite pleased that the march for science was about promoting the science behind the ideology of progressivism and was mostly free of the toxicity of corporate and alt-right "science".
That makes no sense to me. It seems that you narrowly define proper science as that which your political associates determine to be proper science. That doesn't seem to fit the philosophy of science and the inherent skepticism in science. If something like golden rice, corporately developed and shown by numerous studies to be safe and effective in solving a serious health problem than perhaps we should adopt it and not delay. "Perhaps" because political policy is not science and others make that call. The same for vaccinations. Ideas should not be discarded because they came from corporations or "alt-right" science (whatever that means) but only if and when science shows the problems in them.
 

AtlantaAdonis

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
629
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
^^
"I only trust the 'science' which tells me what I want to hear!"

The self-pwnage is strong in this post.

So you don't see any difference between mistrust of corporate science and "muh Bible!" objections to science?
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So you don't see any difference between mistrust of corporate science and "muh Bible!" objections to science?

1) No one said anything about a "bible."

2) You said you don't "trust" science which tells you specific things you don't want to accept, regardless of its source.

3) If you think science is invalid solely because of who paid for it being done, or who did it, then you definitely do not understand or "trust" science at all.

And, you're a walking, talking example of exactly what the article is talking about. You fit it to a T.
 

katzgar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Messages
9,517
Reaction score
1,697
Location
prairieville, LA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Redress, I'm very aware of what I'm saying and there's no need to insult. In the US, strict gun control laws do not reduce gun-related deaths --- fact.


your comment is like the article, an obvious attempt to create a fake world.
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
40,507
Reaction score
12,396
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sure the data suggests exactly what you want it to when you throw out the overwhelming majority of available evidence by dishonestly restricting the context without any coherent explanation.

The reality is that areas that endure more of the collateral damage from our laughably lax federal gun laws, like dense urban city centers, tend to pass more gun control laws. What you are actually measuring is that the areas where gun violence is worse have more gun violence, which is trivially obvious.

Do you have anything honest or meaningful to say about this?

Just to point out that all the available SCIENCE.. does not support your position.
 

Absentglare

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
36,073
Reaction score
6,861
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Just to point out that all the available SCIENCE.. does not support your position.

In what way?

Don't lose sight of my argument:

No mention of the US. Notice what her argument is: science proves that gun control cannot possibly reduce gun-related deaths. No, it does NOT prove that, there is obviously data to support either side in terms of more specific policy. The more general "gun control" includes my hypothetical which unequivocally proved her terrible argument wrong in its infancy. You took issue with that so i took another approach.

If anything, the data overwhelmingly proves that it is absolutely possible for gun control to reduce gun-related deaths. In fact, the idea makes perfect sense. It is possible to produce a rather convincing argument that there were no gun-related deaths prior to the invention of the firearm, so we have very strong association between access to firearms and use of firearms, which should be no surprise.
 
Top Bottom