What's new
By:
Filters

A Place for Conservatives

What would happen if Heathme lost his internet connection and had to actually argue with someone face to face? :O
 
You don't evidence much understanding of what peer review is and how it works. That's quite a different thing than how media presents scientific news.

You want to know what the state of science is, you need to look at what is getting published in peer reviewed scientific journals. This has nothing at all to do with Oprah; what Oprah says or does is irrelevant to what the science is.

If you are butt hurt that "the other side" isn't getting enough airtime, the other side is not what conservative pundits, bloggers, and motivated reasoners say it is, but what the science says it is. There's not always an other side where it comes to science; there's often disagreement about details and specifics, but about the broad scope of things, related to, say, the science of evolution or human-induced climate change, there exists a broad consensus. There's really no other side on these issues, or not much of one.

Plus, I can guarantee you that IF there is indeed another side, the science will bear this out over time. Science really does self-correct. That's one of the beauties of the process. But it will be the science that does it, not motivated reasoning by conservative ideologues.

BTW, media tends to do a very bad job in disseminating scientific news, often misunderstanding or misstating the science, choosing to focus on wrong things, over simplifying, etc. But then they're motivated by ratings, not by scientific rigor. You're a fool if you rely on what's being reported by the media to form informed opinions of what the state of the science is.
 
Last edited:
framer said:
I mean look at the certainty alfalfa is displaying. He has no damn idea and isn't an astrophysicist but he KNOWS damnit!!! I mean he may have more pieces than the average dude, but his certainty is bullcrap. There are people with more knowledge and accolades that disagree with his learned (not arrived at) conclusions, that aren't treated like heretics by the people that currently believe as he does.
Click to expand...

I've displayed zero certainty about anything. I just explained the current state of cosmological understanding. I don't think the way you do. When I say heat death is the currently agreed upon outcome, I mean that a vast majority of practitioners in the field accept it as the best explanation for the information we currently have. Nothing more, nothing less. New information or insights might come about in the next 5 minutes and change that. I don't care. I have no money in the game. I'd just learn about the new things.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
You don't evidence much understanding of what peer review is and how it works. That's quite a different thing than how media presents scientific news.

You want to know what the state of science is, you need to look at what is getting published in peer reviewed scientific journals. This has nothing at all to do with Oprah; what Oprah says or does is irrelevant to what the science is.

If you are butt hurt that "the other side" isn't getting enough airtime, the other side is not what conservative pundits, bloggers, and motivated reasoners say it is, but what the science says it is. There's not always an other side where it comes to science; there's often disagreement about details and specifics, but about the broad scope of things, related to, say, the science of evolution or human-induced climate change, there exists a broad consensus. There's really no other side on these issues, or not much of one.

Plus, I can guarantee you that IF there is indeed another side, the science will bear this out over time. Science really does self-correct. That's one of the beauties of the process. But it will be the science that will does it, not motivated reasoning by conservative ideologues.

BTW, media tends to do a very bad job in disseminating scientific news, often misunderstanding or misstating the science, choosing to focus on wrong things, over simplifying, etc. But then they're motivated by ratings, not by scientific rigor. You're a fool if you rely on what's being reported by the media to form informed opinions of what the state of the science is.
Click to expand...

You are a fool if you think popular culture does not have a thumb on the scale of scientific review. Grants fund science. A scientist doesn't get very far without funding. This has been true as long as there has been science. Not many self funders in the scientific community. Science has always been carried upon the kindness, or favor, of others.

Like I said, sometimes science works like you say. Other times it does not. I DO understand how it is supposed to work.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
I don't believe it, sorry. It happens all the time to liberals. There are no end of right leaning media sources; any conservative will have absolutely no difficulty finding media that will reflect his/her world outlook. Thus the ongoing persecution complex within the right is silly. The fact that so many right-leaning people flock to right-leaning outlets, moreover, is proof that they are not searching for unbiased news sources, and thus don't object to them per se, but rather prefer biased news sources reflecting their world views.

I further vigorously dispute your argument that the other mainstream news orgs (e.g., CNN, NBC, NYT, Wash Post, etc.) are equal to Fox. That is on its face a ridiculous and false assertion. Fox, at least its commentary and not hard news functions, is, for all intents and purposes, the propaganda arm of the Trump Admin. There's being biased (and I concede the existence of bias, everyone is human after all), and there's being a purveyor of propaganda. CNN is the former, Fox is the latter.
Click to expand...
Your vigorous dispute is laughable. It might be true that Hannity is deeper in the pocket of Trump than any network opinion host has been for any other president, but Obama had more media members in his pocket than any politician other than possibly Bill Clinton. Do you remember how he made some of them tingle?

Your claim that right-leaning people seek right-leaning outlets is proof of something wrong about them falls apart completely when you consider where the left-leaning people tend to get their news.

And the idea that the playing field is even is laughable. When Hillary is under investigation she is allowed to sort through her emails to decide what is personal and can be destroyed, and what is relevant and needs to be turned in. Her associates are virtually all given immunity as some sort of investigative courtesy. When Trump gets investigated his associates are wiretapped, spied on, stripped of all their possessions in pre-dawn raids and indicted. Watching all of this unfold the left-wing media doesn't even seem to notice any disparity at all.
 
Alfalfa said:
I've displayed zero certainty about anything. I just explained the current state of cosmological understanding. I don't think the way you do. When I say heat death is the currently agreed upon outcome, I mean that a vast majority of practitioners in the field accept it as the best explanation for the information we currently have. Nothing more, nothing less. New information or insights might come about in the next 5 minutes and change that. I don't care. I have no money in the game. I'd just learn about the new things.
Click to expand...

The vast majority accept what their professor told them because they have other fish to fry. I would wager that people that if you got a room full of people that have spent a lifetime of study in this exact area you would get a kaleidoscope of opinion about the nuances of the thing and perhaps a fistfight or two. A good portion of them would love to see the system break (the good ones anyway) because that invites opportunity.

I chose Big Bang because I think it an example of good science and process. There really isn't much politicization because most creationists and atheists are fine with their version of it. It is new science with a lot of good points and some weaknesses that is still ground worth fighting over. We aren't going to overturn gravity, I don't care enough to learn about string theory, so overturning Big Bang and cloning a mammoth are two of the main scientific hobbies I enjoy. Obviously I got a whole other wish list for engineering. . .
 
framer said:
The vast majority accept what their professor told them because they have other fish to fry. I would wager that people that if you got a room full of people that have spent a lifetime of study in this exact area you would get a kaleidoscope of opinion about the nuances of the thing and perhaps a fistfight or two. A good portion of them would love to see the system break (the good ones anyway) because that invites opportunity.

I chose Big Bang because I think it an example of good science and process. There really isn't much politicization because most creationists and atheists are fine with their version of it. It is new science with a lot of good points and some weaknesses that is still ground worth fighting over. We aren't going to overturn gravity, I don't care enough to learn about string theory, so overturning Big Bang and cloning a mammoth are two of the main scientific hobbies I enjoy. Obviously I got a whole other wish list for engineering. . .
Click to expand...

Here's the thing. You are utterly ignorant on the subject. I know enough to know that your level of understanding of physics is extremely limited. And like you said, I'm not an astrophysicist. Imagine how laughable your arguments would be to an actual astrophysicist?

If you're gonna go around critiquing theories, and accusing those who are trying to explain them to you to be shills for the man, then you have to at least try to match their level of understanding. Not the decades spent actually studying it. But at least an effort.

