"We don't know" and "the evidence is inconclusive" and "we've got a lot to work to do" are all of course just scientific jargon for case closed, the debate is over."-- From the Ace of Spades HQ on Kerry Emanuel's recent admission on Global Warming
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The purpose of science is not to go into the unknown with your mind already made up and then try to convince everyone else - its to go into the unknown knowing that you don't know, and then try to find a workable theory which can be tested, and which will change or be discarded if new evidence becomes available.
ReplyDeleteThat is why scientists can admit that they don't know things. It may also explain why the whole idea of western science is so confusing to conservative blowhards like yourself.
Scientists (unlike right-wing political bloggers) don't have their entire identities staked out on having to be 100% RIGHT, ALL THE TIME. In fact to take that attitude is a total violation of the scientific method!
This may be why there are so few conservative scientists - conservatives just can't take living with that kind of experimental uncertainty.
Dear John,
ReplyDeleteI know you don't intend to but you sound like a horse's ass:
This "conservative blowhard" is the one who has kept his mind open on GW - even open to the possibility it's all bullshit - while everyone else is saying "case closed". (That, my friend, takes bravery in this "climate", if I must say so myself.) I didn't go into this with my mind made up - how could I? GW wasn't even on my radar until everybody else - especially the science community - started talking about it. But, once it was on my radar, it struck my bullshit detector and has stayed there ever since - while your precious scientists ignored all the signs they were probably wrong.
I know, all you science-types have found one guy - out of thousands - to say "wait a minute" and you think that vindicates you but it doesn't:
The science community has behaved no better than the woo community when it comes to the issue of GW.
Which shouldn't be a surprise: they vote Left - and the Left has always been part of the occult.
I'm an atheist. I live with uncertainty in a way your type can't handle. That's why you're so pissed at me: I've got your ass. You guys are as bad as the worst of them - hypocrites - but you try your best to say, and appear, otherwise.
It won't work here.
"...all you science-types... vote Left - and the Left has always been part of the occult."
ReplyDeleteScientists=leftists=occultists? Brilliant!
Here's a thought - just because you don't understand what genes are or how gravity works doesn't make them "occult" or "supernatural" - it simply means that these are complicated subjects which require intense and sincere dedication to study, and that such study is generally not compatible with the inclination some people have to broadcast loud, uninformed opinions about politics while deriding actual scholars as "occultists," LOL.
Laugh all you want:
ReplyDelete"Political expression on the Left in the American sixties was split. Radical activists such as Students for a Democratic Society (1960-68) drew their ideology from Marxism, with its explicit atheism. But demonstrations with a large hippie contingent often mixed politics with occultism-magic and witchcraft along with costumes and symbolism drawn from Native American religion, Hinduism, and Buddhism. For example, at the mammoth antiwar protest near Washington, DC, in October 1967, Yippies performed a mock-exorcism to levitate the Pentagon and cast out its demons. Not since early nineteenth-century Romanticism had there been such a strange mix of revolutionary politics with ecstatic nature-worship and sex-charged self-transformation. It is precisely this phantasmagoric religious vision that distinguishes the New Left of the American 1960s from the Old Left of the American 1930s and from France's failed leftist insurgency of 1968, both of which were conventionally Marxist in their indifference or antagonism to religion."
From Camille Paglia's Cults and Cosmic Consciousness: Religious Vision in the American 1960s
"Revolutionary politics with ecstatic nature-worship"? Sounds like the GW environmental scientists to me. And not only is there lots more where that came from but I've done two posts on so-called science-types confessing their hippie/Leftist biases (or, I should say, two so far) which, considering the American Left's political losses - 6 out of the last 8 presidential elections - they could only exist as because these "scientists" aren't examining the evidence very well.
And let's keep in mind: I didn't make them Leftists, or hippies, or inclined to find the occult attractive - I just pointed it out after discovering they were very insecure and less-than-open about their biases - which, also, is typical occultist behavior. Hilariously, they still want to be seen as "the cool kids" which - being an adult - I could give a fuck about.
