Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Can you help me understand science-denialism? [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The Pew Research Center have been following this debate on the LR with interest, and have helpfully published this study:

Democrats v Republicans

Unsurprisingly, they find that Republicans are less trusting of scientific opinion, and less willing to incorporate it into policy making.

It's a manifestation of the well-known phenomenon that reality has a left-wing bias. Conservatives are more keen to avoid their policy dogma being derailed by scientists and their "facts".

Then again, those Pew elites can't even spell "centre", so don't trust them.
Quote Reply
Re: Can you help me understand science-denialism? [Bone Idol] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bone Idol wrote:
The Pew Research Center have been following this debate on the LR with interest, and have helpfully published this study:

Democrats v Republicans

Unsurprisingly, they find that Republicans are less trusting of scientific opinion, and less willing to incorporate it into policy making.

It's a manifestation of the well-known phenomenon that reality has a left-wing bias. Conservatives are more keen to avoid their policy dogma being derailed by scientists and their "facts".

Then again, those Pew elites can't even spell "centre", so don't trust them.

It's deeper than conservative and liberal. It's a scale of where you fall on self reliance versus community reliance as a means of survival.

I perceive conservative individuals significantly more likely to want to depend only on themselves or much smaller and localized groups.

Liberals, depend on larger more universal groups or community reliance.

Neither method is wrong. It only becomes wrong or bad when you swing too far on that scale one way or another. Only depending on yourself or only depending on the largest of universal groups for survival and wisdom.

When you think about it that way, conservatives further outwards on the scale won't like depending on a "distant" outside group for their knowledge or reason. Therefore, they develop it themselves in a more insular manner. It's all you can do when you don't have a more universal or large scale reliance. You won't rely on the larger scientific community, so you turn to your local religious leaders and basement dweller conspiracy theorists instead.

Just look at the Flat Earther documentary. As soon as their leader got even just a little big bigger or the group larger and more "universal" a bunch of in-fighting and fractures and even internal conspiracies start popping up about the dude. Detractors within the group form.

The last minute of that documentary is absolutely hilarious.
Quote Reply
Re: Can you help me understand science-denialism? [burnthesheep] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think its a chicken or egg issue.

Is it, "I'm self reliant, therefore I don't need no egg head scientist telling me what to think about physics and stuff. I can figure it out on my own?"

Or, "I think I can figure physics out on my own and don't need no egg headed scientist what to think. Since I can do all that, I'm self reliant?"


In other words, does self reliance disuade them from listening to scientists? Or does their fear of learning make them insular people?

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Can you help me understand science-denialism? [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
IT wrote:
Slowman wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
Science is neither pure nor good, it's just a process that has proven highly effective at figuring out how the Universe works. Ideally it's after truth. What humans do with that truth can be judged to be good or bad, and probably will be both by different people.


let me contextualize science for you, because you clearly don't get it.

when the shit gets brown - when i get a life threatening disease, for example - then i run full speed, humble and whimpering, toward products and processes achieved generated and validated by the use of science and engineering. when an issue or instance is consequence-free, or when i'm too stupid to understand the consequences, or when the consequences affect others and not me, then my political or religious views move to the fore and science can bite me.

do you now understand how science works?


what do you do when you learn that the science that you were trusting has given you a life threatening disease?


you do one of two things: you die; or you use science to help you out of the jam science got you into.

every now and then the county i'm in has to fix a badly engineered intersection. too many accidents. the architecture of the intersection caused accidents. so it gets fixed. that doesn't call into question the methodology for traffic flow. it just means civil engineers screw up once in awhile. we don't start disregarding the rules of traffic flow because of the occasional bad intersection.

if you just look at how you live your life every day, the decisions you make, you do trust science and engineering. overwhelmingly. when you pick out one point and choose to disregard science - vaccines let us say, or evolution - why? is it because you have an overwhelmingly sound reason? or because it fits a narrative you find comforting?

if your problem is the clash of science with the religion you hold, remember that if your god made this world he made it to conform to his rules, which scientists have identified. miracles aren't his rules. they are the momentary, rare, suspension of his rules. if we choose to not live by his rules and rather according to his momentary suspension of them, seems to me god would find that rather facepalming.

thank you for your thoughts as most of them are coming across as rather rational with just some political leaning. like politics, IMO this thread was more about you wanting affirmation from this peer group rather than understanding.

you say that the options are to die or use science so we don't die. of course science/scientist would like us to invest more on science/scientists. i'm perplexed as to spending more or trusting more. are we going to make it up on volume? or another new and improved product?

another common option (and we're not limited in options) is to take a break and reassess where we are, like we do with our training/health. rushing from one thing to another often causes more damage. sometimes seeing what happens when we actually do less helps us heal and provides time to reason better.

