Who is really anti-science?

If I add a poll to this article, will you vote in it?

  • Total voters
    0
#26
#26
Regardless if there is man-made global warming and if you agree with the theory or not, if you have your mind totally made up and don't pay attention to the evidence and keep an open mind then you can't honestly claim to have a science-based opinion. Rejecting the other side's opinion without reservation is not intellectually honest. As the article says: science never proves anything definitively and even the most cherished scientific theories can be proven wrong (paraphrased).
 
#27
#27
volinbham said:
Here's an article that fits this thread:

The Biology Files: Huffington Post: Irresponsible mouthpiece for the World of Woo

I think the attacks that Republicans are anti-science because of GW skepticism are far too broad of generalizations. The truth is, anti-science (if you want to call it that) is often belief dependent. Many liberals question medical science (as is called into question in the above article) prefering instead "natural" or "homeopathic" or "holistic". It would be wrong to label Democrats as anti-science eventhough some Dems choose to be anti-science when it comes to health. Ironically, a hard-core homeopathic person who is completely anti-medical science is probably a hard-core GW believer (believing the worst possible consequences of GW).
Click to expand...


Science is based on observation and metrics. Things that are based on "belief" would be considered philosophy.

There is no such thing as a "homeopathic person".
 
#29
#29
VOLatile said:
No, it's blocked at work. Who's Jenny McCarthy? Guess I did have the wrong definition... I wonder if I've been using the wrong word this whole time. What's the word I'm looking for? A quick Google search turned up the same use of that word for people that don't go to the doctor and put all of their faith in God healing them.

But anyways... my point was this: what defines anti-science?
Click to expand...

Sounds like Christian Scientist was what you were thinking of.

I don't like the anti-science thing either because I think very few are anti-science. What is more common is that people carve out niches where they trust other explanations than purely scientific ones whether it be medical, climate, nutritional, educational, etc. It is not party nor political affiliation dependent even though there has been a concerted effort to paint GOP candidates as anti-science.
 
#30
#30
s1216 said:
Science is based on observation and metrics. Things that are based on "belief" would be considered philosophy.

There is no such thing as a "homeopathic person".
Click to expand...

I meant a person that views homeopathic remedies as the superior approach if you want to be technical about it.
 
#31
#31
Weezy said:
Do people here not believe in climate change/global warming or do they rather just question the contributions of man and the costly policies that follow it?
Click to expand...

I believe in climate change and that carbon dioxide is a component of said change.

I have doubts about the projected rate and magnitude of change.

I have no doubt that 1) it has been used to fear monger and drive agendas that will be ineffectual in addressing the change but costly and 2) the demonizing (eg. deniers) approach has stifled scientific research. The politicization has been detrimental.
 
#32
#32
I read an interesting take on this (I think from Reason Magazine). The author pointed out that Republicans and Democrats both were anti-science in their own ways. There is obviously more skepticism among Republicans when it comes to climate change, but liberals tend to disagree more with science over the safety of food pesticides.
 
Last edited:
#33
#33
Found the article...some excerpts:

On climate change, the Pew survey reported that 84 percent of scientists believe that the recent warming is the result of human activity. Among Democrats, 64 percent responded that the Earth is getting warming mostly due to human activity, whereas only 30 percent of Republicans thought so. That is truly a deep divide on this scientific issue.

With regard to nuclear power, the Pew survey found 70 percent of scientists in favor of building more nuclear power plants. For their part, 62 percent of Republicans favored more nuclear power plants, compared to 45 percent of Democrats. This difference is likely related to views on nuclear safety. For instance, a 2009 Gallup poll reported that while 73 percent of Republicans are confident in the safety of nuclear power plants, only 46 percent of Democrats agree.
Click to expand...

http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/04/more-anti-science-democrats-or
 
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
I've never labeled conservatives anti-science because of their skepticism of global warming. I do believe that the business community is ideologically and financially vested in disparaging global warming and any research that supports it, yes, but there's room to debate it, at many levels. So its not so much anti-science as perhaps too much pro-business and dismissive of research the results of which they oppose.

Now Evangelical Christians and Crestionism, that's a more complicated issue.
Click to expand...

Kind of like how the left completely disregards science that claims global warming is not man made?
 
#37
#37
nbakerld said:
I read an interesting take on this (I think from Reason Magazine). The author pointed out that Republicans and Democrats both were anti-science in their own ways. There is obviously more skepticism among Republicans when it comes to climate change, but liberals tend to disagree more with science over the safety of food pesticides.
Click to expand...

this jives with what I was saying
 
#41
#41
theFallGuy said:
I bet 95% of scientists thought the world was flat at one point.

Mass belief does not equate to truth.
Click to expand...

