Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 02:17 PM) This isn't about your personal beliefs. You keep conflating that. You asked what my opinion was, I gave it to you. How do you know what I've read and what I haven't read? You don't. You're assuming. And it's not been fully decided because I have yet to find a report entitled "HUMANS CAUSE EVERY BIT OF GLOBAL WARMING." Maybe it's out there, but I haven't seen it. I've seen people report that humans have played a significant part, but other people disagree with that. Since there's not a consensus, I don't believe the issue has been decided (of course your reply will be, well only the crap scientists disagree. I'm sure that's up for debate as well). We agree on something! Success! So far you've produced what, 4, maybe 5 proposed legislative changes in conservative states (which again i'd argue aren't even that bad). That's hardly a "sizable majority." If it's half then that's either every single conservative (clearly not true) or that also includes some democrats and independents. So clearly it's not a right-only belief.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 02:01 PM) You have terrible opinions. Are you ever going to contribute to these discussions? Or are you just going to play the role of Jon Stewart trying to be funny but really just annoying everyone? Seriously, why even write this? Aren't you the one b****ing about trolls in the Dem thread?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 12:31 PM) I see a problem with people who are immune to learning new facts and critically examining something. Why don't you agree with anthropological global warming? Most everything I've seen you post on it amounts to "AL GORE MONEY HOAX!", not any amount of healthy skepticism or questioning. What are your intellectual reasons for questioning it? Why are you throwing out a good amount of scientific studies and conclusions to reject it? Why do most people reject it? Because they see it as part of environmentalism, which is seen a liberal p**** plot to ruin everything and cost jobs. They're not rejecting it on an intellectual basis. They've no interest in actually understanding the models, the projections, the criticisms and the responses. It's entirely political and emotional. It is anti-science and anti-intellectual. I don't think Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Hannity and the millions of people who follow them have any real interest in climate science. They look at the issue purely from an ideological viewpoint. I don't disagree with anthropological global warming, please point to where I have said that. My question, which I don't know the answer to, is the extent of it. Are we the only cause of the warming? Is it part of a general trend? I'm SKEPTICAL. I'm not a denier, I'm just not convinced. Sue me. I don't want the government to jump into yet another facet of my life and require me to spend more money when I don't believe the issue has been fully decided yet. Again, what a TERRIBLE position to hold. And my beef is when Al Gore makes a puff piece scaring liberals into believing the world was going to produce multiple Katrina hurricanes EVERY YEAR (hasn't happened yet, shocker) and that millions would die. And I rarely if ever play the Al Gore Hoax. Again that was to feed your unfounded fear of some vast conspiracy. You seem to think this small minority of conservatives are hell bent on what, removing science from our lives? Pushing their beliefs on everyone? I don't even know. And MOST people DON'T reject it. MOST people agree that something is going on. And that environmental thing is such bulls***. It's not 1960 anymore. In the last decade or so there's been a huge shift to understanding that what we do with our waste, our power plants, our everything takes it's toll. And most people have accepted change in their lives. And you're right, most don't reject it on an intellectual basis. But since when do you have to be an expert on any given topic to have an opinion? I take it you deferred to the knowledge and experience of a guy like Cheney when he was pushing for the Iraq invasion? Oh right, you were sitting on the internet reading some reports about how what he said might not be the case and then you formed an opinion. Sounds familiar.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 12:27 PM) Hmm, did you see the link about Texas? Did you miss their deliberate efforts last year to blatantly re-write history and science standards with a heavily pro-conservative bias? Seriously, I'll understand just not being that familiar with the history behind that exact language in various bills over the past several decades since creation science was deemed unconstitutional. But it's incredibly loaded, incredibly anti-science and incredibly pro-religion. I will not attempt to explain Texas policy or the people from there.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 12:24 PM) Yep, decades of scientific research around the world by thousands of people are just a conspiracy! It's all about a liberal agenda and Al Gore and his buddies making money! It's just a HOAX! Thanks for demonstrating your anti-science bias so clearly and repeatedly in this thread. Whatever, I'm feeding into your bulls*** conspiracy theory. I've readily admitted my position that I don't disagree with global warming. But I see no problem with people who are skeptical about human involvement and the proper way of fixing the problem. They're not "anti-intellectual" and "anti-science." Why can't you see the difference? Look through your GOP-hate.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 12:22 PM) Nope, please go back and read through the history of the whole "strengths and weaknesses" and "teach the controversy" bulls***. It's not about skepticism. At all. It's deliberate, targeted attacks strictly on evolution in favor of Christian creationism. It gives teachers cover to hand out religious pamphlets and worksheets attacking evolution. Both of those that I posted specifically say they have to be in line with the State Board of Education guidelines. You think those boards are full of academic types or priests attempting to convert the nation?