12
   

The American Public vs. AAAS Scientists

 
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 06:21 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
This is such pure bullshit. You stated your opinion that liberals and atheists would be "overrepresented" among those opposed to GMOs and pesticides. Far from claiming they're like everyone else, you singled them out for a completely unwarranted accusation.


Would you have had the same reaction if I had said I suspect the evangelical Christians are over-represented among those who deny climate change?

The point is that atheists are human beings. Human beings sometimes rely on irrational thought and superstition. Atheists are no different then anyone else in this regard. The point that the superstitions of atheists may be slightly different than the superstitions of non-atheists is a demographic observation (stated as a suspicion).

Saying that atheists are just human is not an attack on anyone (unless being human is somehow an insult).

Do you think that there is anyone more to being an atheist then not believing in any god?
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 06:28 am
@Kolyo,
There is a wide scientific consensus that genetically modified foods are just as safe as any other food among the biologists and chemists with the greatest expertise in the subject.

This is the same as the scientific consensus that vaccinations are safe and effective at stopping disease. And, it is the same as the scientific consensus that there is signifcant human caused climate change.

There are dissenters in any case.

If you are going to argue that the scientific consensus about climate change is significant, you should accept the scientific consensus about genetically modified foods.

I don't accept the idea that we should take the pessimistic view on any possible threat (which is what I understand is your position from an earlier post of this thread).

Science gives us a way to distinguish between real risks, and insignificant ones. This is important.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 06:31 am
@maxdancona,
No, that's not the point. You're just peddling bullshit because you got caught making a completely unwarranted claim and now can't find a way out of your hole other than admitting that you wee wrong--something you are completely unable to do. You can't say someone is no different than others when you begin by saying they would be "overrepresented" among any group.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 06:33 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Someone who has studied advanced math, like integral calculus and partial differential equations, will understand more than someone without this training. Of course the climatologist is the real expert... but someone with scientific training will understand more than someone without a scientific background,

I would also say this about other fields. Someone who has been to law school for patent law will have an easier time understanding a paper on family law that I will (since I have had zero legal training).

Do you agree with this?

I remember next to nothing on solving differential equation. I studied them but forgot, as I never ever used them. It's like a language.

Let me put it this way: the scientists who answered the poll that led to your graph in the OP, they didn't check all the math for GMOs, nuclear plants, vaccination, global warming and what not. I believe that what made the difference with the general public is NOT what they remembered of integral calculus, but that they were better informed about scientific results than the average Joe, and more trusting of scientific progress.

Eg on GMO, the issues are more complicated than just human health. There are economic and ecologic dimensions that are very important to understand the debate. Most trained scientists would have a bias towards them as a result of a general positive bias towards new technologies, not because they know what the issues are.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 06:39 am
@Setanta,
Max wrote:
The fear of GM foods and pesticides are generally liberal issues... and I suspect that atheists are over-represented in the people who reject the science on these issues.


This is what I said. I believe it is correct. I stand by it.

I also "suspect" that if I made a similar statement about non-atheists; for example that "Christians are over-represented in the people who reject the science on global warming" that you wouldn't have the same reaction.

My point is that atheists are no more rational or logical than typical human beings. I am sorry that this offends you.

Again, I want to state for for the record, I didn't start this discussion on whether atheists are more rational than non-atheists. I had zero intention on discussing atheism in this thread.

Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 06:51 am
@maxdancona,
Jesus wept, do you speak the English language? You can't say that someone is over-represented as a subset of any group and then claim that they are just like everyone else. How long will you continue this idiocy?

As for standing by it, allow me to point out that your assumption appears to be that atheists are "liberals" (a sufficiently vague group) and that's bullshit, too. There are and alwyas will be plenty of conservatives who are atheists--i've known many in my life and TimberlandKO at this site was a sterling example of the type.

If you had zero intention of discussing atheism, why did your bring it up? Your stupidity in this matter ins just incredible.
Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 06:53 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

I don't go to a podiatrist for my toothache or to the florist to find out why my motorcycle won't start.


Kolyo wrote:

In the past, you would have been better served to seek the help of a florist to cure your hypothetical wife's nervous condition than the help of a trained psychiatrist. Flowers would have done her more good than a lobotomy.


