a perfect example of the point I made...the Dunning-Kruger effect, a science illiterate thinking he knows the science in question better than the experts...
I do know the relevant science better than those who think man is the product of macroevolution, because they lack - having discarded it unawares - a crucial piece of the puzzle which I do not: the intuitive understanding of what human being is. And that they lack such understanding should hardly be surprising, because the anthropic macroevolutionary hypothesis has no greater purpose than to denude the human race of that selfsame understanding, that the masses may be led without resistance down the path to despotism.
I really don't know how someone could build a more fantastic conspiracy theory than that. All science is infused with the intent to reduce you to slavery!! Holy petri dish, Batman.
You're certainly entitled to such an opinon. What the hell it has to do with anything I said is a complete mystery to anyone with a lick of sense.
Oh, my sweet summer child. No, governments do indeed fund research. And of course if colleges want to continue to get these grants for specifically targeted research, they have to come up with the results wanted. https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/climate-change-research-grants There are thousands of such grants. Paid by the Government, to colleges and universities for specific research.
You posted some questions that EVERYONE should want to have answered - questions that the EPA is expected to address - which they do through grants to institutions of science, obviously. The government doesn't do all its own work. And, YOU should like that, as it means that investigations are cross checked by numerous separate organizations. Then, you claimed that specific results were demanded. But, you have NO evidence of that. In fact, it would be monumentally difficult to figure out fake answers to those questions - the diversity of the groups doing the work, the cross checking, repeatability and review that science demands, and the complexity of interactions between disciplines (chemistry, physics, aerospace, oceanography, etc.) make that essentially impossible. Are you seriously suggesting you have shown a problem of some kind? As per the above, I would say you identified a strength, NOT a weakness. Are you really going to propose that those questions should never be asked? Or, what?
oh my sweet almost dead scientifically challenged old fart maybe you should stay with conspiracy threads and leave the grownups with an education and some inkling of hos the scientific process works to debate climate change..
Surely you mean the scientific method. Which has kind of broken down in many areas recently. With scientists no longer questioning the data but instead changing hypothesis to meet the data. Or even worse, changing data to meet the hypothesis. And science is not a popularity contest.
Not liberal dominated. About an even split now. Not liberal dominated, as most of the Fukishima-will-destroy-the-world cranks I've encountered were conservatives. That's pretty much an example of a conspiracy theory there, one making up a story about what liberals supposedly think. Not liberal dominated. About an even split now. It's largely religious conservatives refusing vaccinations. So, why have most formerly liberal conspiracy theories been co-opted by conservatives? First, since liberalism prizes reason over faux-bravery, liberals will tell other liberals when they're acting like conspiracy theorists, very directly and very harshly. We'll point out they're not thinking independently; they're just repeating nonsense. In contrast, conservatives will usually praise other conservatives for being conspiracy theorists, telling them what brilliant independent thinkers and patriots they are for standing up against The Man and The Consensus and Big Goverment. "Not being a sheeple" is a fantasy idea that conservatives strive for, in preference to reason, and pushing conspiracy theories is one way they supposedly prove they're not sheeple.
False. Liberal: 60% of anti-vaxxers describe their political leaning as liberal. Although you do have a point that many conspiracy theories start on the left and then migrate on the right, such as birtherism and trutherism.
A Feb. 2015 survey. This 2016 study tallied antivaxxers as skewing right a bit. Conspiracies move rightwards as they age. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0158382 --- We did observe ideological divergence with respect to belief in (vs. skepticism about) childhood vaccination and perceived (as opposed to actual) consensus. Specifically, we found that liberals were significantly more likely to endorse pro-vaccination statements and less likely to endorse anti-vaccination statements, in comparison with moderates and conservatives. Furthermore, liberals were significantly more likely to categorize pro-vaccination statements as “facts” and to exhibit within-group consensus about which statements were “facts,” in comparison with moderates and conservatives. Liberals in our convenience sample were also more likely to report vaccinating their children, in comparison with moderates and conservatives. All of these findings are consistent with prior research demonstrating that liberals in the U.S. tend to be more influenced by scientific expertise and empirical evidence in general, compared to other ideological groups [21, 23, 24]. To the extent that it is possible to generalize on the basis of our sample, the findings are inconsistent with the notion that the anti-vaccination movement has taken special hold among those who identify with the political left [17, 18]. ---
Are you always prone to making such sweeping generalizations without actual data or facts to support them? I do agree however that science isn't a popularity contest. Its science and science doesn't give a rat's arse about the popularity of its findings.