Here's a thought - just because you don't understand the occult's role in society doesn't make me as simple-minded as you seem to think - or as you seem to be - it simply means that these are complicated subjects which require intense and sincere dedication to study, and that such study is generally not compatible with the inclination you have to pick fights (about social issues you don't understand), or childishly call names, while deriding actual scholars as "conservative blowhards."
I've got better things to do with my time. Idiot.
I found this brief quote on a biology webasite and thought it might help you to understand how the scientific method differs in its expression from political blogging they really are two very different ways of looking at the world.
ReplyDelete--------------------
Doesn't evolution promote evil?
Even if evolution did do this, it would not be a reason to assume it is wrong. Chemistry is responsible for millions of deaths every year, but we do not reject its findings because of this. How people use a theory is not a judgment of its accuracy.
Fortunately we do not face this dilemma. Evolution does not say what is right and what is wrong, but merely what has happened. A historical account of the sacking of Rome does not say that the act of sacking Rome is good or bad, just that it happened. Similarly evolution does not say that any conclusions people might draw from it are good or bad.
While many people have claimed the theory of evolution supports their injustice, never forget that many people have done the same with the Bible. One person's opinion should not be considered the whole truth.
John,
ReplyDeleteYou're now doing what I've become used to by Liberals - changing the subject. You ignored my last post in order to try this new (unnecessary) thrust. I'm going to ignore your suggestion I don't agree with evolution. (I do, which should be *some* proof I respect the scientific method, but shouldn't be taken to mean scientists are above criticism, as you seem to believe.)
Now, would you care to go back to our original discussion - the cultural and political biases within the scientific community - or do you want to be ignored? It's my choice. Stay on topic and I'll answer anything you say. Go off topic and, as far as I'm concerned, you don't exist. I told you:
I don't have time for bullshit.
The quote I posted is entirely germane. You seem not to understand that science is not a dogma, like liberal/conservative political platforms, fundamentalist christianity, or your own new-age conspiracy theory - its a methodology for developing hypotheses and then testing these, with the goal of producing provisional theories which work until something better comes along.
ReplyDeleteAs such, it isn't the role of science to pass judgements on what is good, evil, whatever. Its not about those sorts of opinions. Its strictly dealing in things that can be measured and tested.
You seem to have a lot of strong opinions about how all scientists are left wing witches and warlocks, or something. Which works in the context of your blog, which is almost entirely (as far as I can tell) opinion, either your own opinions or the opinions of other people you agree with, e.g., Camile Paglia or Bill Kristol. But that is not the same thing as science - its not factual - its just one person letting other people know "These are my likes, these are my dislikes, these are my fears, these are my prejudices and preferences," etc.
Do I find it threatening? Of course not. I just dont think its science.
That said, if you do want to talk about "the cultural and political biases within the scientific community" I did post two very interesting studies to your blog some time back, one a study of political leanings in academia, and another a study of liberal and conservative cognitive styles. Last time I checked you had not responded to two studies which actually do seem to prove the very things you are asserting! Very strange!
That is actual hard data that can be discussed and so if you are aware of other studies in the same vein, or would like to discuss those, then I'm all ears.
Otherwise I am wasting my time.
John,
ReplyDeleteAs I've said once before, you sound like a loon, Dude - taking your points one at a time:
"You seem not to understand that science is not a dogma, like liberal/conservative political platforms, fundamentalist christianity, or your own new-age conspiracy theory - its a methodology for developing hypotheses and then testing these, with the goal of producing provisional theories which work until something better comes along."
