Science Deniers are Everywhere

@Setanta,

You hear that flushing sound? That's your intellectual honesty going down the drain....

I don't remember that post on Fluther; you'd have to find it if you want me to address it. You are prone to misunderstanding and mischaracterising other posters' positions.

I come here mainly for entertainment, to learn, including English, and yes i guess, also for the heat of the argument. But you can learn a lot on these internet boards, if you pay attention and can face up to your errors and misconceptions as they are debunked by others.

If you can't accept and analyse your own mistakes, you can't learn. You can't have a productive conversation. You can't be credible as an interlocutor. That's where you and I differ. While i am stubborn in defending my perspective, I do apologise for my errors when i make them.

Another difference is that I understand most sciences better than you do.

Yet another difference is that I'm French and you're American or what? Pakistani? Indian perhaps?

0 Replies

Won't somebody please like my Henk from Belgium thing? Go on. It won't cost you anything.

2 Replies

@centrox,

Done!

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:
I think Max and you use the term "denier" in a very loose way. .... If the people who argue against global warming or evolution were offering a solid alternative explanation, a better theory like Galileo has done, there would be no problem. The problem comes when deniers can't do that and resort to misrepresenting and lying about scientists and their science.

I think you are slicing things rather thinly

No, you are trying to muddle the water by saying in essence "deniers R us".

I am trying to say that there is a definable, objective set of anti-science behaviors that are morally reprehensible, such as mass disinformation and misrepresentation of science or the production of fake science or the spread of libelous statements about honest scientists, behaviors that make the concept of "science denial" an important, empirical and useful concept. We are not all science deniers, under my (attempt at a) definition. Most of us aren't actively spreading lies through mass media and fake think tanks. We might all believe something or another that does not sit squarely with current science, but that is okay.

Quote:

AGW advocates often fail to make a distinction between the scientific interpretation of the available evidence and the uncertainties attendant to it on one hand, and, on the other, the near certain effects on the economic welfare of the world's people of a forced imposition of the prescriptions they demand.

That's a confusion deniers make. The distinction I am trying to point at is precisely that people need unaldurated scientific advice, but they can choose to do whatever they want with that advice. We need to know as precisely as possible what the likely outcomes of our actions are.

What we do with that info, as voters, bosses, leaders, is our responsibility and not the domain of scientists, but what scientists do in their labs is their responsibility and should remain so. Science should not be manipulated.

2 Replies

@centrox,

Regretfully, I never tried that with a Dutch woman.

0 Replies

@centrox,

centrox wrote:

I made a Dutch woman nearly pee herself once.

Of course, as one does, I incorporate my experiences into the material, so now Henk sometimes says "I am crazy, me! I made a Dutch woman pee herself once, [pause] but not in a good way!"

0 Replies

@roger,

I did as well, but now I feel dirty.

0 Replies

Henk was in a bar in Holland, with a Dutch guy. The evening news was on the TV, and a report showed a guy on a ledge on a building, threatening to jump. "I bet you ten euros he won't jump", says the Dutchman to Henk. "OK" says Henk. Then the guy jumps. "Here's your money", says Henk. "I can't take it", says the Dutchman. "I saw the news at 1 PM and I already knew he would jump". "Well, I saw it too", says Henk, "but I didn't think he would be stupid enough to jump twice!"

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

1. They can't grow it without drenching it in herbicides. That's not a problem with GMOs?

Herbicide resistant GMOs aren't reliant on herbicides to grow.

edgarblythe wrote:
2. They never did any long term studies before releasing them publicly. So how do you know for sure?

Your question isn't clear here. How do I know what, for sure?

I am against the heavy use of pesticides in both GMOs and non GMOs. I agree that some GMOs reduce the need for Roundup. Part of my protest is the way they refuse to tell us how much Roundup we are eating. They just killed a study.
They did not conduct long term studies to test the safety of GMOs for consumption.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I have my suspicions about GMOs too, for the same reasons, primarily the ownership of GMO patents by giant agrochemical companies.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

No, you are trying to muddle the water by saying in essence "deniers R us".

I am trying to say that there is a definable, objective set of anti-science behaviors that are morally reprehensible, such as mass disinformation and misrepresentation of science or the production of fake science or the spread of libelous statements about honest scientists, behaviors that make the concept of "science denial" an important, empirical and useful concept. We are not all science deniers, under my (attempt at a) definition. Most of us aren't actively spreading lies through mass media and fake think tanks. We might all believe something or another that does not sit squarely with current science, but that is okay.

This is thread has a very clear political ideology. Almost everyone on here is suggesting ways that the right denies science. No one here (except for this humble troll) is willing to question how their own ideology denies science

The point is that both the left and the right deny science that conflicts with their political ideology. That isn't "muddling the water"... that is the whole point.

I will concede the point that sometimes people with a political or commercial motive will deliberately fake science. And, I agree that this crosses a line. However, I suspect that interest groups faking science is considerably more common than you think it is. This is because any time your side does it, you fail to notice it.

We already discussed GMOs, and we mentioned vaccines. I could bring up a couple of other areas that liberals misuse science-- including areas where liberal political interests group deliberately misstate science to impact public opinion.

If you could just admit that it is equally "reprehensible" when your own political side does it, you would have more credibility.

Everything I read here suggests that this thread is designed to attack one political ideology while supporting another. This isn't a thread about science, science here is just a political pawn.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I have my suspicions about GMOs too, for the same reasons, primarily the ownership of GMO patents by giant agrochemical companies.

I admit to being on the losing side of the argument. But I will leave the guinea pig aspect of it to others as much as possible. Any time I have the opportunity I choose organic foods. There is a reason cancer and other illnesses are so common and I believe the food chain is at least 50% of the problem.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

any time your side does it, you fail to notice it.

How do you know what I notice or not?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

You certainly have ignored any example where your political side "denies" science on this thread. I am just going by what you say.

1 Reply

@ossobucotemp,

Lots of free time Osso, besides you guys are the king of big brother shows. For good n for worse, I have had an open window to "real" America in the last decade.
Anyway, don't you think the best possible less unbiased opinion comes from an outsider?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I am not sure if you are joking Fil... but the idea of understanding American culture from big brother shows is very funny.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I alluded to a metaphor. I alluded to the public eye and to access to information in an unprecedented scale. I guess you missed it.

As for the topic, I can assure you there is nothing remotely close going on in Europe! Our science deniers are a fringe minority no one even notice.
...even in a place like Portugal, a major Catholic country, we all a bunch of cultural hypocrites. Yeah, people go to church, they pray to Lord Jesus and Holly Mary, we do the rituals for the sake of tradition, but when it comes to Science almost no one denies well know facts. if you ask me is not about Europeans being smarter than Americans...we just have a lot less noise in the media and a tenth of the fake news. We haven't yet politicised every topic.
Back there you can't have enough of it. Also, your obsession with social conformity doesn't help...back there people hate greyish behaviour.
(either with us or against us cultural and social bipolar disorder)

1 Reply

if I had to sum it up in one sentence people here rather hope there is a God instead of believing it. The set of mind is a bit of Pascal's wager...it can't hurt to hope...in the end of the day fact is when it comes to real life no one trades scientific know-how for munbo jumbo.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

My understanding is that European politicians are pretty solidly anti-GMO. Am I wrong about that?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You certainly have ignored any example where your political side "denies" science on this thread. I am just going by what you say.

Like on GMOs? I see that as a minor issue which does not require much attention. It's not like GMOs are going to save the world... It's not a magic wand. There are also dudes who doubt that Pi is 3.14159etc... I don't talk much about them either because they are harmless.

1 Reply

Science Deniers are Everywhere

Quick Links

My Account

able2know