A Place for Conservatives

[Joe Bagadonuts]

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.

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?

 

[Heathme]

Liberal news bias with data and facts and first hand experiences:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bless-cbss-lara-logan-for-calling-out-liberal-media-bias
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/former-n-y-times-editor-rips-trump-coverage-as-biased
http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/10/watch-ted-cruz-savage-zuckerberg-bias-censorship/
https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/

https://www.cato.org/events/left-turn-how-liberal-media-bias-distorts-american-mind

 

[Heathme]

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?

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.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

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

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.

 

[framer]

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.

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.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

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?

You obviously missed the point.

 

[Heathme]

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.

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.

 

[Alfalfa]

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.

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.

 

[Gameface]

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.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

You obviously missed the point.

Your point appeared to me to be that these scientists know more about their subject matter than I do so, to you, I sound "foolish" for doubting them. I told you why I doubt them.

If that wasn't your point, please explain.

 

[LogGrad98]

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.

Other theories are irrelevant huh?

lol

 

[LogGrad98]

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.

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.