FBM wrote:

But due to the scientific approach, lobotomies are no longer standard treatment. The scientific approach leads towards self-correction and greater understanding. Flower arranging is still flower arranging. Wink


I trust the scientific approach to move us towards greater and greater knowledge. I do not necessarily trust the scientific establishment at any given time. The scientific approach moved us away from lobotomy, whereas the psychiatric establishment apparently endorsed it at one time.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 06:58 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Jesus wept, do you speak the English language? You can't say that someone is over-represented as a subset of any group and then claim that they are just like everyone else. How long will you continue this idiocy?


I guess I will continue this idiocy as long as you like, Setanta I will stop when you do, and I certainly wouldn't mind stopping this foolish little tangent. As I keep pointing out, this isn't a thread about atheism (and a discussion about atheism was never my intention.) We started talking about Atheism because Edgar asserted that a fear of atheism was the reason that people rejected science... and I pointed out that many atheists themselves reject science.

But as you seem intent in continuing, I will indulge you.

Would you agree with my suspicion that Christians are over-represented in the group of people who deny climate change?
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 06:59 am
@Kolyo,
Fair enough. I'm very suspicious of Big Pharma and the profit motive that has crept into particularly medical science over the past few decades. I don't want to go full tinfoil-hat over it, but there seems to be something inherently wrong with science for profit. When it comes to physics and cosmology, they're still pretty clean, as far as I know. Not that I've looked into it, mind you.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 07:01 am
@FBM,
I agree with this FBM. The corrupting effect of big money in science is a real problem.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 07:10 am
@maxdancona,
That cracking vote surprised me.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 07:10 am
@maxdancona,
Agreed, witness the way big oil purchased GW 'doubters' among the scientific community. Scientists and science in general easily fall prey to capitalism.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 07:11 am
@maxdancona,
That fracking vote surprised me.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 07:14 am
@maxdancona,
If you didn't want to discuss atheists, why did you gring them up, singling them out in an incredibly stupid manner? You didn't "point out" that many atheists reject science, you just made a completely unsubstantiated claim about atheists (and "liberals" as well).

Don't "indulge" me--just acknowledge that you made a completely indefensible claim. No, i see no reason to assume that christians are any more likely to deny climate change than any other group.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 07:16 am
@edgarblythe,
Yea; the gov lies so much on almost every subject under the sun,, it's foolish to trust them. Vietnam, anyone?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 07:19 am
@edgarblythe,
Yea; the gov lies so much on almost every subject under the sun,, it's foolish to trust them. Vietnam, anyone?
Trust is earned.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 08:27 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
f you didn't want to discuss atheists, why did you gring them up, singling them out in an incredibly stupid manner?


Go back and check the beginning of the thread. It was Edgar that brought atheism into this thread. I simply responded to point out that atheists are no different than anyone else when it comes to rational thought or superstition (other than the fact that they don't believe in god).

If you stop this silly tangent, I will too.
Olivier5
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 09:35 am
@maxdancona,
Max, have you noted that Pedanta's usually exquisite manners have given way to a more bilious, acerbic tone recently? ;-)

There are good reasons for this. I am told by well-informed sources that he unfortunately inserted a full blown saguaro cactus (Carnegiea gigantea) into his anus. A team of surgeons is currently dissecting the cactus within the anal cavity of our good friend so it can be extracted piece by piece -- a rather tedious job.

Until this procedure is complete, kindly treat Pedanta with outmost care. It does hurt...
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 01:53 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

If you are going to argue that the scientific consensus about climate change is significant, you should accept the scientific consensus about genetically modified foods.


Contriwise, if I don't accept the scientific consensus about GMOs, I shouldn't argue that the consensus about climate change is significant.

Congratulations, you've convinced me I should stop citing consensuses as arguments altogether.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 02:19 pm
@Kolyo,
Not exactly.

But I am saying is that if you use the consensus of scientific community to support your beliefs about climate change while ignoring the consensus of the scientific community on GM food, you are being a little inconsistent.

Either the scientific community is an authority on scientific questions, or they aren't. I say we should trust the people who have the experience, the education and the responsibility to answer scientific questions.

I think it is a big mistake to trust public emotion more than scientific consensus on scientific questions, particularly on important public policy issues.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/16/2021 at 09:24:31