That's actually a myth as well. It's really played up in the American tales of Columbus. Most of science believed the earth was round, but it was in question since nobody had proven it to their satisfaction.

I do agree with your point (not too long ago, scientific consensus claimed blacks couldn't keep up with whites in the classrom).
 
#42
#42
volinbham said:
Of course all those scientists could be wrong but why assume they are?
Click to expand...

Well when you are talking about regulations, policies and legislation that could affect the taxpayers in the billions of dollars, I think it has to be called into question.
 
#43
#43
theFallGuy said:
Well when you are talking about regulations, policies and legislation that could affect the taxpayers in the billions of dollars, I think it has to be called into question.
Click to expand...

You're right, but if it is real, the real question is whether or not policy can improve our circumstance, and if it can, does it pass cost/benefit analysis. That's where there are no answers, which is why I don't see any need to act (especially on a global scale).
 
#44
#44
nbakerld said:
That's actually a myth as well. It's really played up in the American tales of Columbus. Most of science believed the earth was round, but it was in question since nobody had proven it to their satisfaction.

I do agree with your point (not too long ago, scientific consensus claimed blacks couldn't keep up with whites in the classrom).
Click to expand...

Well, I'm just saying there are numerous areas that have been proven wrong. Science is never 100% accurate and anyone that says it is should be treated with great skepticism because they probably have an agenda. Science is constantly changing and there is plenty that we don't understand about the Earth, humans, animals, etc.

Phlogiston theory. Created to explain the processes of oxidation - corrosion and combustion - it was disproved by discovery of the fact that combustion is the reaction of fuel with oxygen and that corrosion is caused by oxidation of metals and the formation of compounds. Disproved by Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier

Geocentric theory of the solar system. Disproved by Nicolaus Copernicus and studies through astronomy, as well as the use of physics to predict occurrences that geocentrism could not. Whether Earth is really the centre of the universe remains to be seen, since we don't know exactly where the universe ends.

The classical elemental theory (that all substance is made of earth, air, fire and water). Disproved by the discovery of subatomic particles and the modern elements, as we know them today.

Newton's Laws of Motion (which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, the were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold).

Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves. Disproved by study of the dual particle-wave nature of light, which means it does not in fact require a medium of any kind, and the simple complete lack of any evidence for such a substance.(Disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment.)

Aristotle's dynamic motion. It was an attempt at explaining momentum and why certain substances behave in certain ways; it was linked to the concept of the classical elements. Disproved by Galileo.
 
#45
#45
I personally think science is pretty darn accurate. It's not perfect, but it is very impressive. We don't just stick a bunch of Uranium together and hope we don't have to sound the alarms.
 
#46
#46
Weezy said:
I personally think science is pretty darn accurate. It's not perfect, but it is very impressive. We don't just stick a bunch of Uranium together and hope we don't have to sound the alarms.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I think science is manipulated when politically beneficial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#47
#47
But just because science is abused and politicized doesn't mean it is inaccurate. That's where I'm at on the GW thing - I'm fine with the basic science linking CO2 and GW.

No need to throw that out just because those current findings are being used to justify all manner of policies.
 
#48
#48
volinbham said:
But just because science is abused and politicized doesn't mean it is inaccurate. That's where I'm at on the GW thing - I'm fine with the basic science linking CO2 and GW.

No need to throw that out just because those current findings are being used to justify all manner of policies.
Click to expand...

I agree. I just believe all our federal efforts to improve green energy are total garbage.
 
#49
#49
VOLatile said:
THAT Jenny McCarthy? People listened to a supermodel?

I pay very close to attention to her every time I see her on television...

Faith-healing... yeah, I thought that was the same as homeopathy. Either way, it's all idiotic.


Faith healing is idiotic , The Bible teaches that, one of Jesus desiples was a physician


So we can all agree that intelligent design advocates are anti-science since they refute the scientific claims of evolution while having really no scientific grounds to stand on? They just point to the "gaps*" and run...


I believe in intelligent design but I am not anti-science.
Science has done so many great things, I do not see how anyone can say they are anti science.

I believe that God created man , If you want to believe you evolved from some kind of primate that is your business. Science cannot prove God did or did not create man nor can it prove man evolved from anything.


*which are continuously being filled.

But it has not been filled.
Let me know when the missing link is discovered.


On a slightly unrelated note: Jenny McCarthy is hotter now than ever, IMO.
Click to expand...

That she is... You know she is soo pretty God had to make her, there ain't no way anything that pretty came from a monkey.
 
#50
#50
volinbham said:
But just because science is abused and politicized doesn't mean it is inaccurate. That's where I'm at on the GW thing - I'm fine with the basic science linking CO2 and GW.

No need to throw that out just because those current findings are being used to justify all manner of policies.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree I just don't subscribe to the man-made global warming theory.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top