5
   

Émilie du Chatelet

 
 
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2020 05:22 pm
Politics is separate from science. That doesn't mean that politics is important. It does mean that you shouldn't reject scientific results just because they go against your politics.

Science is based on experiment, the result you get is the result whether it fits your ideological beliefs or not. A scientist will accept the results even when they go against pre-existing beliefs. That is the strength of science.

Science can't answer questions about what we should do. Science is silent about moral values, or societal goals. This is an area for politicians or philosophers or priests.

Science is the final authority on scientific questions. When we are asking whether GM foods have more risk than conventional foods, that is a question that can be answered by experiment. and the facts are the facts.

Izzy accepts the science on Global Warming. He accepts the science on Covid. These are scientific findings that support his ideological narrative. But he doesn't accept science when it conflicts with this politics. And if political ideology is the basis for his beliefs about facts... then science is a waste of time for him. He will arrive at the same conclusions without having to actually question the facts.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2020 05:28 pm
I object to the idea that Americans reject science more than Europeans do. That is what started this tangent.

Izzy has made my point nicely. People in both places reject science when they go against pre-existing ideological beliefs. Europeans burning down 5G towers are no less crazy than Americans who refuse to wear masks.

Science is most valuable when it challenges popular beliefs.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2020 05:50 am
How do we decide who is right.

Let’s count who gets the most thumbs up and who gets thumbs down.

Izzy wins! Democracy is great and always right!
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2020 06:11 am
@Leadfoot,
I think you’re carrying over an argument from another thread.

It seems fairly obvious that handing a monopoly to one company over what could be the future global food supply is folly in the extreme.

No individual or organisation has never held that much power.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2020 07:06 am
@izzythepush,
Nolo contendere.
Obviously, you are right.

And yes, Emilie was a fine lady.
0 Replies
 
 

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 01/18/2021 at 10:48:49