Today, it is humans who are the asteroid

Scientific literacy involves being able to separate fact from political ideology, and to accept that scientific facts are facts whether they conform to your ideology or not. No one seems to be willing to agree with this, but it is a basic point.

Scientific literacy means understanding the process of science. A scientific theory must be tested and confirmed. Experiments are well defined, they answer well-defined questions in a way that is reproducible.

And, a scientific finding can't be extended, showing that the number of species that are going extinct is historically high doesn't mean that all species will be extinct, and showing that human activity is causing global average temperatures to rise doesn't mean the "end of human civilization".

The problem with this thread is that it starts with a political ideology, and then uses pseudo-science to support a desired narrative. Pop science articles are used to support the narrative, and any facts that dispute the narrative are ignored.

This isn't science.

However, there was (I'm almost nearly certain) mention of it somewhere in The Epic of Gilgamesh.

In 1973, an MIT computer predicted when civilization will end
https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/in-1973-an-mit-computer-predicted-the-end-of-civilization-so-far-its-on-target

Rather than cut and paste this one, I think it best to click on the link.

Could someone please tell Edgar that I said that was funny.

No, but the reasons behind the increasingly high rates of extinctions or the potential consequences of continued carbon pollution are worth drawing attention to. If a person happens to see a distant fire which appears to be heading in the direction of someone's home, the rational thing is to alert the homeowner, even if the fire ultimately turns in another direction. Just because a person is a scientist that doesn't mean the everything the person says or does purports to be "science".

You know, there's nothing unusual about someone musing about the state of the world and its future, drawing on science, classical mythology, recent history, IPCC reports, and anything else that springs to his mind. I don't know where you got the idea that Chomsky thought he was doing science when he wrote this piece.

Im getting a bit annoyed as I read some of Max'x own comments. He's a scientist but seems to totally deny the importance of some science investigation tools to hoist his POV. Things like pattern recognition, correlation, and "th past is key to the present" (it doesnt only go on as Huttons rule of the "present being key to the past").

I think hes just trying to play devils advocate while retaining a loose grip on his own thesis.

I like your fire in the distance analogy.

It would be counter-productive to burst in to homes and say "there is a fire, your house is going to burn and your family is going to die" (this thread is literally suggesting the "end of human civilization").

And berating homeowners for how stupid they are is also unproductive.

What people at risk need is real, balanced information that gives all the facts without any political agenda. These families need information that helps them figure out how to make good decisions.

These prophecies of doom and rants about how stupid people are don't help.

Thanks edgar, but the thread that max directed me to contains nothing that supports his claim about "the positive results about GMOs."

Probably because they are so trivial and outweighed by the disastrous effects of Monsanto on the entire world.

There are scientists, in the normal sense, and then there are the others- the ones educated by corporatism to believe a perversion of science, to foist unsafe products on a trusting population. Anything standing in their way to power and cash is taught to be unsafe or at best ineffective. Abetted by our government, which stands to prosper monetarily and increase its own power. Naysayers are called conspiracy nuts and in their lists compared with Bigfoot believers and flat earth believers. It all adds to the downfall of the species.

This is the problem when political ideology is the only thing that matters. Science is just a prop.

There is no set of data, no independent study matter how well designed, no institution that will convince someone in an ideological bubble that they are factually incorrect. The ideology narrative matters, the facts are ignored unless they are useful.

Edgar is playing a trick. Any science that agrees with is ideological narrative is good science. Any science that contradicts his ideological narrative is corrupt. He has made science subservient to his ideology.

The obvious question is if "science" is to be compelled to march in lockstep agreement with a political ideology, then what's the point of science?

Obviously science should inform political policy. But, science should not be subservient to any single political ideology.

Scientific literacy means accepting the data even when it questions or contradicts your ideology. It means (shudders) sometimes refining or changing your beliefs.

Ask yourself where you think conservatives have a sound scientific argument (or liberals if you are a conservative). It is a good exercise... if you only see where science supports your political ideology, it may be a sign that you aren't really basing your beliefs on science.

In other words, the scientists who agree with you are real scientists and the rest are corporate hacks.

You're correct in thinking that some scientists can be corrupted by money, but you are incorrect in assuming that the only source of this money is corporate,

Absolutely you're right but please don't try and trade on your scientific credentials to support your wild ass burning opinions.

You probably have me on ignore as well, but if not you should know that he is simply refuting (extremely well I might add) your opinion and not trying to hijack your thread. You have always had an oversized sense of propriety about "your threads"

If you only welcome those your echo your opinions you should state so in your original post.

This is nonsense.

Edgar doesn't own this thread.

This is a forum for discussion, not personal diatribes.

If you don't want discussion, don't participate here.

Ahhh Glenn has earned the edgar stamp of approval!

That's why he's chosen not to try to back up his claim concerning "the positive results about GMOs."

I'm going to discuss max's claim concerning "the positive results about GMOs" and Monsanto. Using your own theory, you should know that I am simply refuting his opinion and not trying to hijack edgar's thread. Don't ya just hate it when your own words come back to bite you in the ass?

Now, what are you going to do about it?

youre now guilty of the same shallow thinking that Ive accuse Max of. Science MUST join and preach its findings in the public arena. Its don all the time. Right now we hve an "anti-science" group of decision makers who are deafly ignoring what science is sying regarding global WARMING (I even find the weak spined term "Climate Change" to be a cop-out).
If I give wild ass opinions , you should then argue where and why they are wrong based on the science. Dont make an absurd statement about my science "credentials" as if it were the sole basis of an opinion. As a member of the science bag -o- crafts, Ive been wrong many times. Being wrong is only recently being celebrated as a pathway to the right answer.Science is a tool to be used, not hidden away in favor of pure rhetoric.

The last time science was disallowed in debate was in the SCopes trial, here the court disallowed any and all science explanations as being "irrelevant".25 years later, the Butler Acts (which were responsible for such lame brained thinking)

Argue the points underpinned by evidence of a discipline or disciplines , not the disciplines involved.

When folks are anti-science, they usually try these sweeping anointing of one discipline or another. This anointing is IMHO , just a result of not really understanding the whole argument and its components.