RE: The War on intelligence, facts, and science, marche... - 9/3/2017 1:50:14 PM
|
|
|
AtUrCervix
Posts: 2111
Joined: 1/15/2016
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
quote:
ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix
Shortly after announcing that he wants climate researchers to "debate" climate deniers on live TV,
he gave a characteristically painful interview to a Texas radio show. Just after appearing to endorse
peer-reviewed science, he added that “science should not be something that’s just thrown about to
try and dictate policy in Washington DC.”
Sounds logical to me.
So you don't think that science should have any role in how the government approaches the subject of climate change (for example)?
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying... but I am pretty sure that is what Pruitt is saying.
I don't believe I said that at all. In fact....I'm absolutely certain of it.
Any decision made with limited data is fallible, and by virtue....destined to fail.
quote:
ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix
The idea that science should not dictate nor influence policy is insane. It really doesn’t need to be
said that science is one of the key foundations of modern society.
Actually...that's not even remotely what he said.
Huh?
It is almost exactly what he said.
“science should not be something that’s just thrown about to try and dictate policy in Washington DC.”
Hmmmm....kinda sounds to me like what he said was..."just one (limited) aspect of a complete discussion...is hardly enough to deduce / create public policy"
quote:
ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix
Forget America – what about the world? Without science dictating policy, smallpox wouldn’t have
been eradicated, hundreds of millions of children would not be alive, and we wouldn’t know that
climate change was an existential threat to life on Earth.
Well...just for the record....I'm fairly confident that NO ONE is unclear that all of the above was deduced with and because of...the best of science...and the best....scientists.
Have you taken a peek at any of the climate change threads on this board?
Plenty of right-wingers seem rather certain that most climatologists are corrupt, that NASA is stupid and wrong (or just evil) and it's obvious that humans are not responsible, that it's a sham and a liberal/Chinese plot to raise taxes and destroy the economy for no reason whatsoever.
Oh, and Al Gore is apparently getting rich off of it.
I'm sure they say exactly what you state they said. I'm not even remotely clear on the point you're attempting to make. Bloodletting was once "science". Flat Earth was once "science". Ingesting mercury for flu was once "science".
Is man contributing to global warming? Only the least intelligent of humans would deny that. Again...your point?
quote:
ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix
Science, as has often been said, is true whether you believe in it or not. It is a constantly
self-correcting, unbiased system, one through which our collective understanding of the cosmos
advances with each discovery.
I'm fairly confident no one debates that.
RealOne did so in this very thread.
You are giving the right too much credit.
I'm not giving the right or the left any credit. I should have said any right "thinking" person doesn't debate that, however....the original premise is inherently misleading...only in as much as some would interpret the statement:
"Science, as has often been said, is true whether you believe in it or not. It is a constantly
self-correcting, unbiased system, one through which our collective understanding of the cosmos
advances with each discovery."
Break it down to its components and once you do....you can see the flaw:
"Science, as has often been said, is true whether you believe in it or not.
Who's science? Yours? Mine? That which has been undeniably "proven"? By whom? What science that we "know" today....will be proven wrong just 50 years from today? Einstein was a postal clerk. Is he a "scientist" now only because his thesis has been proven accurate? How about all those "scientists" of the 1300's who said the world was round? Are they only now scientists because indeed, we all know the earth is round? They were Heretics at one point in "science". Who's science do we use to prove....your.....point? Who's point should we attempt to prove or disprove if yours is at some point found lacking? I would argue that far more things than solely "science" are factors. Does science prove or disprove God? Is God therefore not valid? If God is in fact valid....does that disprove science? One side of ANY discussion....is not enough. In my lifetime, science has proven that cyclamates were good, and proven they cause cancer. Science, when I was a child "proved" that saturated fats were better for you....now....they're proven to be unhealthy. Who's science would you have us use....in every circumstance?....or....would you argue, as I do....having lived a while...that science is fallible....that science does NOT have all the answers and that....as stated above....science is one aspect of a discussion (on any topic)...and it should be considered as part of any solution....or even description of a problem needing repair / discourse or....study.
It is a constantly self-correcting, unbiased system, one through which our collective understanding of the cosmos
advances with each discovery."
Ahhhhhhhh....therein lies the rub.....fascinating stuff.
quote:
ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix
These two systems are quite different, but in an ideal world, science is used to help the most
powerful people on the planet understand what is true and what is not. Evidence is better
than reading our future in tea leaves.
I'm sorry....I'm fairly confident we were discussing....Politics....and Science....you seem to have now moved on to science and "evidence"...which is fine...but...please let me (and the rest of the peeps here) know when we've changed the topic please...are we now switching the discussion?
?
If not politicians, then who are 'the most powerful people on the planet'?
I would submit Jesus would have fit that category. Gutenberg would be another. Some may even argue that Oprah once fit that role.
quote:
ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix
Pruitt is expressing his opinion...yours may differ. (It's a beautiful thing).
No, it's a disgrace.
It is the same logic that leads to things like 'teach the controversy', creationism being taught in science class.
It is the sound of ignorance pretending it is the equal of informed discussion.
The sound of ignorance was (and is) very often the prevailing belief system Some would (some do) argue that Catholicism is the biggest lie on Earth. "Informed discussion" presumes data. It further presumes correct data. Just because the loudest voice professes to carry the best of all.....doesn't preclude someone like Hitler from taking power, while also destroying lives.
Who's information provides "informed discussion"?
quote:
ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix
It makes no sense because...Trump is a fucking imbecile.
(Was there a point in all this?)
Yes, a point that you apparently missed.
Ahhhh...well, perhaps you are glib enough, or....informed enough to educate me then.
< Message edited by AtUrCervix -- 9/3/2017 2:17:55 PM >
|
|
|
|
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread