Data shows that using science in an argument just makes people more partisan

[Chris]

And odd result in modern times. Why is it?

Data shows that using science in an argument just makes people more partisan (http://qz.com/869587/using-science-in-an-argument-just-makes-people-more-partisan/)


If only we would all just use our rational, scientific minds. Then we could get past our disagreements.

It’s a nice thought. Unfortunately, it’s wrong.

Yale behavioral economist Dan Kahan has spent the last decade studying whether the use of reason aggravates or reduces partisan beliefs. His research shows that aggravation easily wins. The more we use our faculties for scientific thought, the more likely we are to take a strong position that aligns with our political group. That goes for liberals as well as conservatives.

Rather than use our best thinking to reach the truth, we use it to find ways to agree with others in our communities.

“The process is called biased assimilation,” says Kahan. “People will selectively credit and discredit information in patterns that reflect their commitment to certain values.”

...

[Crepitus]

I wonder if there's any relationship between this and that spreading red spot in your other thread?

[Chris]

I wonder if there's any relationship between this and that spreading red spot in your other thread?

If you have nothing to contribute don't fake it.

[Crepitus]

If you have nothing to contribute don't fake it.

Dont be a smart ass. It's a serious question. For lots of folks science and religion don't mix, and religion wins nearly every time. Not for everyone by any stretch, but for some yes.

[texan]

And odd result in modern times. Why is it?

Data shows that using science in an argument just makes people more partisan (http://qz.com/869587/using-science-in-an-argument-just-makes-people-more-partisan/)


People only accept "facts" if it is the facts they like.

[Chris]

Dont be a smart ass. It's a serious question. For lots of folks science and religion don't mix, and religion wins nearly every time. Not for everyone by any stretch, but for some yes.

That's what you meant by "spreading red spot"? Criminy.

Back in the days when ID was all the rage two of my favorite scientists were Behe and Miller. Both are Christian and both are scientists. Behe wrote Darwin's Black Box in which he accepted the three pillars of evolution, mutation, selection, replication, but pointed to things to complex for evolution to explain--therefore ID. Miller wrote Finding Darwin's God in which he used evolutionary biology to explain what Behe couldn't. Both testified in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, after which ID has been little heard from.

Newton was a scientist who explained the mechanics of the universe but believed God created the universe. Einstein refined Newton's theories but believed in Spinoza's God.

I've read too much science and religion to believe they're at odds.

[Chris]

People only accept "facts" if it is the facts they like.

Confirmation bias. It's natural.

[Beevee]

I wonder how much was spent on this research and who paid for it.

Two days on a variety of forums would have yielded the same result at no costs whatsoever.

Who is playing who for suckers?

[Subdermal]

And odd result in modern times. Why is it?

Data shows that using science in an argument just makes people more partisan (http://qz.com/869587/using-science-in-an-argument-just-makes-people-more-partisan/)

The moment I saw this topic, I knew it revolved around the bullshit of global warming; the attempt to force the premise of AGW.

And sure enough; 4 paragraphs in, that's what they land upon.

[Subdermal]

Dont be a smart ass. It's a serious question. For lots of folks science and religion don't mix, and religion wins nearly every time. Not for everyone by any stretch, but for some yes.

Examples on this forum?

[Common]

Not referring to the study that science makes people become more partisan. Speaking for me, I have a hard time believing science, because over my lifetime scientific announcements made in stone were only to be found to be false a decade later and the reverse true. Personally I think science is to manipulated by the opinion and outlook and partisanship at times of the scientist.

Remember the simpler things, Eggs are bad for you eat them once a week and if you have high cholesterol limit them to once a month. Now thats gone and eggs do not add to your cholesterol. Same thing with butter.
Same thing with alcohol drinking moderately everyday is just as bad as heavy drinking. No longer true 2 drinks a day benefit you.

Those are a couple of the more simplistic scientific announcements that have been reversed. There are far more. Makes it hard to accept blindly every announcement they make. ESPECIALLY on something so controversial as global warming or climate change.

Both those and Ill use this forum membership as an example. Both those that undyingly believe in global warming and fight in everythread for it. DONT KNOW SQUAT about global warming. The same with those that deny it exists, they know the exact same as the other side. SQUAT. I stay out of those threads because I believe they are ridiculous. Two sides arguing a point that they dont have one syllable of first hand information about. Its strictly partisan nonesense along with other science.

The scientific community itself is split on the effects if any of global warming.

[AeonPax]

`
`
The same can be said for using facts in an argument.

[Common]

`
`
The same can be said for using facts in an argument.

Facts are more realistic dont you think

[stjames1_53]

Dont be a smart ass. It's a serious question. For lots of folks science and religion don't mix, and religion wins nearly every time. Not for everyone by any stretch, but for some yes.
This is being a smart ass>>>>>I wonder if there's any relationship between this and that spreading red spot in your other thread?
This is being honest>>>>>>If you have nothing to contribute don't fake it.

[stjames1_53]

People only accept "facts" if it is the facts they like.

Fact: If you like your insurance the fact is, it's a lie
Fact: If you like your doctor the fact is, it's a lie
Fact: It's affordable the fact is, it's a lie
Fact: We've had a communist in the office....the fact is, it's the truth
Fact: I want to unite the people the fact is, he's done everything he could to divide America, it's the truth

[midcan5]

Science is open ended that is at the heart of why many find it difficult. That further study often conflicts with initial assumptions is the practice and the why of the scientific method. It works - how many today think smoking is good for you. I'm sure you had your polio vaccine. Look only at drugs and the complications they often cause when applied to a larger base of subjects. I don't buy the premise of that opinion piece, data can be reliable even when challenged by special interests. Anyone drink water from polluted streams or love industrial smog? Big money has made America a kind of cesspool of conflicting information, given enough money you could find a so called scientist who proves the earth is flat, but that proves nothing. Agnotology has infected the mind of many and they doubt anything that conflicts with their narrative be it religious or commercial. And please don't tell me the earth revolves around the sun.

'Pew Research Center reports that only 6 percent of scientists identified as Republican and only 9 percent identified as conservatives.'


'Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming' Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. M. Conway


http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=11232
(http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=11232'The)

'The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark' Carl Sagan

'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds' by Charles MacKay"

"This anti-vaxx movement has things that I love: star power, science denial, and hipster appeal. Cause Penny-farthings and handlebar mustaches are cool, but nothing is more vintage than dying of Rubella." Stephen Colbert


"I want to argue for something which is controversial, although I believe that it is also intuitive and commonsensical. My claim is this: Oliver [average science denier] believes what he does because that is the kind of thinker he is or, to put it more bluntly, because there is something wrong with how he thinks. The problem with conspiracy theorists is not, as the US legal scholar Cass Sunstein argues, that they have little relevant information. The key to what they end up believing is how they interpret and respond to the vast quantities of relevant information at their disposal. I want to suggest that this is fundamentally a question of the way they are. Oliver isn’t mad (or at least, he needn’t be). Nevertheless, his beliefs about 9/11 are the result of the peculiarities of his intellectual constitution – in a word, of his intellectual character." https://aeon.co/essays/the-intellectual-character-of-conspiracy-theorists

[Standing Wolf]

Not referring to the study that science makes people become more partisan. Speaking for me, I have a hard time believing science, because over my lifetime scientific announcements made in stone were only to be found to be false a decade later and the reverse true. Personally I think science is to manipulated by the opinion and outlook and partisanship at times of the scientist.

Remember the simpler things, Eggs are bad for you eat them once a week and if you have high cholesterol limit them to once a month. Now thats gone and eggs do not add to your cholesterol. Same thing with butter.
Same thing with alcohol drinking moderately everyday is just as bad as heavy drinking. No longer true 2 drinks a day benefit you.

Those are a couple of the more simplistic scientific announcements that have been reversed. There are far more. Makes it hard to accept blindly every announcement they make. ESPECIALLY on something so controversial as global warming or climate change.

Much of the blame for the apparent reversals and corrections must be placed on the media, who invariably simplify and condense even the most complex findings into headlines and two-sentence sound bites - not infrequently making someone appear to be saying the exact opposite of what they really are. The media does precisely the same thing in the legal realm, and I suspect in others, as well.

In response to the OP, I have to say that this confirms the old adage, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Someone who knows virtually nothing about a subject may be less likely to offer an opinion and more inclined to keep an open mind about it. Let that person read a few news stories about the thing and they may suddenly feel that they are "educated" on the subject and qualified to speak or write about it. Give that individual a college degree, even if it is in a totally unrelated field, and their sense of power and competence is increased exponentially. Meanwhile, the need for social approval and acceptance is as strong or stronger than it ever was, and decisions about what to believe - more to the point, what to say one believes - will likely be made on the basis of which group one is eager to be seen to be a member of.

[stjames1_53]

Much of the blame for the apparent reversals and corrections must be placed on the media, who invariably simplify and condense even the most complex findings into headlines and two-sentence sound bites - not infrequently making someone appear to be saying the exact opposite of what they really are. The media does precisely the same thing in the legal realm, and I suspect in others, as well.

In response to the OP, I have to say that this confirms the old adage, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Someone who knows virtually nothing about a subject may be less likely to offer an opinion and more inclined to keep an open mind about it. Let that person read a few news stories about the thing and they may suddenly feel that they are "educated" on the subject and qualified to speak or write about it. Give that individual a college degree, even if it is in a totally unrelated field, and their sense of power and competence is increased exponentially. Meanwhile, the need for social approval and acceptance is as strong or stronger than it ever was, and decisions about what to believe - more to the point, what to say one believes - will likely be made on the basis of which group one is eager to be seen to be a member of.

agreed. Some of the folks in here claim to have slept in a Holiday Inn...............I always question scientific "facts"

[Common]

Much of the blame for the apparent reversals and corrections must be placed on the media, who invariably simplify and condense even the most complex findings into headlines and two-sentence sound bites - not infrequently making someone appear to be saying the exact opposite of what they really are. The media does precisely the same thing in the legal realm, and I suspect in others, as well.

In response to the OP, I have to say that this confirms the old adage, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Someone who knows virtually nothing about a subject may be less likely to offer an opinion and more inclined to keep an open mind about it. Let that person read a few news stories about the thing and they may suddenly feel that they are "educated" on the subject and qualified to speak or write about it. Give that individual a college degree, even if it is in a totally unrelated field, and their sense of power and competence is increased exponentially. Meanwhile, the need for social approval and acceptance is as strong or stronger than it ever was, and decisions about what to believe - more to the point, what to say one believes - will likely be made on the basis of which group one is eager to be seen to be a member of.
We as a whole on this forum and all other forums are guilty of having a little knowledge and reading a couple of news articles then try to argue the point from a knowledgeable commanding side.

I do however have to question that its the medias fault. First they have to condence and simplify scientific findings to not baffle their viewers or readers and I believe sometimes it does misconstrue the facts of the findings. However most are so simplistic, like eggs are bad for your cholesterol ooops no they arent.

We waste billions of tax dollars in the name of science. Sciences mostly exists on the govt and the taxpayers. They have to come out with something sensational or at minimum interesting to keep the cash coming. You have to agree Standing Wolf there have been alot of money spent on the most ridiculous studies. Heres a few examples.

Taxpayers paid for these studies, I could post literally hundreds of these taxpayer funded absurdities

Study shows beneficial effect of electric fans in extreme heat and humidity

Study shows benefit of higher quality screening colonoscopies

Being homeless is bad for your health

Statistical analysis reveals Mexican drug war increased homicide rates

Middle-aged congenital heart disease survivors may need special care:

Scientists Discover a Difference Between the Sexes


How long can a shrimp run on a treadmill?
Really? Do we need to spend $3 million just to watch shrimps run on a treadmill? Actually, yes, if we want to begin to understand the effects of bacteria on mobility, according to National Science Foundation spokeswoman Maria Zacharias. The National Science Foundation's page on the study explains that these tests help us better understand the effects of pollution and a crustacean's natural immune defense system have on the survival of the species. Since the survival of the species can not only affect the environment but also the fishing and seafood industry, the study of a shrimp's ability to run away from predators and survive when its health is compromised by human influence through pollution, is pretty important.

Does playing FarmVille on Facebook help people to make friends and keep them?
FarmVille is a simulation game on Facebook that allows users to create a virtual farm, grow and harvest crops, trade and exchange seeds with other farmers. At first glance it seems ludicrous that $315,000 would be spent on attempting to study the real social aspects of an online game, but is it really? With more and more time being spent online with friends, the impact of these activities on our health, happiness and attitudes is an important concept to explore. This study happened to show that relationships that would otherwise have been "left stale" were actually built up through the game. Imagine how this information can transform the lives of people with physical and mental disabilities preventing them from taking part in real-life interaction. (With social media continuing to grow, it is difficult to determine What Are Social Media Sites Really Worth? (http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0211/what-are-social-media-sites-really-worth.asp))

How do you ride a bike?
According to the Senator's report, $300,000 was spent in 2009 helping scientists study how humans ride bicycles. Since the velocipede has been around in many forms for well over 100 years, you might think this a completely useless study. But, how often has the design of the bicycle changed over the course of that 150 or so years? The NSF report on the study notes that spending the time to study how humans ride and handle bicycles will give designers insight into ways they may improve bicycle design. This could result in bicycles that are more comfortable, encouraging increased usage, and more accessible, allowing a wider variety of individuals (including those with certain physical disabilities) the ability to utilize this healthier form of transportation. The future impact this could have on life spans (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lifeexpectancy.asp), health and healthcare costs as more and more people are able to ride and get the benefits of exercise from improved bicycle engineering, can have a powerful affect on many industries and socio-economic classes.


Can Twitter predict the stock market?
Twitter, an online social networking (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/social-networking.asp) and micro blogging site allowing users to converse in 140 character blocks, has almost become a household name. Its trending topics are discussed on CNN and famous actors like Ashton Kutcher have been known to use the site to reach out to fans and spread the word about upcoming projects and events. Recently, the air maneuvers that were part of the attack which resulted in the death of Osama Bin Laden were narrated live on the Twitter account of an individual who had no idea what he was witnessing.
Since market movement is all about public perception of economic and news events, it makes sense then that the tweets of this vast network of relatively connected individuals might give some insight into market movement. The NSF spent $25,000 to find that in fact, "measuring the collective public mood by analyzing millions of tweets can predict the rise and fall of the stock market (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stockmarket.asp) up to a week in advance with up to 90% accuracy." It's hard to argue the value in that statement.

[resister]

They could of just asked me about recumbent bicycles. I fabricate and ride them. They are far superior to the traditional diamond frame design. They alleviate virtualy all of the pain

[Crepitus]

Not referring to the study that science makes people become more partisan. Speaking for me, I have a hard time believing science, because over my lifetime scientific announcements made in stone were only to be found to be false a decade later and the reverse true. Personally I think science is to manipulated by the opinion and outlook and partisanship at times of the scientist.

Remember the simpler things, Eggs are bad for you eat them once a week and if you have high cholesterol limit them to once a month. Now thats gone and eggs do not add to your cholesterol. Same thing with butter.
Same thing with alcohol drinking moderately everyday is just as bad as heavy drinking. No longer true 2 drinks a day benefit you.

Those are a couple of the more simplistic scientific announcements that have been reversed. There are far more. Makes it hard to accept blindly every announcement they make. ESPECIALLY on something so controversial as global warming or climate change.

Both those and Ill use this forum membership as an example. Both those that undyingly believe in global warming and fight in everythread for it. DONT KNOW SQUAT about global warming. The same with those that deny it exists, they know the exact same as the other side. SQUAT. I stay out of those threads because I believe they are ridiculous. Two sides arguing a point that they dont have one syllable of first hand information about. Its strictly partisan nonesense along with other science.

The scientific community itself is split on the effects if any of global warming.


Examples on this forum?

[Chris]

I wonder how much was spent on this research and who paid for it.

Two days on a variety of forums would have yielded the same result at no costs whatsoever.

Who is playing who for suckers?



Your assignment, should you accept it, is to find out. This message will self-destruct....

[Chris]

The moment I saw this topic, I knew it revolved around the bullshit of global warming; the attempt to force the premise of AGW.

And sure enough; 4 paragraphs in, that's what they land upon.


Yes, and? Everything I have ever seen from alarmists and deniers confirms the finding of the study.

[Chris]

Not referring to the study that science makes people become more partisan. Speaking for me, I have a hard time believing science, because over my lifetime scientific announcements made in stone were only to be found to be false a decade later and the reverse true. Personally I think science is to manipulated by the opinion and outlook and partisanship at times of the scientist.

Remember the simpler things, Eggs are bad for you eat them once a week and if you have high cholesterol limit them to once a month. Now thats gone and eggs do not add to your cholesterol. Same thing with butter.
Same thing with alcohol drinking moderately everyday is just as bad as heavy drinking. No longer true 2 drinks a day benefit you.

Those are a couple of the more simplistic scientific announcements that have been reversed. There are far more. Makes it hard to accept blindly every announcement they make. ESPECIALLY on something so controversial as global warming or climate change.

Both those and Ill use this forum membership as an example. Both those that undyingly believe in global warming and fight in everythread for it. DONT KNOW SQUAT about global warming. The same with those that deny it exists, they know the exact same as the other side. SQUAT. I stay out of those threads because I believe they are ridiculous. Two sides arguing a point that they dont have one syllable of first hand information about. Its strictly partisan nonesense along with other science.

The scientific community itself is split on the effects if any of global warming.



Eggs being bad for you is not science.

[Crepitus]

Not referring to the study that science makes people become more

[QUOTE=stjames1_53;1864965]This is being a smart ass>>>>>I wonder if there's any relationship between this and that spreading red spot in your other thread?
This is being honest>>>>>>If you have nothing to contribute don't fake it.


^This is a biased and none to bright opinion that would have been better kept to yourself.

[Crepitus]

Eggs being bad for you is not science.

Eggs are actually quite good for you.

In moderation, like anything else.

[MisterVeritis]

Dont be a smart ass. It's a serious question. For lots of folks science and religion don't mix, and religion wins nearly every time. Not for everyone by any stretch, but for some yes.
I have read some claims that without the Christian religion western science could not have flourished.

[Crepitus]

I have read some claims that without the Christian religion western science could not have flourished.

Anything is possible, but I have not seen these.

[Subdermal]

Not referring to the study that science makes people become more partisan. Speaking for me, I have a hard time believing science, because over my lifetime scientific announcements made in stone were only to be found to be false a decade later and the reverse true. Personally I think science is to manipulated by the opinion and outlook and partisanship at times of the scientist.

Remember the simpler things, Eggs are bad for you eat them once a week and if you have high cholesterol limit them to once a month. Now thats gone and eggs do not add to your cholesterol. Same thing with butter.
Same thing with alcohol drinking moderately everyday is just as bad as heavy drinking. No longer true 2 drinks a day benefit you.

Those are a couple of the more simplistic scientific announcements that have been reversed. There are far more. Makes it hard to accept blindly every announcement they make. ESPECIALLY on something so controversial as global warming or climate change.

Both those and Ill use this forum membership as an example. Both those that undyingly believe in global warming and fight in everythread for it. DONT KNOW SQUAT about global warming. The same with those that deny it exists, they know the exact same as the other side. SQUAT. I stay out of those threads because I believe they are ridiculous. Two sides arguing a point that they dont have one syllable of first hand information about. Its strictly partisan nonesense along with other science.

The scientific community itself is split on the effects if any of global warming.
How, Common Sense, is Common's post an example of his religion trumping science?

[Subdermal]

Yes, and? Everything I have ever seen from alarmists and deniers confirms the finding of the study.

How does it do that?

By co-opting that attempt at 'science' as factual? Instead of any acknowledgement of the politicization of the subject, as has been admitted by the leak of East Anglia emails?

[Subdermal]

Anything is possible, but I have not seen these.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

[Chris]

How does it do that?

By co-opting that attempt at 'science' as factual? Instead of any acknowledgement of the politicization of the subject, as has been admitted by the leak of East Anglia emails?

Huh?

Examples: Alarmist cite a consensus of scientists when science isn't a matter of consensus. Deniers deny man causes climate change when the claim is not man is the only cause.

[Standing Wolf]

Back in the days when ID was all the rage two of my favorite scientists were Behe and Miller. Both are Christian and both are scientists. Behe wrote Darwin's Black Box in which he accepted the three pillars of evolution, mutation, selection, replication, but pointed to things to complex for evolution to explain--therefore ID. Miller wrote Finding Darwin's God in which he used evolutionary biology to explain what Behe couldn't. Both testified in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, after which ID has been little heard from.

I've known at least one person who was so adamant about not believing in evolution, particularly human evolution, that they declared that if they ever came to believe in evolution they would have to stop being a Christian. While it may be presumptuous of me to say so, I have to believe that that person did not have a very clear and accurate understanding of his own Faith.

I have two cousins who are well known scientists - one an astronomer-historian, and the other a paleontologist and one of the world's foremost experts on the evolution of cetaceans. Both are sincere, dedicated and active Christians. I have to believe that they are as knowledgeable in their respective fields as anyone could be, and they very obviously see no fundamental conflict between their professions and their religious faith.

[Archer0915]

This is a partisan thread because it is basing something on data!

Still who follows evidence based decision making more? Left or right?

[resister]

Some religious folks are confused about fossils. Does the bible realy claim the world is 5000 years old?

[Archer0915]

some religious folks are confused about fossils. Does the bible realy claim the world is 5000 years old?
nope!

[resister]

nope!I have heard that claim but I have never seen it

[Subdermal]

Huh?

Examples: Alarmist cite a consensus of scientists when science isn't a matter of consensus. Deniers deny man causes climate change when the claim is not man is the only cause.
Perhaps I'm not fully understanding your point, and perhaps we're agreeing.

Alarmists are more than happy to politicize the topic, first by refusing to acknowledge that there are only aspects of climatology which are scientific; much of what they wish to be scientific isn't either testable or falsifiable - as evidenced by the fact that their predictive models based upon such fallacy are nearly always hilariously - epically - wrong.

Deniers may indeed have a faction which go overboard and reject every single aspect of climatology findings, including that which is falsifiable (a very narrow aspect of the general study, due to the inability to duplicate 'in a test tube' the complex variables which really factor into how our ecosystem operates), but - in general - the Denial wing isn't characterized in the manner you offer.

The stance of AGW deniers is more generally and accurately represented by the following statement: man's involvement in affecting our ecosystem is only a fraction of a fraction of the influence which Nature itself exerts. One need consider nothing more than volcanic eruptions; cow methane; heat-source fissures at the ocean floor; solar flare activity...to understand that fully.

It is therefore stupid to follow any economic punitive policy to effect change in man's behavior wrt to climate, as man has too little to do with it. That doesn't mean litter; that doesn't mean 'be free to pour toxins into rivers', etc. Those impacts are micro-ecological, and not the focus of the general agenda.

The general agenda is focused on the ephemeral claim of 'warming' the planet - which is not a variable that IMO has been "scientifically proven" (again: hilariously incorrect models) to be harmful regardless.

[Chris]

I've known at least one person who was so adamant about not believing in evolution, particularly human evolution, that they declared that if they ever came to believe in evolution they would have to stop being a Christian. While it may be presumptuous of me to say so, I have to believe that that person did not have a very clear and accurate understanding of his own Faith.

I have two cousins who are well known scientists - one an astronomer-historian, and the other a paleontologist and one of the world's foremost experts on the evolution of cetaceans. Both are sincere, dedicated and active Christians. I have to believe that they are as knowledgeable in their respective fields as anyone could be, and they very obviously see no fundamental conflict between their professions and their religious faith.


About the only "scientist" I ever came across who was in complete denial of any science not in the Bible was Henry Morris who claimed the craters on the moon where cause by the great battle of Michael's and Satan's angels. Mkay.

[Subdermal]

I've known at least one person who was so adamant about not believing in evolution, particularly human evolution, that they declared that if they ever came to believe in evolution they would have to stop being a Christian. While it may be presumptuous of me to say so, I have to believe that that person did not have a very clear and accurate understanding of his own Faith.

I have two cousins who are well known scientists - one an astronomer-historian, and the other a paleontologist and one of the world's foremost experts on the evolution of cetaceans. Both are sincere, dedicated and active Christians. I have to believe that they are as knowledgeable in their respective fields as anyone could be, and they very obviously see no fundamental conflict between their professions and their religious faith.
I see no conflict between the Christian religion and any scientific pursuit either. The issue is contrived, and for political purposes. The activist atheist wing does attempt to co-opt science in an effort to delegitimize the notion of God; the strident dummies who are religious - but are blindly so - feed fuel to that fire by holding indefensible positions which harm the credibility of religious people in general.

[Chris]

Perhaps I'm not fully understanding your point, and perhaps we're agreeing.

Alarmists are more than happy to politicize the topic, first by refusing to acknowledge that there are only aspects of climatology which are scientific; much of what they wish to be scientific isn't either testable or falsifiable - as evidenced by the fact that their predictive models based upon such fallacy are nearly always hilariously - epically - wrong.

Deniers may indeed have a faction which go overboard and reject every single aspect of climatology findings, including that which is falsifiable (a very narrow aspect of the general study, due to the inability to duplicate 'in a test tube' the complex variables which really factor into how our ecosystem operates), but - in general - the Denial wing isn't characterized in the manner you offer.

The stance of AGW deniers is more generally and accurately represented by the following statement: man's involvement in affecting our ecosystem is only a fraction of a fraction of the influence which Nature itself exerts. One need consider nothing more than volcanic eruptions; cow methane; heat-source fissures at the ocean floor; solar flare activity...to understand that fully.

It is therefore stupid to follow any economic punitive policy to effect change in man's behavior wrt to climate, as man has too little to do with it. That doesn't mean litter; that doesn't mean 'be free to pour toxins into rivers', etc. Those impacts are micro-ecological, and not the focus of the general agenda.

The general agenda is focused on the ephemeral claim of 'warming' the planet - which is not a variable that IMO has been "scientifically proven" (again: hilariously incorrect models) to be harmful regardless.


Your account of deniers is more scientific than most denier's accounts. I think the skeptic's stance would be we don't know for sure how much man affects climate or how man that will in tern affect us. SO theirs no need for denial or alarm just measured, reasoned approach to the future. Many would regulate our use of energy while I am with those who advocate adjusting and adapting to climate change. The latter is much more economically sound than the former.

[Subdermal]

Your account of deniers is more scientific than most denier's accounts.

Most 'deniers' aren't as clinical on the subject as I am - but that doesn't delegitimize the position one whit, however.


I think the skeptic's stance would be we don't know for sure how much man affects climate or how man that will in tern affect us.

I believe that stance is more easily scientifically refuted than the stance of the denier, simply by understanding the amount of GHGs/pollutants added into the environment by man vs by Nature, and understanding the tiny total percentage accounted for by man. We needn't understand Man's impact to the 3rd decimal point in order to understand that Man is an extremely tiny variable.

And - beyond that - how the Earth's ecosystem is capable of absorbing and adapting to Man's and Nature's variables. It is entirely possible, in fact, that warming the globe is our ecosystem's adaptation to increased organic activity on this Earth: to provide more sowable acreage on the face of the planet to sustain this increased activity, for instance.



SO theirs no need for denial or alarm just measured, reasoned approach to the future.

Parsing even in those terms gives the political activist all they need to get their fingers in your wallet. They need only argue what "measured and reasoned" is. I reject the effort in whole cloth.


Many would regulate our use of energy while I am with those who advocate adjusting and adapting to climate change. The latter is much more economically sound than the former.

It is, but more sound - to prevent the pitfall I cite - is to ignore it entirely.

[Crepitus]

Not referring to the study that science makes people become more partisan. Speaking for me, I have a hard time believing science, because over my lifetime scientific announcements made in stone were only to be found to be false a decade later and the reverse true. Personally I think science is to manipulated by the opinion and outlook and partisanship at times of the scientist.

Remember the simpler things, Eggs are bad for you eat them once a week and if you have high cholesterol limit them to once a month. Now thats gone and eggs do not add to your cholesterol. Same thing with butter.
Same thing with alcohol drinking moderately everyday is just as bad as heavy drinking. No longer true 2 drinks a day benefit you.

Those are a couple of the more simplistic scientific announcements that have been reversed. There are far more. Makes it hard to accept blindly every announcement they make. ESPECIALLY on something so controversial as global warming or climate change.

Both those and Ill use this forum membership as an example. Both those that undyingly believe in global warming and fight in everythread for it. DONT KNOW SQUAT about global warming. The same with those that deny it exists, they know the exact same as the other side. SQUAT. I stay out of those threads because I believe they are ridiculous. Two sides arguing a point that they dont have one syllable of first hand information about. Its strictly partisan nonesense along with other science.

The scientific community itself is split on the effects if any of global warming.


http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

The problem isn't scientists who don't believe in god. I actually think most do.

The problem is god-botherers who refuse to believe in science.

[MisterVeritis]

Your account of deniers is more scientific than most denier's accounts. I think the skeptic's stance would be we don't know for sure how much man affects climate or how man that will in tern affect us. SO theirs no need for denial or alarm just measured, reasoned approach to the future. Many would regulate our use of energy while I am with those who advocate adjusting and adapting to climate change. The latter is much more economically sound than the former.
Yes. For many, if not all, on the Left, the default position is to let the government choose our futures.
I prefer to let every individual decide. Personally, I like the years with almost no winter. But I cannot count on years with no winters so I must still plan to spend up to $800 per winter month for heating. If I am successful my next home will be almost entirely underground. My temperature management bills will be low and constant.

[Chris]

Most 'deniers' aren't as clinical on the subject as I am - but that doesn't delegitimize the position one whit, however.



I believe that stance is more easily scientifically refuted than the stance of the denier, simply by understanding the amount of GHGs/pollutants added into the environment by man vs by Nature, and understanding the tiny total percentage accounted for by man. We needn't understand Man's impact to the 3rd decimal point in order to understand that Man is an extremely tiny variable.

And - beyond that - how the Earth's ecosystem is capable of absorbing and adapting to Man's and Nature's variables. It is entirely possible, in fact, that warming the globe is our ecosystem's adaptation to increased organic activity on this Earth: to provide more sowable acreage on the face of the planet to sustain this increased activity, for instance.




Parsing even in those terms gives the political activist all they need to get their fingers in your wallet. They need only argue what "measured and reasoned" is. I reject the effort in whole cloth.



It is, but more sound - to prevent the pitfall I cite - is to ignore it entirely.



Used to be a member here name of Bob who was the the expert in all things including climate change and an absolute denier: Man had no effect on climate. An absurd position.

How do you refute not knowing for certain? Certainty is not an element of science with is tentative, incomplete and probabilistic. We don't know what you claim, what we have is perhaps some studies that support that, other studies that don't.

Sure warning and cooling is natural. But man affects it by making the highs and lows more extreme. Just like the government does meddling in the business cycle.

Deniers ignore.

[Beevee]

Your assignment, should you accept it, is to find out. This message will self-destruct....

LOL
You aren't challenging that the surmise can be obtained in the way I described then.

[Chris]

LOL
You aren't challenging that the surmise can be obtained in the way I described then.

Not doing anything but requesting you go do your own research to answer your question. It seems to interest you.

[resister]

Used to be a member here name of Bob who was the the expert in all things including climate change and an absolute denier: Man had no effect on climate. An absurd position.

How do you refute not knowing for certain? Certainty is not an element of science with is tentative, incomplete and probabilistic. We don't know what you claim, what we have is perhaps some studies that support that, other studies that don't.

Sure warning and cooling is natural. But man affects it by making the highs and lows more extreme. Just like the government does meddling in the business cycle.

Deniers ignore.One of the smartest things a man can utter is "i don't know" The admission of ignorance leaves a door open for knowing. A know it all who is convinced he is right is unteachable

[Archer0915]

I have heard that claim but I have never seen it
The age of the earth was based on assumptions and ages. It was based on literal interpretation and left out the spiritual faith part.

It is much like the flood. Everyone focuses on the water and not the truth taught in the narrative.

[resister]

The age of the earth was based on assumptions and ages. It was based on literal interpretation and left out the spiritual faith part.

It is much like the flood. Everyone focuses on the water and not the truth taught in the narrative.
I am assured by science that the fossils I find are between 2 and 20 million years old, I often wonder, though

[Common]

How, @Common Sense (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1085), is @Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659)'s post an example of his religion trumping science?
I didnt see his post but based on yours im probably better off

[Standing Wolf]

I am assured by science that the fossils I find are between 2 and 20 million years old, I often wonder, though

What kind of fossils do you find?

[Archer0915]

I am assured by science that the fossils I find are between 2 and 20 million years old, I often wonder, though

But why not? The universe is different ages depending on where you are in the universe, what direction you are moving and the rate the part of the universe you are in has expanded.

[resister]

What kind of fossils do you find?Any but dinosaur pretty much.Fl was underwater in those days.Lots of shark teeth, gator teeth, lots of deer antler fragments, Osteoderms from glyptodons(giant armadillo) Pieces of mastodon teeth and ivory An intact jawbone from a rodent with an inscisor and molar present( a small piece but remarkably well preserved) and a host of other mammal fossils.

No telling what might pop up next.I bet your cousin has dug in the peace river.It is a world known fossiling destination

[resister]

But why not? The universe is different ages depending on where you are in the universe, what direction you are moving and the rate the part of the universe you are in has expanded.Interesting observation

[Archer0915]

Interesting observation
It really is! We measure the age of the universe from our perspective. We do not know if expansion is constant and it is not consistent across the universe. We do not know if the affects of time passage (relative to us as a constant) are affected by expansion (we presume not) either.

Imaging if everything is true about the speed of light and time distortion... Measured from earth light moves at a different speed at a black hole but in the hole it is c... So what do we know for a fact? Time is relative!

So it is accepted as fact that time is relative and then we must ask a question... How old is the universe from places other than our little part of the universe?

So now we have time flux! I am sure someone could come up with a formula inserting variables that can not be proven to date the universe at 6000 years and I am sue it can be found to be older than current estimates.
The fact is, according to current observations the earth is ~4.5 billion years old.

[resister]

It is an interesting picture into the past that the further down you dig, the more the fossil record reveals. Our way of measuring time is flawed.Wherever you go it is allways the present moment , yesterday is a mental concept that we can never exist in, the same as tomorrow.There is only ever today.

[Subdermal]

The problem isn't scientists who don't believe in god. I actually think most do.

The problem is god-botherers who refuse to believe in science.

They are the 'problem'? How? How many are they?

The types about which you knuckle crack when you hand-wring don't exist. They're a fabrication of your boogeyman conscience; and conditioned fully by the adeptness of the media to find these rare and idiotic unicorns - fabricated or not.

So tell us: who and where exactly are these magnificently powerful entities? Name them.

[Subdermal]

The problem isn't scientists who don't believe in god. I actually think most do.

I wonder if you're correct about that, (http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html) and I challenge your assertion that there is no problem with scientists who do not believe in God.

Why, for instance, are the percentages of scientists who believe in God starkly different, dependent upon which scientific discipline they pursue?

I submit to you that there should only be one reason why a non-religious-centric discipline such as Science should have a disparity in belief in God between pursuits: a bias, which cannot help but affect their work.

I cannot conjure a more rational reason than that.

The problem is god-botherers who refuse to believe in science.

I think that the opposite may be true, as I am asserting. I think the problem is that many scientific disciplines are being politically corrupted by those looking for both a way to attack religion, and a way to attack Capitalism.

[Common Sense]

How, @Common Sense (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1085), is @Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659)'s post an example of his religion trumping science?
Wut?

[Adelaide]

I recently had to write a paper on capital punishment and one of my sources from the Journal of Forensic Psychology more or less proved the point that people don't sway on their opinions unless you appeal to them for empathy (so, not using facts, per se). For example, people change their tune most often when forced to face the issue of innocent men and women who have been executed or people who have been proven innocent before execution.

[stjames1_53]

I recently had to write a paper on capital punishment and one of my sources from the Journal of Forensic Psychology more or less proved the point that people don't sway on their opinions unless you appeal to them for empathy (so, not using facts, per se). For example, people change their tune most often when forced to face the issue of innocent men and women who have been executed or people who have been proven innocent before execution.

those innocents are there because of three reasons.
One, they didn't have the financial resources to overcome a zealous numbers-seeking prosecutor.
Two, many prosecutors are corrupt...hiding evidence is among the worst crime.
Three, many public pretenders don't do an adequate job protecting their clients

[MisterVeritis]

Capital punishment should be like abortion services. Legal but rare.

States can very narrowly define capital offenses. States probably should do so. In addition, classes of evidence ought to be considered. Some evidence is "better" than other evidence. Eyewitness accounts are always problematical. I offer my own experiences. Very early in life, I worked in a police department. About 20% of my time I was paired with a seasoned police officer for car patrol. One snowy late afternoon we were sitting, watching one section of a street. One car came down the street, toward us. It reached the end of the street where barriers had been placed to create a walking mall. The car did not slow down. It crashed into the barriers.

After dealing with the situation we independently wrote our reports. With a few exceptions, our reports were very different. One of us saw the reflection of brake lights in the snow before impact. One of us did not. One of us remembered loud music playing in the car. One of us did not.

This was a low-stress situation. Imagine what happens during high-stress observations.

[midcan5]

They could of just asked me about recumbent bicycles. I fabricate and ride them. They are far superior to the traditional diamond frame design. They alleviate virtualy all of the pain resister

I have a Ryan recumbent, which I did commute with for one year, but the safety bike is the better solution. In the city one needs faster maneuvering and vision on a slightly higher level. Over twenty five years of commuting year round gives one great experience. But the recumbent got lots of looks and laughs. And like all my bikes made in the USA. Still have copies of enCYCLEopedia, for a while recumbent interest grew, but it seems to have died now. Still see a few Rans now and then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlCLkqWXL74

[stjames1_53]

@MisterVeritis (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1287)
In a journalism class I had an assignment about perception. I took three classmates and handed them one brick which they handed around several times each.

http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.Mb531b42d3c8b8282ad604aed2a86ca78H0&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0

I placed them in separate areas and told them to write what they had seen.
I got back two in-depth analysis and one common sense. The only thing they agreed upon was that they held a brick.
I suspect that is one of the things that defines us as individuals.
To accept that it is only just a brick is herd mentality.

[Chris]

I recently had to write a paper on capital punishment and one of my sources from the Journal of Forensic Psychology more or less proved the point that people don't sway on their opinions unless you appeal to them for empathy (so, not using facts, per se). For example, people change their tune most often when forced to face the issue of innocent men and women who have been executed or people who have been proven innocent before execution.

This is probably true in general that no matter how rational you are in argument there are those who because of various cognitive biases will resort to emotional argument to derail you or simply just never accept the force of logic.

[Chris]

In a journalism class I had an assignment about perception. I took three classmates and handed them one brick which they handed around several times each.

http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.Mb531b42d3c8b8282ad604aed2a86ca78H0&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0

I placed them in separate areas and told them to write what they has seen.
I got back two in-depth analysis and one common sense. The only thing they agreed upon was that they held a brick.
I suspect that is one of the things that defines us a individuals.
To accept that it is only just a brick is herd mentality.


Defines us or blinds us.

https://i.snag.gy/WxG2PV.jpg

[resister]

@resister (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2122)

I have a Ryan recumbent, which I did commute with for one year, but the safety bike is the better solution. In the city one needs faster maneuvering and vision on a slightly higher level. Over twenty five years of commuting year round gives one great experience. But the recumbent got lots of looks and laughs. And like all my bikes made in the USA. Still have copies of enCYCLEopedia, for a while recumbent interest grew, but it seems to have died now. Still see a few Rans now and then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlCLkqWXL74
@ midcan 5 My recumbent I a long WB Dual 26 inch wheels with a sweet seat.I used a tubing bender with 1/2 inch conduit bent into very ergonomic bucket seat.A one piece cowhide cover with about 80 1 inch holes cut in it(cargo net style) To me the slight disadvantages are far outweighed by the benefits.

I have saddle bags galore and a super sturdy back rack made of 1/2 conduit all welded.An a air horn to make a truck jelous.Last but not least a 12 volt lighting system with blue and green accent lighting.

I have a sweet 600$ 29 inch single speed that mostly gathers dust.I encourage you to look into building your own.Its a lot cheaper and you can build to taste

[resister]

I don't care for the underseat steering linkage. I have an the top tiller which provided a great place to weld an automotive rear view mirror , top dead center

[resister]

If I ever figure out how two post pics, I will make it my avatar