- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 63,435
- Reaction score
- 35,217
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Yep -- do you have one you'd like to discuss?
It's not a "source" - it's an opinion piece. Hence, why I asked for opinions on the article.
Do you read Salon articles?
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.
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.
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]"
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.
We're talking about the US here. Strict gun control laws HERE --- like in Chicago --- don't help reduce gun-related deaths.
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."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
Its amazing to me how people who are ignorant about what science is.. claim that science is a religion.
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.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.
So you don't see any difference between mistrust of corporate science and "muh Bible!" objections to science?
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?