***Wow, nice straw argumentation, Coyoteman. Now, instead of arguing against the straw position, why don't you argue against what I really said and stop putting words in my keyboard?
If this is the case, why should anyone who comes from the science side of the argument listen to a thing you have to say?
***Ok, we're in good shape then, because this is not the case. But if it were the case, I see your plan amounts to just not listenining. Ok, that's a good plan, very good plan, just ignore that large majority of voters & policy makers and continue on with what you were doing, make no attempt to engage in educating the masses, go ahead, go ahead....
My comments were in response to your post #62.
Every time someone brings up science you turn it to a question of public or social policy. You consistently duck the science questions.
I think you actually explained the reason in another post:
I am trying to stay away from the scientific end of this argument for the same reason that I stayed away for 7 years: It's too acrimonious, requires too much time/knowledge/digging/etc, and I see very little ROI for myself [from your post #76].
So, now where is my lead statement (repeated again below) wrong?
From this post, you have declared that you do not believe science, you do not understand science, and if you did it wouldn't matter anyway.
Thanks for that background, Coyoteman, good stuff.
So, now where is my lead statement (repeated again below) wrong?
I am trying to stay away from the scientific end of this argument for the same reason that I stayed away for 7 years: It's too acrimonious, requires too much time/knowledge/digging/etc, and I see very little ROI for myself [from your post #76].
From this post, you have declared that you do not believe science,
***No, I'm just trying to stay away from it because it looks overwhelming in how much time it's going to take. Do you think the 12 OJ jurors "believed science"? That's an interesting choice of terminology, more suited for a philosophical inquiry rather than a scientific one.
you do not understand science,
***There's some truth to that, and some falsehood. I have a BSEE, so I think that's enough to know some scientific method, but not enough to engage in the crevo threads. GWB changed all that when he came out with his position, so I feel I can engage on the level of social policy and leave the science egghead stuff to the folks who are already doing it.
and if you did it wouldn't matter anyway.
***Probably wrong, but it appears to be conjecture anyways.
Every time someone brings up science you turn it to a question of public or social policy. You consistently duck the science questions.
***That's because I consider this to be a social policy issue. A school board member doesn't need to be a PhD mathemetician to be able to decide on the math curriculum for the local school, and the same should hold true for this scientific endeavor/philosophy. Send your science questions to the other eggheads on this forum who appear to be doing a good job answering that stuff. If there are some real zingers, I'll take notice, assuming I have the time.