First, if science (as practiced today) is so much of a methodology - something I wish it would return to - then why haven't scientists stepped up to stop the rush to GW policies by saying "Whoa, Folks - put your wallets away - we're not finished yet."? They haven't, and (because I've spent time talking to scientists) I know why: They're leftists who like the way things are going. Sure, they'll scream that Bush uses fear to get his way - something I don't think is true - but, true or not, the current thinking is "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" and what the hell? Like Obama, they think of middle Americans as stupider than they are, so pushing them around is for their own good. And the planet's - and hey - let's not forget about the planet, or else that charge of "fascism" will stick too well.
"You seem to have a lot of strong opinions about how all scientists are left wing witches and warlocks, or something."
Look, I didn't make Orac cop to believing in acupuncture; I didn't make the Skepchick believe in homeopathy; nor did I make all the other major science bloggers Leftists - these are their choices and they can't run from them just because a black guy came along, noticed a trend, and said "The Emperor has no clothes". And you can't deny those are their positions either: I showed you my posts on them. Were the tendency for people to adopt those positions comes from is my interest - I like studying cults - and just because you don't share my knowledge bank isn't a reason for you to doubt me but, maybe, to ask more questions because, since I've started this blog, I can point to many more easily-provable instances where I've been correct - including changing the views of scientists - than giving up mea culpas.
"Which works in the context of your blog, which is almost entirely (as far as I can tell) opinion, either your own opinions or the opinions of other people you agree with, e.g., Camile Paglia or Bill Kristol."
I have said, many times, that Camille Paglia gets a lot of shit wrong (Click her tag and see for yourself.) but she's worth a read because she, at least, thinks. I agree with Bill Kristol on many things but he, too, is human. I think what you don't get is (and this is another failure of liberalism) I'm not an ideologue: I take the truth where I can find it. I read the Right, the Left, and everything in between. I got swept up, the other day, in a "Doonesbury" cartoon - where does that put me? Unlike too many liberals, I don't see Bill Kristol's name, twist my face into a mask of horror, and decide he's not worth my reading time - such an approach just makes one stupid - and proves you aren't as open-minded as you proclaim. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and, believe me, I have all the liberal press I need. And I read it all - cover to cover. Is it my fault so much of it is bullshit?
"that is not the same thing as science - its not factual - its just one person letting other people know "These are my likes, these are my dislikes, these are my fears, these are my prejudices and preferences," etc.
Do I find it threatening? Of course not. I just dont think its science."
Dude, you jumped in here telling me what my scientific beliefs are - like your (wrong) assumption I don't believe in evolution. I never copped to them; you're imagining them. Nothing more. Like too many liberals, you're dreaming, but your poor delusions don't make anything so. Is that your "scientific" approach to things? If it is, all it does is justify everything my blog represents. I'm not claiming to be a scientist. Why you want to stick me for something I'm not claiming is beyond me. But, since you're obviously a liberal, I know there's nothing below what you'll try to get your way. As a liberal recently said, and I posted recently:
"To a person [liberals are] passive-aggressive, sadistic, mean, little, petty beta-male pieces of work who would not naturally succeed in a common male-type hierarchy. By that I mean an environment that values straightforward achievement rather than the darker political arts."
None of which is my fault either. It's just how everyone that chooses to live under a rock thinks you have to get along to survive. It's sad. I've always thought more of my fellow man and it's amazing to discover, after all these years, so many think otherwise.
"That said, if you do want to talk about "the cultural and political biases within the scientific community" I did post two very interesting studies to your blog some time back, one a study of political leanings in academia, and another a study of liberal and conservative cognitive styles. Last time I checked you had not responded to two studies which actually do seem to prove the very things you are asserting! Very strange!"
I'm under no obligation to respond to everything I receive - it's my blog - and especially if it only makes my point. Who do you think you are? Talk about a sense of entitlement,...also, dude, you can leave at any time: nobody forced you here.
And, finally, here's some political food for thought:
How can I - an atheist - lock arms with fundamentalist christians, under the banner of conservatism, if conservatism is this supposed "dogma"? All you're proving is you don't understand American conservatism. It's certainly not like American liberalism: we're actually "free".
You should try it sometimes,...