For now, it's all just noise.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
One thing I've always found so fascinating about some public policy debates is how so many people with so little actual scientific training or knowledge feel so confident opining about scientific matters, often in contravention to scientific consensus, largely on the basis of political ideology. So, in this thread, we have folks without a shred of scientific training, or scientific training in the relevant fields, opining confidently that people who actually have training, devote their careers to the relevant topic, and who are subjected to the harsh reality of peer review, know less about these topics than they do, all because what...the science doesn't confirm the imperatives of a particular political ideology. I suspect, moreover, that their sources of information are right-wing blogs or other info sources that cherry pick data and misrepresent the science all in the service of a political agenda. (Yes, I do also believe that some on the left engage in similar dishonest tactics, and I am skeptical of many of their claims.)

What's next? Are we going to be treated on this thread to essays on how structural engineers are wrong and really don't know how to build that bridge? That medical researchers are wrong about the germ theory of disease? That scientists really don't understand the physics of space travel?

I mean, do those of you pretending to know anything about these subjects, and boldly declaring that the people who do know about them are wrong, understand how foolish you sound?

Personally, I don't know about these topics either, but the march of history and scientific progress has taught me to understand that science, and scientific consensus, are far, far more reliable methods of understanding our natural world, and how it interacts with human activity, than the imperatives of any political ideology.
Click to expand...
If a structural engineer builds a bridge and claims that it will hold up for a century, but the bridge falls into the water ten years later would you consider it reasonable to doubt his competence? If a climate scientist supports Al Gore in 2006 when he claims that sea levels will rise by as much as 20 feet in the next decade, but sea levels do not change during that period by more than fractions of an inch, would you consider it reasonable to doubt their ability to make accurate predictions?
 
 
Last edited:
Joe Bagadonuts said:
If a structural engineer builds a bridge and claims that it will hold up for a century, but the bridge falls into the water ten years later would you consider it reasonable to doubt his competence? If a climate scientist supports Al Gore in 2006 when he claims that sea levels will rise by as much as 20 feet in the next decade, but sea levels do not change during that period by more than fractions of an inch, would you consider it reasonable to doubt their ability to make accurate predictions?
Click to expand...

I would also add, if an engineer builds a bridge, you can immediately see that it works. Climate alarmists say climate disasters are 100% going to happen in 25 years or whatever and if you do not believe it you are a SCIENCE DENIER... dun, dun, dun.
 
Heathme said:
Wow you really convinced me since you said everything so "vigorously". /sarc I am not trying to be harsh, but how is your point of view so much better than mine? Prove 1, 2 and 3. I have years of proof on https://www.newsbusters.org
Click to expand...

Not trying to be harsh? LOL, you can be harsh as you want. Since I don't value your opinion very much, I'm not offended, I assure you.

Why criticize me for thinking my POV is better than yours when you obviously think your POV is superior to mine? That's just a dumb thing to say.

As if you're not also 'vigorously' affirming a position, LOL.

I've stated my position. You don't agree. I can live with that.

Far be it from me to dissuade you from feeling persecuted by the oh so mean liberal media. You want a shoulder to cry on. I'm not offering mine.
 
Alfalfa said:
Here's the thing. You are utterly ignorant on the subject. I know enough to know that your level of understanding of physics is extremely limited. And like you said, I'm not an astrophysicist. Imagine how laughable your arguments would be to an actual astrophysicist?

If you're gonna go around critiquing theories, and accusing those who are trying to explain them to you to be shills for the man, then you have to at least try to match their level of understanding. Not the decades spent actually studying it. But at least an effort.

For now, it's all just noise.
Click to expand...

I don't have to at all. I just read the stuff that other people put out in the journals. I'm not making a living, I'm not doing a dissertation, I am not even going to get a quiz. There is something refreshing to hearing an argument without trying to jump people and be an ***. Why are you so damn invested at being science cop? Are you so convinced of your superiority that you have to butt into a conversation that does not even concern you to regurgitate the stuff you learned in your two hundred level science course? Why does it matter if someone wants to see a standing theory fall just for the lolz? I mean yeah, most of the theories that make the rounds will fail, but there is nothing wrong in their existence, and science doesn't require you as a gatekeeper. If I wanted to argue with an astrophysicist I wouldn't do so on a Utah Jazz board.

