· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·
Posted on 09/02/2014 11:10:04 AM PDT by JimSEA
Spend any time in American science media and you may find some of them are pretty far out of the political mainstream; so far out, they may not even be friends with anyone who has not always voted the same way as them.
So it's unsurprising that much of science media once perpetuated the claim that 'science votes Democrat.' Humans are fallible and confirmation bias is sneaky. As was apocryphally attributed to New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael after the 1972 Presidential election and a Richard M. Nixon landslide victory, "I don't know how Nixon won. No one I know voted for him." (1)
(Excerpt) Read more at science20.com ...
If supporting science means the Dems increase their power, they’ll support it (and deride anyone who doesn’t).
If decrying science means the Dems increase their power, they’ll decry it (and deride anyone who doesn’t).
In all cases with the Dems and the Left, the end result is about power. Science is one tool (of many) by which they gain more of it.
[ In all cases with the Dems and the Left, the end result is about power. Science is one tool (of many) by which they gain more of it. ]
NAILED IT, they will Abuse Science to Gain Power, because they already Abuse people to Gain power...
This from people who believe the validity of a scientific theory is determined by majority vote.
Agreed. There’s a world of difference between observational science and “historical” science. Biases inevitably enter the picture on the latter, because no human being was there.
Evolutionists inevitably believe the universe created itself, and that life created itself via spontaneous generation, something that was disproved by Pasteur over a century ago. Even the most “simple” single-celled organism is stupendously complex, and it’s downright laughable to believe that such complexity could just magically spring from lifeless chemicals. Such (misguided) faith they have! They have no idea how it happened. They just have faith that it did. Yet creationists’ faith is somehow invalid and “unscientific.” There’s a logical disconnect there somewhere.
He’s substituted the American word “science” for Lysenkoism.
"Apocryphally" is a nice way of using the quote without admitting that you didn't get it right.
Pauline Kael didn't actually say that.
Neil Disgrace Tyson is a fraud.
Well, it’s all a matter of scale. If we went by even the projected sea level rise, Al Gore would be dead by the time his beach front home went under the sea (2m sea level rise by 2100AD). However, yea, him talking about sea level rise is like Alex Jones claiming for the last 15 years that there are government agents out to get him...
We’ve also spent a relatively short time actually measuring how average temperature fluctuates. So we really don’t know a great deal for certain. I am talking small increments , the ice core measurements, and C-14 deposits are longer increments.
I totally agree. Modern geology is, what, 240 years old. Most of modern sciences came into their own in the 20th century. We are able to get ice cores up to a few hundred thousand years old to indicate climates. The geologic estimates of climates from fossils and rock composition are generally accurate and broadly indicative of climate but we can’t reconstruct all the variables to understand the changes. What we can tell, the atmospheric CO2 levels show we are at all time lows. C14 is only accurate to, what 50,000 years. Exciting times are ahead for my granddaughter. Think of what we can learn if science is unfettered.
A few years ago, Neil was on one of the PBS(?) stations and his pants were torn by his knee.
(I was amazed that he was dressed like this ??!)
There’s such a big difference between global warming “denial” and the denial of other strong scientific evidence in favor of the efficacy of vaccines, the lack of danger in GMO and some of the other things the author mentions that it’s really ashame he can’t see it.
afsnco: “There’s a world of difference between observational science and “historical” science.”
No there isn’t, such distinctions are pure fiction concocted by people like yourselves, who loathe & despise scientific findings which disturb your religious beliefs.
And by Supreme Court ruling on US law, you people are FORBIDDEN to redefine what is, or is not, science.
Of course, you have every right to believe & advocate whatever you wish, so long as you don’t pretend you religious beliefs have something to do with “science”.
They don’t.
And by Supreme Court ruling on US law, you people are FORBIDDEN to redefine what is, or is not, science.
It'd be nice if you people were forbidden to redefine what is, or is not, Christianity.
BrandtMichaels: “Evolution is pure fiction neither scientific nor observable fact.”
No, pal, your beliefs are pure fiction, or rather pure religious faith, having nothing to do with real science.
Which, by the way, you are forbidden by US law from redefining according to your faith-claims.
What you call “historical sciences” are still science, regardless of how much you loathe & despise them.
Regulator Country: “It’d be nice if you people were forbidden to redefine what is, or is not, Christianity.”
I have never attempted to redefine anyone else’s Christianity for them.
Christians have always seemed to me perfectly capable of defining, or redefining, their own beliefs.
Afnco: “Evolutionists inevitably believe the universe created itself, and that life created itself via spontaneous generation...”
Nonsense, your first problem is: you utterly refuse to tell the truth about science, most likely because you refuse to study it, and therefore totally misunderstand it.
No “scientific theory” says, “the Universe created itself. “
The fact is that evolution theory says nothing about the original creation of life on earth, because there is as yet no compelling evidence of exactly how that happened.
Yes, numerous hypotheses have been suggested, but none strongly confirmed, so this is a question that science just can’t answer, yet.
Most Christians believe God created life on Earth, and are quite content to watch scientists struggling to figure out just how He might have done that. ;-)
BroJoeK,
Code does not write itself nor is it capable, on it’s own, to re-write the genetic code.
Information theory disproves evolutionary theory, as do a number of other scientific laws [i.e. biogenesis & thermodynamics]. Soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils and even Carbon 14 - sheesh!
Oh, yes, I know [and have heard many times] evolution has discarded it’s very own foundation for explaining even the 1st cell - abiogenesis.
Even the math alone shows your evolution is truly devolution [as genetic code keeps accumulating more and more mutations]. Therefore evolution imho even violates common sense.
It’s only a matter of time for most to see the emperor has no clothes.
BTW I’m not your pal and what I loathe and despise is how many have abandoned their faith supporting what they think is science.
All ‘historical science’ violates the scientific method. Neither is evolution observable nor repeatable. Not too mention you can not simulate long time passages in any scientific experiments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.