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 12:11 PM) Healthy skepticism bill, not anti-science bill, from Florida! New Mexico healthy skepticism bill! Efforts to repeal creationism in Louisiana! Let's not forget the whole debacle with the Texas BOE last year! Those are just some easy links to recent conservative anti-science policy and legislation. Which was largely supported by the conservative bases in teh area. But please keep pretending that it only happens to be all of the conservatives on TV and radio with massive conservative support with those beliefs, and not millions of everyday conservatives. Even though plenty of polls show otherwise. Even though elections and proposed bills and trials like Dover and the reaction from much of the right show otherwise. Now tie those in with the wide-spread rejection of climate science, go so far as to call it a deliberate liberal hoax for tax and control. A common conservative meme. Add in the frequent derision of "intellectuals" and "academia" and ivory towers. Frequent attacks on funny-sounding science like "volcano monitoring" or fruit fly research in stump speeches. Opposition to stem cell research. Proposed massive budget cuts for NIH and NSF. And then try to tell me it's just about healthy skepticism. All of this outside attack on the entire establishment of science is just a needed dose of skepticism, as if there isn't plenty of disagreement and skepticism within the scientific community. Right, and tell me the liberal agenda of proposing global warming as an immediate danger requiring hundreds of billions is just Al Gore's great bleeding heart for the people of the world and not at all connected to the money that he and his buddies can make from it. GMAFB.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 12:11 PM) Healthy skepticism bill, not anti-science bill, from Florida! New Mexico healthy skepticism bill! Efforts to repeal creationism in Louisiana! Let's not forget the whole debacle with the Texas BOE last year! Those are just some easy links to recent conservative anti-science policy and legislation. Which was largely supported by the conservative bases in teh area. But please keep pretending that it only happens to be all of the conservatives on TV and radio with massive conservative support with those beliefs, and not millions of everyday conservatives. Even though plenty of polls show otherwise. Even though elections and proposed bills and trials like Dover and the reaction from much of the right show otherwise. Are you actually looking at the language of these? Examples: Oh gawd, how terrible! Analysis and skepticism isn't allowed in school! These are so broad and unspecific, what's the problem? If anything these are added protections for teachers. Shouldn't you be in favor of that?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 12:04 PM) "Agree to disagree" is code for "I can't support my argument, but I still think I'm right" Yep, that's it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 11:58 AM) No, I'll agree that your statements are absurd and easily contradicted by examining stated policy and legislative action. Lol, whatever man. Continue to believe that the 5 loudest people on cable and radio speak for the millions of conservatives out there.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 11:42 AM) No, sorry, you're wrong. There's no other way to put it if you think it's the "healthy-skepticism" crowd instead of the "willfully and proudly ignorant" crowd. We are talking about the anti-evolution, "I'm not a monkey!" crowd here. We're talking about the "GLOBAL WARMING IS THE GREATEST HOAX EVER!" crowd here. We're talking about the significant portion of Americans who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. There's a strong correlation between these groups and right-wing politics. It's apparent in their policies and their legislation. It comes up again and again with anti-evolution, anti-science bills in state legislatures. It's not about skepticism. It's about rejection of scientific theories because they conflict with pre-conceived notions of how the world works. Well, we'll agree to disagree. I don't think the right's position is "we know how the world operates because a book tells us so." That might be a small minority, but not the majority. Nor do I think that's a right-only belief since the country itself is overwhelmingly christian.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 11:36 AM) Sure, that's why I posted the Relativity of Wrong and frequently mention provisional truth whenever this topic comes up. "A healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing," which appears to be what you're advocating in this last post, isn't a defense for the anti-intellectual, anti-science crap from a good portion of the right. I'm saying that IMO you misconstrue the anti-intellectual/anti-science crowd when in reality it's more the "a health dose of skepticism is good" crowd (ignoring the extreme people obviously). Just because you question portions of evolutionary theory doesn't mean that you're anti-science. It means you're a skeptic. Just because you argue against the government spending hundreds of billions on global warming doesn't mean you're just a hillbilly with your head in the sand. It means you're a skeptic. There's nothing wrong with that, and to assume that those people are merely uneducated (like the NPR guy) leads to the elitist labels and just further kills any actual progress on these issues.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 11:21 AM) Go read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." There's some merit in saying that scientists become closed-minded to newer theories that supplant their own work. There's no merit in comparing that to the infallible Catholic Pope who claims to be speaking for his God. There's no merit in equivocating on the word "faith" and saying religion and science take equal amounts of it. I'm not equivocating the word faith since i'm not equating the means in which the Pope arrives at his belief/faith and a scientist arrives at his. I'm merely equating the stubbornness of both sides to consider the fact that they could be wrong. But you can't deny that scientific theory still relies on SOME faith (or belief, whatever the word you want to use) because theories require guess work. Yes, it's educated and tested guesswork, but it's still a calculated guess as to the reason why something happens without knowing for certain. You have to have faith/belief that the unknown fact you rely upon to reach your conclusion is as you think it to be. It's not to the same degree as religious faith, but it still exists.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 11:07 AM) The President makes $400k/yr Ah, guess I never heard that the pay was bumped. Still, that's a ton of money for that guy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 10:06 AM) Actually that isn't true anymore. What isn't?