Science Deniers are Everywhere

@ossobucotemp,

ossobucotemp wrote:

Don't lecture me about science, twerp.

I have no idea what all liberals think.

In my time in labs, we blabbered sometimes, sort of a rondolay. Occasionally arguered.

Then perhaps you ought not to lecture max on coherence when your real issue is a fairly thin skinned response to valid criticism of liberals in general.

If you truly have no idea of what all liberals think, then why object to someone's assertion that they know what many liberals think?

1 Reply

@TomTomBinks,

TomTomBinks wrote:

Right. There's a fundamental disconnect from reality. The conclusions are drawn before the evidence is examined, and if it doesn't fit the evidence is thrown out. Is it a fear of uncomfortable truth? Is it pride in being "right"? I don't know but it seems to be everywhere and it's what got Trump elected and it's not going away.

What issue that can be interpreted as science denial got Trump elected?

He did at one point claim that Climate Change was a hoax fabricated by the Chinese, and I doubt that he has a clue as to what the arguments of those who challenge the consensus on CC might be, but that was hardly the #1 issue on the minds of those who voted for him.

Even accepting the worst perspective of the policies he ran on, there is nothing scientific about preventing illegal immigrants from crossing our borders, putting an end to immigration from Muslim nations, crushing ISIS, draining the swamp, Hillary Clinton being crooked, renegotiating international trade deals, restoring law and order in American cities and Obamacare's failures. You might think that his stance on any or all of these issues was complete bullshit and harmful to the nation, but what science was being denied when people chose to vote for him?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

The OP's father-in-law hardly fits your description of a science denier, and I very much doubt that if he follows your prescription for dealing with them that it will do much to enhance his family life.

You need an new epithet.

How are people who deny the Holocaust, science deniers?

While someone who insists that the US government was behind 9/11 dispute certain scientific evidence that runs contrary to their specific conspiracy theories, their assertions that "W did it" are not flagrant rejections of well established scientific fact or theory. You're probably right about their motivation, but not their failing.

You must live an unusual life in that you seem to come into contact with those you consider science deniers far more frequently than the average person might. At least it seems that way if you feel you needed to develop a detailed strategy on how to deal with them.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Of course she doesn't know what all liberals think, do you know what all Conservatives think? You object to a lot of opinions because they don't dovetail with yours, at best you only grudgingly agreement or acknowledgement that someone you believe is a prototype liberal can say anything remotely close to common sense. Now if you will excuse me, I have to hug a freaking tree. Hells bells.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Ignorance should not be respected. You've shown him more than enough respect. Pay no attention to McG, he's one of those old gits who complains about young people all the time. Just being old does warrant respect, it's what you've done and how you behave to others.

And the OP specifically described his father-in-law as "nice and kind," "intelligent and reasonable" and a person whose grandchildren love him. Sounds like someone who warrants respect based on what he's done and how he's behave to others.

0 Replies

@centrox,

I did but this unseemly begging for applause is causing me to reconsider.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

How are people who deny the Holocaust, science deniers?

Much of the evidence supporting the holocaust is forensic, specifically forensic science, like photography, odontology,aerial photography, blood typing and later DNA testing from preserved samples, the technique of "Questioned documents analyses"and many many others. To deny their accuracy after being cross examined by independent orgnizations whose reputations are without compare, Like Walter McCrone Inc, NASA, the US Army biomedical labs,the Vatican Observatory, Planck Institute, Cambridge University colleges of law, etc etc., Id consider that science denial.
We support honest skepticism but saying that holocaust deniers are "reasonable skeptics" is pretty much bullshit, Id say.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

You seem bound and determined to prove george's point.

If someone accepts that there is measurable climate change and, to one extent or another, that humans have contributed to it, but believes that the prescribed remedies may be worse than the ailment or have not been given proper consideration, that is a disagreement with policy, not science and yet you insist on categorizing such a person as a science denier:

Quote:

That's a confusion deniers make

It is difficult to to see how your use of science denier as very strong epithet is not something that you employ to castigate those who disagree with your opinions on policy.

You've expanded the definition of the term to include those who deny the Holocaust and believe 9/11 was a plot by the US Government and now you suggest that anyone who doesn't agree with responsive polices because they may be too draconian are not only science deniers, but confused ones as well.

This fits in rather well with your seeming belief that deniers all have sinister motivations and are deliberately engaged in a disinformation campaign. Your prior reference to their denials perhaps being illegal seems to be teeing you up as an acolyte of Bill Nye the Fascist Guy who thinks imprisoning climate change deniers (not sure if has as broad a definition of science deniers as you) would not be such a bad thing.

You also seem to be quite proud of shutting up your dad the denier. Did it occur to you that maybe he stopped sharing his views with you because he didn't particularly appreciate being castigated by his son for being a reprehensible foe of earth, humanity and science, or did you not care as long as he didn't spout heresy in your presence? I can only hope the OP doesn't follow your advice and example with his father-in-law who sounds very much like a good guy who simply has some wrong ideas.

0 Replies

@TomTomBinks,

TomTomBinks wrote:

Wise words, Finn. I guess it bothers me that he (or anyone) can so easily put aside the obvious for the sake of spiritual comfort. It seems cowardly to me. It bothers me because I expect more. No, it won't ever come to a fist fight, that's just me exaggerating. Not too many years ago it may have lead to a heated argument, but I see what's more important now: his relationship with my children rather than me proving (?) myself "right".

As long as he's not doing it to hurt anyone it shouldn't matter. I have a cousin whose wife believed that we can communicate with those who have died with the assistance of a medium. You may have seen or heard of the show "Long Island Medium." After my cousin's son committed suicide his wife sought out the LI Medium and had a seance (or whatever the huckster called it) that appeared on her show. I knew about the event before the show aired and it drove me nuts, but far more in terms of the scam being perpetrated on grieving parents than my cousin's wife's gullibility and ignorance which because of what the medium told them (or what their son told the medium to tell them) my previously skeptical cousin bought into as well. When the show aired I was stunned that my wife seemed ready to believe it wasn't a scam because of the information revealed to her by the spirit of the young man. "How can she possibly have known that?!" my wife declared. I told her I wasn't sure but I was absolutely convinced that the medium having some clever way of coming up with such information (including tricks like asking leading questions and switching answers based on the facial cues of the people she was scamming) was far more plausible than the notion that this clownish huckster was actually communicating with the spirit of a dead person.

Of course the medium gave my cousin and his wife what they wanted: Through her, their son assured his parents that his suicide was not their fault, that he was sorry he had hurt them and that he was very happy in heaven. They believed it because they desperately wanted to, and it seemed to give them needed peace so I kept my mouth shut. I'm certain it was fraudulent and I still believe the woman is a reprehensible con artist, but the experience actually seemed to help them so there was no way I was going to try an convince them they had been conned, even if I could have (which I doubt).

Last time I checked the show is still on the air and the woman is still going around conning people out of considerable amounts of money. I'm absolutely sure she doesn't commune with the dead which means she is well aware that she is conning her clients. I imagine though that she has rationalized her chicanery by telling herself she is helping these people to cope with the loss of a loved one. Of course none of the spirits she contacts ever convey to the people they left behind that they hate them or that they are in agony in whatever afterlife they are residing in. It is always a positive experience that the clients are always very grateful to have had. Their comfort is based, I believe, on a falsehood but it's genuine.

I obviously don't know why your father-in-law believes what he says he does, but I'm pretty certain that he wants to believe in it no matter how foolish it seems to anyone else. Your not going to convince him he's wrong so you're never going to prove you are right. Stick with the resolution you seem to have come to: Vent in forums like these or with friends when the need arises and appreciate the fact that your kids have a grandfather they love. That's a real gift that not all kids are fortunate enough to have.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
How are people who deny the Holocaust, science deniers?

Much of the evidence supporting the holocaust is forensic, specifically forensic science, like photography, odontology,aerial photography, blood typing and later DNA testing from preserved samples, the technique of "Questioned documents analyses"and many many others. To deny their accuracy after being cross examined by independent orgnizations whose reputations are without compare, Like Walter McCrone Inc, NASA, the US Army biomedical labs,the Vatican Observatory, Planck Institute, Cambridge University colleges of law, etc etc., Id consider that science denial.
We support honest skepticism but saying that holocaust deniers are "reasonable skeptics" is pretty much bullshit, Id say.

I would say that referring to holocaust deniers as "reasonable skeptics" is very much bullshit. Too bad I never referred to them as such.

We don't need forensic science to prove the holocaust happened. I don't doubt that the deniers refuse to accept whatever scientific evidence may be presented to them, but as with 9/11 conspiracy nuts at the core of their denial is history and common sense, not science.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Indeed the OP father in law is not a science denier according to my definition, only a victim of their disinformation, like I believe my own father was. But if he starts to spread lies about biologists and biology, he's crossing my line.

History is a science, because it tries to undestand and describe reality rather than create beautiful fiction. It's of course not an exact science but it goes by the same general rules of observation, theory, and further observation to test the theory, as a way to progress towards an accurate description of reality (aka "truth" as far as we can grasp it).

As Farmerman explained, history also calls upon other sciences all the time in this pursuit of thruth.

That there is an element of art in history (the story telling part for instance) does not make it an art, not anymore than the need for artistic qualities in a physicist (eg to conceive a new theory, or to write a good article) makes physics an art.

9/11 "truthers" are taking issue with a very well established and thoroughly tested historic theory: the version of events in which Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. This theory was successfuly tested by calling upon many hard-core, exact sciences, eg thermodynamics. It explains very well the observable facts on that day. So if one considers history as a science, 9/11 "truthers" qualify as science deniers just as holocaust deniers qualify.

I admit that my classification of history as a science is controversial, at least in anglophone scholarship, but I submit it makes sense.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Questions about what is "good" or what is "best" or what is beautiful aren't testable scientifically. I have no problem with philosophers answering these question. In fact, I object when people claim that science has anything to say about values or morality.

So let's let science answer the scientific questions. That's all I ask.

I could not agree more. We need unadulterated scientific advice. But the beauty (or tragedy) of human life is that we have to take decisions all the time about good or bad, ugly or beautiful, the hard or the easy way, costly or cheap... Eg when you buy anything, a car, a dress, a house. When you commit to a person. When you chose a career. When you vote. These are not scientific questions, they are not about true or not true. These questions come AFTER one has assessed the credibility of various claims to truth.

That's where philosophy, moral, politics and art crank in.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Saw that video long long ago and it has no bearing on the topic.
Philosophy as any other field has good and bad currents of thought better n worse thinkers...I don't jump on physics because I may think string theory is a metaphysical hipothesis which is mute...besides Feyneman brilliant has he was in some fields was never an intelectual...not a very refined thinker. The best it can be said about him is that he was honest.
His beef with philosophers is the perfect example of someone who dismisses the field by confusing the part for the whole...good philosophy is hard to come by precisely because its way more ambitious than physics.
Anyway everybody knows Feynman was terribly naive and unsophisticated...he had a knack for making enemies out of thin air...
The Fresco kind of philosopher irritates me and many others like it did irritate Feynemam but I am not dumb enough to not recognize a philosophical debate when I see one....ironically most of it is being done by scientists themselves often in a terrible amateurish manner.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

as with 9/11 conspiracy nuts at the core of their denial is history and common sense, not science.

Once again you change into your Dr Obvious ensemble. Of course its history but the denial of the evidence surrounding the "hitory" i a pure denial of that evidence , hence a denial of science.

Like the fundamentalist Creationis ts who accept nuclear power and it design yet will deny the very "lambda" function upon which radionuclide decay "clocks" are based

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

(And specifically that evil entity known as Monsanto) and major corporations not only don't care about people's well being if there is profit to be had, they intentionally want to hurt people. (In case you think this is an exaggeration, visit any of the numerous anti-GMO; anti-Monsanto websites)

You are a science denier, Finn. And yours is specifically politically motivated, which is in essence, financially motivated and inhumanely motivated.

All to provide cover for your "way of life", your in-group, as you view it.

Quote:

The Issue That Wont Go Away
"TCDD (dioxin) has been shown to be extremely toxic to a number of
animal species. Mortality does not occur immediately.it appears that
the animals' environment suddenly becomes toxic to them."
Casarett and Doull's Toxicology, 1996
From 1962 to 1970, the US military sprayed 72 million liters of
herbicides, mostly Agent Orange, in Vietnam. Over one million
Vietnamese were exposed to the spraying, as well as over 100,000
Americans and allied troops. Dr. James Clary, a scientist at the
Chemical Weapons Branch, Eglin Air Force Base, who designed the
herbicide spray tank and wrote a 1979 report on Operation Ranch Hand
(the name of the spraying program), told Senator Daschle in 1988,

"When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the
1960s, we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin
contamination in the herbicide. We were even aware that the 'military'
formulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the 'civilian'
version due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture. However,
because the material was to be used on the 'enemy,' none of us were
overly concerned. We never considered a scenario in which our own
personnel would become contaminated with the herbicide."
quoted by Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, 1990

https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/monsanto/agentorange032102.php

1 Reply

@camlok,

Comlok complaining about Science Deniers is just like Trump complaining about fake news.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

I don't doubt that the deniers refuse to accept whatever scientific evidence may be presented to them, but as with 9/11 conspiracy nuts at the core of their denial is history and common sense, not science.

You're doing the one trick pony routine, Finn, the one that all the science deniers use.

How is history being denied? And advancing the ludicrous notion that your, farmerman, virtually everybody's stark refusal to consider common sense makes your accusations not just silly but truly nutty.

People who are science deniers, like you, like farmerman, like georgeob, like maxdanacona, like ..., do exactly what you all are doing, absolutely refusing to look at the science.

You won't even discuss the side of the story that you all support, the US government story. And this goes much further than just one issue. When absolute impossibilities are put squarely in front of your noses, you immediately go to all manner of extraneous and crazy side issues.

You deny history and common sense.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Typical maxdancona "science".

Remember Max, it is you that refuses to look at, discuss the science. You said that you weren't interested in addressing the science.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Camlok, let me give you a little hint.

If 97% of the scientific community says one thing, and you are saying the opposite based on youtube videos, it is you who are the science denier.

This is true whether the issue is Global Warming, 9/11 conspiracy theories, creationism, vaccinations, GMOs, or ancient civilizations on Mars. There is always a fringe. Don't get me wrong, I like you. You amuse me. But, you are on the opposite side of the scientific consensus on this issue you seem to be obsessed with.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

If 97% of the scientific community says one thing, and you are saying the opposite based on youtube videos, it is you who are the science denier.

Typical of your science denial, Max. You present the canard that "97% of the scientific community says one thing" when what you are presenting is false.

Then you use the equally unscientific "you are saying the opposite based on youtube videos", as if I am the only person advancing scientific realities, which, again, we must note, you are studiously avoiding.

How has it escaped you, Max, the scientist, that NIST made extensive use of YouTube videos for their study? There is nothing at all wrong with YouTube videos or US media videos, or US media stills, or US media reports.

Why are you so dead set against science?

You can now expect a new and totally different tangent from Max.

1 Reply

Science Deniers are Everywhere

Quick Links

My Account

able2know