How many Republicans attended a March for Science today?

Science, methodologically speaking, is actually quite simple. The sign on the right explains it in a surprisingly accurate and concise way.

 

I don't know what you mean by "explain that scientifically". I'd say that the child might be somewhat precocious in his/her understanding of genders, though. But child psychology is not a field I am particularly up-to-date on, so I might be wrong.

 

Remember folks... ALWAYS... have a written record of ANY discussion with a leftist.

 

I mean the psychology of it, and maybe it's stupidity and not precociousness

 

Oh. Ok. not my field. But I'm sure there are plenty of studies on child psychology and gender identity. Just make sure the studies are peer-reviewed, though.

I don't know the science behind this. But my knee-jerk reaction is that a child should not be expected to have a gender identity completely formed at that age. Again: peer-reviewed studies (and only peer-reviewed studies) would provide a better answer.

 

I'm a science guy, believe me, I love nothing more than to curl up a book about space, or the human anatomy. Gender is not complicated, and even if it was, there is no way in hell a four year old understands the complications. I'll concede that some of my friends views on creationism are stupid and very anti-science. Can you concede, that maybe, just maybe, transgenderism is not rooted in science like creationism?

 

There are other means of funding scientific research than the government...However, IMO government funding is an essential piece.

Other ways of determining value than self aggrandisement, overstating of conclusions in research, and simple aggression need to be found and applied.

 

I have not done much reading on the matter to have any sort of valuable opinion. I watched a discussion on TV some time ago in which peer-reviewed studies were mentioned that supposedly supported transgenderism. But not enough inclination to investigate on my own or form an opinion one way or another.

All I can say is that whatever peer-reviewed science exists should be the main guiding force to answer that question. Not religious ideas. Not preconceptions nor personal preferences.

And if it's not rooted in Science, but it makes people happy... so be it! Doesn't hurt anybody. But I do concede that there has to be some very good scientific backing to allow a 4 year old to undergo such surgery. I think any judge would take that into account.

 

I completely agree. Private funding is great when the research will produce profits. Government funding will usually be necessary when it doesn't.

Not sure what simple aggression is. But the Scientific Method does provide at least two tools to avoid overstating conclusions: one is peer-review. If the conclusions do not follow from the study, it will simply not get published. The other is the demand for replication. Which acts a safeguard in case peer-review is circumvented.

 

Instead of model based projections that climate alarmism is built on. I agree.

 

Well... that's a pleasant surprise!

 

Do you enjoy such sensationalistic news? There are plenty of ALT Right News outlets eager to find these stories, so that their adherents (you) start blaming all of society's ills on the left. It's sort of like the circus freak show - you could blame the Left for Siamese Twins or the 800-pound lady. Experiencing a lot of alienation lately?

 

what are you talking about? I'm not a part of the alt-right. that link was from a left wing feminist site.

 

One thing you should realize about peer review. Peer review only means someone else decided it was appropriate to publish. After that it is up to other scientists to see if it is duplicatable. Most peer review ends up in the trash heap of history so to put complete faith in peer review is misguided. In fact few papers stand the test of time.

One problem with peer review are the perverse incentives. For instance professors are required to publish so must put something out. Another is the need to be mentioned in other papers which does not mean it is right but just repeated.

 

No 17. You forgot the 5 person ersatz hazmat team to make sure the old bulb is disposed of in an environmentally friendly manner, and the discussion group leaders where they will discuss how humyn beings insatiable need for electricity is destroying the planet as they sit around and smoke dope, while eating the chocolate chip cookies they made in the toaster oven.



. ,,

 

I identify as a scientist as Bill Nye and most of the others who were out there marching, and I declare they were marching for "pseudo science" with no backing or evidence for their claims. I didn't want to march with those phonies.

 

I only worked 3 hours, now i'm a little embarrassed.

Not nearly as embarrassed as the people marching should be.

 

can we get rid of that one annoying google telemarketer that calls my office line weekly to offer me my FREE google listing update for only $60 per month?

 

I think that a revision is needed for the sign on the right:
sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
   "the world of science and technology"
   synonyms: branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information, area of study, discipline, field
   "the science of criminology"
   • a particular area of this.
     plural noun: sciences
     "veterinary science"
   • a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
     "the science of criminology"
     synonyms: physics, chemistry, biology

• 
  
  
  

Definition of science

1. 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
   
   
2. 2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theologyb : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science
   
   
3. 3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific methodb : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
   
   
4. 4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws cooking is both a science and an art

An Aside comment:
There is a Clariton commercial with children and a parent about a "junior" dictionary. Words like, dandelion, pasture, and fern are not included in the "junior" dictionary. This is what I call planned programming, not the commercial in and of itself, but the methodical removal of words from a dictionary meant for children. This is how "reality" is altered by removing certain words or changing the definition of words for the younger generations. I noticed this same practice when I was going to school. Words like American were altered, the original definition of America was: a citizen of one of the original thirteen colonies and of the United States; not one belonging to one of the aboriginal nations of the earth, i.e., Black people, Indians, etc. Now, when you look up the word American, there is no mention of the last portion of the original dictionary definition. The original definition was also in the unabridged dictionaries, I know because when I was growing up, there was an unabridged dictionary in the household. This is something to think about and it goes in league with this whole "climate change", aka "global warming" madness. In the book "1984" the same practice was used so that the younger generations would not be able to relate to the older generations. This is why slang or what I call "ghettoese" is so dangerous, it further distances the young from the old resulting in complete disintegration of a people. Whether the Left on the bottom realize this or not, they are contributing to the reality of complete societal collapse. When people are unable and unwilling to come to an agreement on what decency is and what helps to aid in the continuity of a society, there is no hope whatsoever in cohesion. I am not promoting integration being that I am anti-integration as well as being anti-government for several legitimate and justified reasons, I am acknowledging some of the contributing factors which lead to societal destruction.