And I didn't "critique" theories. I brought up stuff that bothers other physicists. I never even put forth my own theory because I don't have one. Now obviously I'm not going to read a three hundred page dissertation. I just skip to the part where scientists argue with one another. Steel against steel is where the real science lies. Any time I see a scientist avoid conflict, especially by being smug, yeah, I'm going to judge them.

I don't think you are a shill, just a tad self important. I would be too if someone treaded on a subject that I feel I knew a lot about. Not enough to be an *** about it, but I get you.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
If a structural engineer builds a bridge and claims that it will hold up for a century, but the bridge falls into the water ten years later would you consider it reasonable to doubt his competence? If a climate scientist supports Al Gore in 2006 when he claims that sea levels will rise by as much as 20 feet in the next decade, but sea levels do not change during that period by more than fractions of an inch, would you consider it reasonable to doubt their ability to make accurate predictions?
Click to expand...

You obviously missed the point.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
Not trying to be harsh? LOL, you can be harsh as you want. Since I don't value your opinion very much, I'm not offended, I assure you.

Why criticize me for thinking my POV is better than yours when you obviously think your POV is superior to mine? That's just a dumb thing to say.

As if you're not also 'vigorously' affirming a position, LOL.

I've stated my position. You don't agree. I can live with that.

Far be it from me to dissuade you from feeling persecuted by the oh so mean liberal media. You want a shoulder to cry on. I'm not offering mine.
Click to expand...

Awesome Jimmy. No shoulder needed, thank you. You have made "vigorous" assertions of your opinions and I have provided a mountain of evidence of liberal bias in the main stream media. To each his own.
 
framer said:
I don't have to at all. I just read the stuff that other people put out in the journals. I'm not making a living, I'm not doing a dissertation, I am not even going to get a quiz. There is something refreshing to hearing an argument without trying to jump people and be an ***. Why are you so damn invested at being science cop? Are you so convinced of your superiority that you have to butt into a conversation that does not even concern you to regurgitate the stuff you learned in your two hundred level science course? Why does it matter if someone wants to see a standing theory fall just for the lolz? I mean yeah, most of the theories that make the rounds will fail, but there is nothing wrong in their existence, and science doesn't require you as a gatekeeper. If I wanted to argue with an astrophysicist I wouldn't do so on a Utah Jazz board.

And I didn't "critique" theories. I brought up stuff that bothers other physicists. I never even put forth my own theory because I don't have one. Now obviously I'm not going to read a three hundred page dissertation. I just skip to the part where scientists argue with one another. Steel against steel is where the real science lies. Any time I see a scientist avoid conflict, especially by being smug, yeah, I'm going to judge them.

I don't think you are a shill, just a tad self important. I would be too if someone treaded on a subject that I feel I knew a lot about. Not enough to be an *** about it, but I get you.
Click to expand...

So is there any more to this than teenage angst about the system? Because you surely have no actual understanding of physics(and no, you haven't read the stuff people put out in journals). If not, I would recommend you spare the world the wasted bandwidth.
 
I've literally never read an actual science journal in my life. Where would I even get one? Do they have a section of science journals at the library? I guess they might but I haven't noticed them.
 
Alfalfa said:
There are a million theories regarding everything. I understood what you said fine, and responded to it.

The fact that other theories exist is irrelevant. The currently accepted model is heat death due to expansion. That's the answer to the man's question.
Click to expand...
Other theories are irrelevant huh?

lol
 
Bulletproof said:
I've literally never read an actual science journal in my life. Where would I even get one? Do they have a section of science journals at the library? I guess they might but I haven't noticed them.
Click to expand...
Lots of libraries do. A lot are also available online to a degree. It takes some searching to figure out which are legit and which look legit but are mostly agenda driven.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top