Not really. Generally it is loosely collected groups of Libertarians, both Liberal and Conservative who are opposing this. The main connection is that these groups tend to be paranoid and anti-government. Then you have other groups thrown in, such as holistic medicine, chiropractors, homeopaths, and others. So yes, the movement is as (if not more) driven by "leftists" than it is by "righties". That is why large numbers of anti-vaxers are the granola eating organically grown cotton wearing fringes. And no, most Conservatives I know are generally dismissive of Conspiracy Theorists. You can see that in action in here, just poke into the CT section of the forum. You will generally see myself and many others telling the CT nutters that they are full of coprolite. The only fringe of "the right" that tends to favor them is the radical Libertarians. Take a look in here in the Military section, and you will get a good measure of some of the more moderate Conservatives here in PF. And I do not mean the raving lunatics who spout nonsense, but the more moderate ones who actually talk about facts and not spin around on personal bias. The vast majority like that I know when they dip into the CT areas tend to be highly dismissive of the lunatics over there. And it is not exclusively Right Wing that is obsessed with Conspiracies. You see the Left in there quite often as well. OWS is unquestionably Left Wing, and it is obsessed with such nonsense. Most anti-vax believers are part of the left fringe that are against GMO, "Big Pharma", "Big Agro", and any other kind of corporations. They want to see the entire planet eating nothing but organic everything, even if it means that a large number of people have to die of starvation to achieve it. Birtherism is something I myself never really gave a damn about. Myself, I could not care less if President Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or the Moon. That is because I consider the citizenship of the Mother and where an individual is raised to matter more than where they were born. John McCain was born in Panama. Don Beyer was born in Italy. Michael Bennett was born in India. Ted Cruz was born in Canada. George Romney was born in Mexico. But all are US citizens by birth. And in this I am actually more consistent than the vast majority of "birthers" are. Because in the same way, I consider the nationality of the mother of more importance than where the child is born. Unless the mother is a citizen or permanent resident or the father a citizen or permanent resident, then the child is a citizen of the parent's home country. A child in the US who is born if the parents are here from England on vacation is not a US citizen, they are a citizen of England. Ultimately, I see birthers as a group that so hates President Obama that they would grasp onto anything in an attempt to discredit him. And while I did not care for him, I saw this as a nonsensical non-issue. His mother was a US citizen, so where does it matter where he was born? She never renounced her citizenship, and lived most of her life before and after in the US. So even if true, he is no different than any other child of a US citizen born overseas. Truthers are a different matter altogether. Most of them have a serious disconnection with reality, like most Conspiracy Theorists. Their paranoia and disconnection from reality, in addition to their supporting each other even when they do not agree on anything else is what I find most fascinating. For the truthers, I have seen those that believe in no planes, remote control planes, and planes piloted by US agents with real victims all banding together to scream it is a US plot. Even though they are all vastly differing beliefs, the thing that binds them into supporting each other is their paranoia of the US. In that, it is no different from the Kennedy Conspiracies. Grassy Knoll, shot by SS agent, shot by 2 or 3 different people, shot by Oswald but he was a patsy, they all have radically different beliefs on what 'really happened". And logically, they should be fighting each other as much as they should be the "official version". But they do not, because ultimately it is the conspiracy that matters most, not their own particular belief in how the conspiracy happened. Myself, I tend to pretty much be the ultimate skeptic. I reject 98% of conspiracies, because when looked at logically through Occam's Razor, they all tend to slit their own throats.
As usual you cannot see data which is right in front of you, this tread. You can see that everyone is saying "what I believe in is science and anybody who has a different belief is anti-science'', and nobody knows how to to differentiate between the two. All useful theories starting from Newton and finishing Einstein, all discoveries, all inventions were done according to the same rules, the same method, but nobody knows what are the rules, and why they work. That is the sweeping rise of anti-science. You don't know the rules, you have no idea where to look for them, you generally think, you don't need them, and will die never knowing anything. Don't take it personally, you see, everyone is saying "scientific method, scientific method", but nobody knows what is scientific method and why.
This is where many people fail when they try to talk about science. They take a current belief, and try to claim it is the "absolute truth". Not even realizing that true science does not believe in such, and should by it's definition be constantly changing and evolving based upon new data. And examples of this are many. The concept of the "Black Hole" actually dates all the way back to the 1700's. Even Dr. Einstein realized the theoretical possibility of a black hole, but dismissed it, believing that nature could not be so perverse. At one time, scientists believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Then later, this was expanded to the Solar System being the center. Then still later, the Milky Way Galaxy being the center of the universe. I even used to have an old astronomy book, which described the "Andromeda Nebula" as gas cloud within our own galaxy (universe). I am sure that a great many would find it hard to believe that less than 100 years ago, scientists generally accepted that the entirety of the Universe was contained within the Milky Way Galaxy. But that is the truth, that was the accepted belief and consensus. It was not until Edwin Hubble was able to prove that there were galaxies outside of our own in 1923 that this was commonly accepted to be the case. At one time (18th century) the molecule was the smallest particle known. By the 19th century, it was realized there was something even smaller, that made up molecules, hence the atom was born. But it was not until the late 19th century that it was realized that the atom was not a single thing, but a composition of many smaller particles. And in the early 20th century it was discovered that at the center was a nucleus. Then about 50 years ago it was proved that these particles that make up an atom are made up of even smaller particles. I find that those who believe in absolutes in science and that the current belief that they want to accept and have everybody else accept are the real anti-science individuals. Because in real science, the mind must remain open if anything new is to be discovered. That is why I believe that anybody who claims "This is what 'science' proves and you will never convince me otherwise" is the ultimate in an anti-science individual. Because what they are really saying is "This is what I believe in, here is data that says I am right, and I absolutely refuse to consider anything that contradicts it."