some of us think that we are living in a science experiment gone bad. especially when we listen to doomsday scientists. in some ways science could be taking a victory lap given the huge number of people who are fed these days. most starvation is now due to political opponents denying food to the opposition and not a lack of food. i credit science with feeding many many people. good on science. science has also given us the bicycle and more potable water than ever before. good on science.

yet when science is demanding more buy in or threatening me with doom, it does remind me of the failures of science (pharma over existing less profitable alternatives for example or countries that go with a one child/no child policy and then can't get back to replacement level population to deal with aging). these failures give me pause and I take a break to re-access my buy in.

how many prescriptions should i be on at one time (as an analogy to your proposal in favor of science) to keep me from dying?

scare tactics sometimes backfire in science, religion and politics because people do get tired and start thinking about their approach to life. people grow skeptical and that can be a good thing.

Indoor Triathlete - I thought I was right, until I realized I was wrong.
Quote Reply
Re: Can you help me understand science-denialism? [IT] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
IT wrote:
Slowman wrote:
IT wrote:
Slowman wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
Science is neither pure nor good, it's just a process that has proven highly effective at figuring out how the Universe works. Ideally it's after truth. What humans do with that truth can be judged to be good or bad, and probably will be both by different people.


let me contextualize science for you, because you clearly don't get it.

when the shit gets brown - when i get a life threatening disease, for example - then i run full speed, humble and whimpering, toward products and processes achieved generated and validated by the use of science and engineering. when an issue or instance is consequence-free, or when i'm too stupid to understand the consequences, or when the consequences affect others and not me, then my political or religious views move to the fore and science can bite me.

do you now understand how science works?


what do you do when you learn that the science that you were trusting has given you a life threatening disease?


you do one of two things: you die; or you use science to help you out of the jam science got you into.

every now and then the county i'm in has to fix a badly engineered intersection. too many accidents. the architecture of the intersection caused accidents. so it gets fixed. that doesn't call into question the methodology for traffic flow. it just means civil engineers screw up once in awhile. we don't start disregarding the rules of traffic flow because of the occasional bad intersection.

if you just look at how you live your life every day, the decisions you make, you do trust science and engineering. overwhelmingly. when you pick out one point and choose to disregard science - vaccines let us say, or evolution - why? is it because you have an overwhelmingly sound reason? or because it fits a narrative you find comforting?

if your problem is the clash of science with the religion you hold, remember that if your god made this world he made it to conform to his rules, which scientists have identified. miracles aren't his rules. they are the momentary, rare, suspension of his rules. if we choose to not live by his rules and rather according to his momentary suspension of them, seems to me god would find that rather facepalming.


thank you for your thoughts as most of them are coming across as rather rational with just some political leaning. like politics, IMO this thread was more about you wanting affirmation from this peer group rather than understanding.

you say that the options are to die or use science so we don't die. of course science/scientist would like us to invest more on science/scientists. i'm perplexed as to spending more or trusting more. are we going to make it up on volume? or another new and improved product?

another common option (and we're not limited in options) is to take a break and reassess where we are, like we do with our training/health. rushing from one thing to another often causes more damage. sometimes seeing what happens when we actually do less helps us heal and provides time to reason better.

some of us think that we are living in a science experiment gone bad. especially when we listen to doomsday scientists. in some ways science could be taking a victory lap given the huge number of people who are fed these days. most starvation is now due to political opponents denying food to the opposition and not a lack of food. i credit science with feeding many many people. good on science. science has also given us the bicycle and more potable water than ever before. good on science.

yet when science is demanding more buy in or threatening me with doom, it does remind me of the failures of science (pharma over existing less profitable alternatives for example or countries that go with a one child/no child policy and then can't get back to replacement level population to deal with aging). these failures give me pause and I take a break to re-access my buy in.

how many prescriptions should i be on at one time (as an analogy to your proposal in favor of science) to keep me from dying?

scare tactics sometimes backfire in science, religion and politics because people do get tired and start thinking about their approach to life. people grow skeptical and that can be a good thing.

That was quite the ramble. I especially liked this sentence:

"some of us think that we are living in a science experiment gone bad. especially when we listen to doomsday scientists."

mmm-k. Who is "some of us" and why are you listening to doomsday scientists? I'm also not sure how that sentence relates the rest of that paragraph, where you seem to applaud some scientific achievements.