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 10:33 AM) You equated proclamations from the Pope to scientific findings, or at least scientists. Sorry, there's pretty strong anti-authoritarian currents in science. And then you added that "science can only take you so far" and that you need faith to accept theories. That's equivocation between different types of "faith." In that the Pope and certain scientists are so hell-bent on their view of the world that they're completely closed off from any other possible explanation. Why are you taking my point and applying it to basic scientific principles? I'm not arguing how something like combustion works, we're clearly talking about unprovable theories such as creation. Global warming is another example. If you are denying that ANY global warming exists, then yeah, you're a close-minded idiot. But it's an entirely different argument if you're questioning the cause (or the amount of the cause) that say humans have contributed. Science will put its best theory together to try and explain it. But that doesn't make it FACT, so there's nothing wrong with questioning the THEORY.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 10:30 AM) It's not stupid to question the frontiers of modern evolutionary theory. That's what professional scientists do. It is pretty ignorant to question the basic concept of evolutionary theory, though. And that's what the anti-intellectual movement on the right does. They're not arguing over whether there was a single out-of-Africa event or multiple ones, the details of the transition of dinosaurs to birds, etc. They're saying "Evolution is wrong and evil and responsible for Hitler and God did it all, possibly in 6 literal days 6000 years ago." I think the majority of the people who believe in creationism also agree with a certain amount of evolution. If Beck actually believes that no evolution of any kind exists, then sure, he's an idiot. But I doubt that's what he thinks.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 10:25 AM) Please read Asimov. Again, you've misconstrued my point. This isn't even relevant to what i'm saying. The only thing I'm equating between science and religious is that both have "elitists."

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 10:28 AM) That and Sagan's "Dragon in my Garage" are pretty standard go-to's for me. There really is no comparison between belief in a well-established scientific theory and religious belief. It's equivocation at it's finest. Please tell me where I said this. You guys are being "purposefully ignorant" of my point. I've never said all science is garbage. I never said that religious belief is better or a more sound explanation.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 10:25 AM) It's hard when what I'm arguing against is the equivalence to astrology. And have you ever taken a science course? You seem to know nothing about it. Nope. Never. What's science?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 10:22 AM) Questioning scientific theory is one thing...questioning proven scientific fact is another. For example, gravity isn't a theory, it's a fact, you cannot question it's existence. That said, there is a LOT of scientific theory taken as fact...questioning such science, IMO, is not bad, and it's probably what you actually meant to convey here. That's my point. It's stupid to question evolutionary facts, it's quite another to question theory.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 10:20 AM) This entire post is full of fail. Try defending your position instead of being a smart ass.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:43 AM) I'll give it a shot. You're elitist when you think your particular view of the world is more important than well established facts that are universal across all cultures. Just because you happened to be raised by parents of a certain religion doesn't make the world view of that particular religion more important than other religions or actual science which transcends all of them. Well, if you're talking about me specifically, i'm not religious at all, so I have no horse in this race. I hate both sides for this very reason. I think the Pope is every bit as close-minded as your precious scientists. Both are equally self-rightous about their beliefs. It's just more annoying from people like you because you bring intelligence into the debate, as if questioning science makes you a dumb person. That's bulls***. And that's not being anti-science. That's being a neutral observer that science can only get you so far and that it still requires faith to believe the theory. Science is wrong all the time. Is it a better system than believing what a book written 2000 years ago tells you? Sure? But that doesn't mean it's wrong to question it. It doesn't make it the de facto right answer. Is it dumb to denounce evolution? Sure. But it's equally dumb to claim that it's the only possible answer and that any other potential answer is just stupid people who hate using logic to answer questions (or as SS puts it, people who rely on emotion and religious belief). The first bolded just screams pot meet kettle btw. If you're using global popularity of a belief, religion has science beat pretty easily.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:26 AM) Anyone who actively and routinely denounces and derides science and rejects evolution in favor of creationism is anti-intellectual, yes. Nice, continue to define elitist for me. And you people wonder why there's such a divide in this country? And I don't listen or read any of those people you've mentioned, but I've never gotten the sense that they're anti-science generally, just against some particular set of issues. But regardless, that doesn't make the unintelligent. I'm guessing Beck is an extremely intelligent guy to get where he is.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 09:24 AM) They know they're being targeted by the Republicans right now, and this was a quick way to absorb some of the blow herself. I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that he had influence over ME/ATC before disparaging their journalistic integrity because of some slightly hyperbolic statements by someone in charge of another department to a fake Muslim organization. That first part makes no sense. She's not a politician. She's a business executive. If he had no influence she could have said "he's just a lowly executive with his own thoughts and opinions. We clearly don't agree with him." And slightly hyperbolic statements? Come on man, he flat out called a huge group of people gun-toting racists.