Excuse me, but the scientific method is rather well known and the reasons it works are well understood. I'm not sure what you mean by "rules" tho. A process is not a rule, so I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say Nobody knows what the rules are. What rules? The "rule of scientific laws"? the rules of procedure? Can't quite get what you are trying to say.
1. I said; ''All useful theories starting from Newton and finishing Einstein, all discoveries, all inventions were done according to the same rules, the same method." Like rules of a game. Each game has its own rules. All useful theories starting from Newton and finishing Einstein, all discoveries, all inventions were done following to the same rules. Thus one can see if a "theory" follow these rules and thus is scientific, or done in disregard of these rules, and thus anti-scientific. 2. You cannot copy -paste scientific method, so it remains unknown. 2.a. You cannot defend the method you have chosen to copy paste from dozens of variants you will find in internet.
For a theory to be "true or nearly true" as it is required from a scientific theory it does not matter if it assumes that the sun is spinning around the earth or the earth is spinning around the sun.
I see. so you equate an open methodology with rules. The scientific method describes an ordered set of methods, but it does not impose rules on how to implement or conduct each sequential method. you call it rules, I call it the same method where the "rules are dictated by the subject of the science". For instance there are all kinds of rules to preserve sample integrity in biological experimentation, but those aren't part of the scientific method being employed. hus anti-scientific. 2. You cannot copy -paste scientific method, so it remains unknown. 2.a. You cannot defend the method you have chosen to copy paste from dozens of variants you will find in internet.[/QUOTE] Wait, first you say you can't copy and paste it and then you say well you can but all those sites that outline in detail what the scientific method is can't be cut and pasted. NONSENSE Scientific Method Steps The ‘scientific method’ merely refers to a broad framework for studying and learning more about the world around us in a scientific manner. It is not so much a series of absolute, unchangeable steps as a guideline to the method that must be used when trying to reach a scientifically acceptable theory about a subject matter. Therefore, it is not possible to provide a finite number of steps or an exact procedure for following the scientific method. However, the scientific method steps detailed below describe the main steps that scientists commonly take when conducting a scientific inquiry. Steps of the Scientific Method Make an Observation Scientists are naturally curious about the world. While many people may pass by a curious phenomenon without sparing much thought for it, a scientific mind will take note of it as something worth further thought and investigation. Form a Question After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. This is in fact a natural phenomenon. If you have ever wondered why or how something occurs, you have been listening to the scientist in you. In the scientific method, a question converts general wonder and interest to a channelled line of thinking and inquiry. Form a Hypothesis A hypothesis is an informed guess as to the possible answer of the question. The hypothesis may be formed as soon as the question is posed, or it may require a great deal of background research and inquiry. The purpose of the hypothesis is not to arrive at the perfect answer to the question but to provide a direction to further scientific investigation. Conduct an Experiment Once a hypothesis has been formed, it must be tested. This is done by conducting a carefully designed and controlled experiment. The experiment is one of the most important steps in the scientific method, as it is used to prove a hypothesis right or wrong, and to formulate scientific theories. In order to be accepted as scientific proof for a theory, an experiment must meet certain conditions – it must be controlled, i.e. it must test a single variable by keeping all other variables under control. The experiment must also be reproducible so that it can be tested for errors. Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion As the experiment is conducted, it is important to note down the results. In any experiment, it is necessary to conduct several trials to ensure that the results are constant. The experimenter then analyses all the data and uses it to draw a conclusion regarding the strength of the hypothesis. If the data proves the hypothesis correct, the original question is answered. On the other hand, if the data disproves the hypothesis, the scientific inquiry continues by doing research to form a new hypothesis and then conducting an experiment to test it. This process goes on until a hypothesis can be proven correct by a scientific experiment. The whole process is collaborative and is conducted in a clearly documented manner to help other scientists who are doing research in the same field. Throughout history, there are instances where scientists have stopped their research before completing all the steps of the scientific method, only to have the inquiry taken up and solved by another scientist interested in answering the same question.