 

It does when it stops being a method of observation and experiment and becomes a cause or religious belief.

I'm not even sure what "science" issues the march was about. I think the massive failure of replication in many scientific studies is a major problem but I don't think a march will help that.

 

I don't know about other cities but in Portland, the marches included booths and speakers that put on display the many benefits science brings to society.

 

So, what "science" booths that were set up do you think most republicans deny flat out and not just disagree with certain findings?

 

And here's what the Algorites want-

Al Gore’s New Group Demands $15 Trillion To Fight Global Warming

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/25/al-gores-new-group-demands-15-trillion-to-fight-global-warming/
Demands.




Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/25/a...illion-to-fight-global-warming/#ixzz4fI62BUEs

 

It was a march to politicize science, not save it
By Rich Lowry

April 24, 2017

Science joined the #resistance over the weekend, or so the organizers of the March for Science would have us believe.

Thousands of demonstrators marched in Washington, DC, and in cities around the countryunder the banner of science and in the spirit of the Women’s March opposing President Trump back in January.

The march had its share of harmless and charmingly nerdy science enthusiasts holding signs like, “I was told there would be pi” and “I was told to bring a sine” (get it?). Who can possibly object to people, who may have waited a lifetime for the opportunity, finally getting a chance to make trigonometry puns in public?

The problem with the march was its larger ambition to enlist science in the anti-Trump movement. Not only does this represent a jaw-dropping misunderstanding of science — the Large Hadron Collider has no position on whether Trump is violating the emoluments clause — if taken seriously, it will damage the reputation of science.

The left loves to argue that Republicans are anti-science, usually by accusing them of being budding theocrats who value only faith. Since Donald Trump is no one’s idea of a theocrat, the latest argument is that his “alternative facts” administration is an implicit assault on the basis of science. It is certainly the case that Trump says things that aren’t true, although science has survived other fast-and-loose presidents. No one thought that Bill Clinton, during the course of his various falsehoods, was somehow calling into doubt the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Trump has pronounced on all sorts of things over the decades, but so far the scientific method has escaped his wrath on Twitter. Indeed, putting up glass-encased 98-story buildings implies a certain acceptance of the laws of physics and a respect for engineering.

This is why it’s absurd for any claque to claim ownership of science, which belongs to all of us. No one disputes that the modern world rests on an edifice of scientific advance, and that we owe much of our material well-being to it. No one wants to argue with Francis Bacon, one of the philosophic founders of modern science, about the importance of empiricism. No one wants to dispute the work of Newton, Bohr or Curie.

This doesn’t mean that science should be apotheosized. It is value-neutral. The same science that gave us penicillin gave us the hydrogen bomb. As Francis Bacon himself put it, “the mechanical arts are of ambiguous use, serving as well for hurt as for remedy.”

For the marchers, though, science stands for all that is good and true, and it just happens to bless their preferred policy positions, especially on climate change. The passion and certitude they bring to the climate debate doesn’t exactly speak to a rigorously scientific disposition. The advocates on climate change often use “science” as a weapon, even as they spin out apocalyptic scenarios that go well beyond the current scientific consensus.

At its worst, the March for Science was tinged with the spirit of three scientists who wrote an anti-Trump essay calling on scientists at universities to consider work slow-downs and strikes. How else to respond “when one party is committed to ignoring science at best, and leveraging it for systematic oppression at worst”? In this view, scientists are simply social-justice warriors in lab coats, political activists who are good at math.

All of this is a mistake, no matter how much Bill Nye “the science guy” might have delighted at the turnout for the March for Science. Since the country currently lacks for institutions that exist outside the nation’s poisonous partisan divide, besides the military and perhaps big-league sports, it is a disservice to try to enlist science for an ideology.

It is the marchers who are the ones trying, literally, to politicize science. It deserves better defenders.




I couldn't agree more with this article. I bet most of the marchers didn't know anything about science.
It's all about being antiTrump and nothing more. It is sad and pathetic...

 

Yup--They've identified their piece of the pie, and are champing at the bit to slice it.


'The Energy Transitions Commission’s (ETC) report claims “additional investments of around $300-$600 billion per annum do not pose a major macroeconomic challenge,” which they say will help the world meet the goals laid out in the Paris agreement.

ETC is made up of energy executives, activist leaders and investment bankers, including former Vice President Al Gore, who would no doubt get a piece of the trillions of dollars they are calling for."



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/25/a...illion-to-fight-global-warming/#ixzz4fIBYIRfx