But anyway, maybe you can clarify one thing for me - what does a country's one-child policy (assume you mean China's) have to do with science? Seems to me it's simply a political decision, so I'm not sure how it's relevant to the discussion.
Quote Reply
Re: Can you help me understand science-denialism? [IT] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
IT wrote:
Slowman wrote:
IT wrote:
Slowman wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
Science is neither pure nor good, it's just a process that has proven highly effective at figuring out how the Universe works. Ideally it's after truth. What humans do with that truth can be judged to be good or bad, and probably will be both by different people.


let me contextualize science for you, because you clearly don't get it.

when the shit gets brown - when i get a life threatening disease, for example - then i run full speed, humble and whimpering, toward products and processes achieved generated and validated by the use of science and engineering. when an issue or instance is consequence-free, or when i'm too stupid to understand the consequences, or when the consequences affect others and not me, then my political or religious views move to the fore and science can bite me.

do you now understand how science works?


what do you do when you learn that the science that you were trusting has given you a life threatening disease?


you do one of two things: you die; or you use science to help you out of the jam science got you into.

every now and then the county i'm in has to fix a badly engineered intersection. too many accidents. the architecture of the intersection caused accidents. so it gets fixed. that doesn't call into question the methodology for traffic flow. it just means civil engineers screw up once in awhile. we don't start disregarding the rules of traffic flow because of the occasional bad intersection.

if you just look at how you live your life every day, the decisions you make, you do trust science and engineering. overwhelmingly. when you pick out one point and choose to disregard science - vaccines let us say, or evolution - why? is it because you have an overwhelmingly sound reason? or because it fits a narrative you find comforting?

if your problem is the clash of science with the religion you hold, remember that if your god made this world he made it to conform to his rules, which scientists have identified. miracles aren't his rules. they are the momentary, rare, suspension of his rules. if we choose to not live by his rules and rather according to his momentary suspension of them, seems to me god would find that rather facepalming.


thank you for your thoughts as most of them are coming across as rather rational with just some political leaning. like politics, IMO this thread was more about you wanting affirmation from this peer group rather than understanding.

you say that the options are to die or use science so we don't die. of course science/scientist would like us to invest more on science/scientists. i'm perplexed as to spending more or trusting more. are we going to make it up on volume? or another new and improved product?

another common option (and we're not limited in options) is to take a break and reassess where we are, like we do with our training/health. rushing from one thing to another often causes more damage. sometimes seeing what happens when we actually do less helps us heal and provides time to reason better.

some of us think that we are living in a science experiment gone bad. especially when we listen to doomsday scientists. in some ways science could be taking a victory lap given the huge number of people who are fed these days. most starvation is now due to political opponents denying food to the opposition and not a lack of food. i credit science with feeding many many people. good on science. science has also given us the bicycle and more potable water than ever before. good on science.

yet when science is demanding more buy in or threatening me with doom, it does remind me of the failures of science (pharma over existing less profitable alternatives for example or countries that go with a one child/no child policy and then can't get back to replacement level population to deal with aging). these failures give me pause and I take a break to re-access my buy in.

how many prescriptions should i be on at one time (as an analogy to your proposal in favor of science) to keep me from dying?

scare tactics sometimes backfire in science, religion and politics because people do get tired and start thinking about their approach to life. people grow skeptical and that can be a good thing.

It seems you are confusing political decisions with science.
Quote Reply
Re: Can you help me understand science-denialism? [IT] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My grandmother was a Christian scientist. That’s a religion. You don’t go to the doctor. She got colon cancer. How do you think that ended? Did her opinion of science make a difference?

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Can you help me understand science-denialism? [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ben Stein used a similar tactic in Expelled, which was an anti-science propaganda video.


"Hey, you know who else believed in evolution? The Nazis......."

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Can you help me understand science-denialism? [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"mmm-k. Who is "some of us" and why are you listening to doomsday scientists? I"

And just WTF is a doomsday scientist? Because if that field was available I would have done that.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: Can you help me understand science-denialism? [IT] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
IT, you have the weirdest grasp of science I've ever seen.

Again - science is about understanding the natural world, not about building products. Engineering is about building products.

If you're upset with what engineers have done with the knowledge uncovered by scientists, complain to the engineers.

If you're upset that scientists have uncovered some knowledge, that's what you can complain to a scientist about.

And while scientists are often fallible and biased, the scientific method is designed to correct for this.

You can complain about the scientific method all you want, but your choices are to come up with a better method of acquiring knowledge, or stop trying to acquire knowledge.
Quote Reply
Re: Can you help me understand science-denialism? [IT] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
IT wrote:
scare tactics sometimes backfire in science, religion and politics because people do get tired and start thinking about their approach to life. people grow skeptical and that can be a good thing.


ok... let's try a specific example as in this story where "scientists" are warning the public in general, and the food industry specifically, about a potentially life threatening situation.

When you read this:
Do you see a failure of "people" (excluding the group of "scientists") to exercise sound precautions?
Do you think the food industry regulators are being skeptical because (obviously) the scientists are just crying wolf?
Are the scientists doomsday-mongers?
Would you say the scientists have the best interest of the public in mind? Or does the food industry appear to have the best interests of the public at heart?

Just trying to bring this down to a specific instance where scientists are trying to make a point, and it's not getting across.

Less is more.
Last edited by: Big Endian: Aug 15, 19 11:45
Quote Reply

Prev Next