Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Will Science Matter in Five Years?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

    What you haven't realized is that you have turned Fauci into your own idolized leader, and so have many on the left. That's why any criticism of him is being dismissed the way it is.
    That's almost as out there an explanation as QAnon's cannabalistic Kabal that Trump will rescue us from.

    I defend Fauci against unreasoned. irrational attacks based on the Trump media machine's dislike of him simply because no person of his integrity should be allowed to be dragged through this sort of public harrassment without rational voices speaking up on his behalf.

    But 'idoloized'? That's basically fantasy.
    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Stoic View Post

      What basis do you think the IOC should use to decide who is a man and who is a woman?
      How about what sex you had a birth?
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

        That's almost as out there an explanation as QAnon's cannabalistic Kabal that Trump will rescue us from.

        I defend Fauci against unreasoned. irrational attacks based on the Trump media machine's dislike of him simply because no person of his integrity should be allowed to be dragged through this sort of public harrassment without rational voices speaking up on his behalf.

        But 'idoloized'? That's basically fantasy.
        You literally attacked me for saying that Fauci was being too casual in his dismissal of the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis. Which it turns out he is now having to admit the lab leak is highly likely. Not only that you tried to turn the entire thread into an anti-Trump tirade. You will defend Fauci even against the most mild of criticism, likely because you see any criticism of his as "an attack on science itself".

        Edit. The real fantasy here is that you are above others you attack so often.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by eider View Post
          I think you mean 'The media'........ and 'yes', it'll be here in five years.


          ....So you didn't mean 'science' after all. You meant 'media'.


          Yep......... you really meant 'media'


          ........... There you go....... so you've learned that the media is not all about 'science'. That's good.



          .... and you still haven't got it right, have you?
          No! Try 'This time, the media can't just blame science for its poor reporting'.


          Fauci is not 'Science'!
          Sane people might not trust Doctor Fauci in future, but they will always seek out the science.


          The 'media', which you have tried to weld to 'science', will never take down science.
          Without 'science' you'd still be scrawling your messages on bits of slate.
          No, I meant what I said. You deliberately ignored the definition - sticking your head in the sand only provides support for the position I outlined.
          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Quill Sword

          Comment


          • #50
            For consideration

            I'm beginning to think I need to revise my estimate downward just from the replies here.
            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Quill Sword

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

              Wrong again. Even people who can't stand Trump can see how bad this stuff is with Fauci is. He has been at best negligent with what he's said with regards to the possibility of a lab outbreak since 1. He knew about their research regarding coronaviruses, and 2. Has a conflict of interest regarding this since he funded their research. This means the best case scenario is he unintentionally took eyes off the Wuhan lab for far longer than it should have been, and due to his celebrity status got people who reasonably questioned his dismissal of a lab leak labelled as conspiracy theorists. Worst case scenario he is complicit in covering for the Chinese Communist Party.
              No - what you are seeing is how much power the media has to smear a man of integrity and years of dedicated service to US public health if they want to. Especially with an audience that has been brainwashed into rejecting all non-conforming alternate media voices.
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by eider View Post
                I think you mean 'The media'........ and 'yes', it'll be here in five years.


                ....So you didn't mean 'science' after all. You meant 'media'.


                Yep......... you really meant 'media'


                ........... There you go....... so you've learned that the media is not all about 'science'. That's good.



                .... and you still haven't got it right, have you?
                No! Try 'This time, the media can't just blame science for its poor reporting'.


                Fauci is not 'Science'!
                Sane people might not trust Doctor Fauci in future, but they will always seek out the science.


                The 'media', which you have tried to weld to 'science', will never take down science.
                Without 'science' you'd still be scrawling your messages on bits of slate.
                If you want to be accurate, what he means isn't media, it's "Science Experts". Whether those are from "the media" or "The government" etc.

                Science is a process, but it is a process performed by people who are influenced by politics. And that politics can end up influencing the questions asked, the desired outcome, and how the results are explained.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                  No - what you are seeing is how much power the media has to smear a man of integrity and years of dedicated service to US public health if they want to. Especially with an audience that has been brainwashed into rejecting all non-conforming alternate media voices.
                  Typical avoidance of your own bad behavior when pointed out noted.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                    What basis do you think the IOC should use to decide who is a man and who is a woman?
                    I believe that when it comes to physical sports competition - there is nothing that can be done to ACTUALLY transform a male body into a female body. Sports is a physical sport, and as such the divisions of male and female should be respected and based solely on what the physical body is of he person competing.

                    Some elephant in the room questions:

                    1) How many trans female->male persons are attempting to, or even have a chance at, competing in male sports? If we can't change a female's capacity into a male's capacity, why do we think it is possible to fairly and truly equivalently transform a male into a female?
                    2) How many trans athletes (male->female) who were mediocre at best competing as males are now winning events as females?
                    3) How many pro-cyclists and pro-runners have been banned from the sport for trying to artificially alter the base characteristics and capacities of their physical bodies by artificial means?

                    Whatever the causes of a person's need or desire to live and be considered a sex other than the one that is aligned with their physical body, it does not change what their physical body is, and therefore should not change the category of sport they compete within.

                    However, there is no reason new categories could not be created where competition within that category is allowed.

                    Now perhaps you might ask about the relatively small number of cases where trans is also associated with an actual ambiguity about what their physical body is? That I would say is a special case that has to be dealt with outside the issue of trans people whose bodies are unambiguously one of male of female.
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post

                      No, I meant what I said. You deliberately ignored the definition - sticking your head in the sand only provides support for the position I outlined.
                      But you showed quite clearly that you were criticising 'the media'... and you showed that in writing twice.

                      Your 'definition' was obviously nothing to do with science.

                      May I ask you... Have you received vaccination against Covid? Have you actually had Covid?

                      Either of the above could protect you from a more aggressive strain like the Delta variant.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                        You literally attacked me for saying that Fauci was being too casual in his dismissal of the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis. Which it turns out he is now having to admit the lab leak is highly likely. Not only that you tried to turn the entire thread into an anti-Trump tirade. You will defend Fauci even against the most mild of criticism, likely because you see any criticism of his as "an attack on science itself".

                        Edit. The real fantasy here is that you are above others you attack so often.
                        No - I said that the idea I 'idolize' Fauci is a Fantasy - and it is.

                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd
                        That's almost as out there an explanation as QAnon's cannabalistic Kabal that Trump will rescue us from.
                        .
                        .
                        .
                        But 'idoloized'? That's basically fantasy.
                        Now you should ask yourself is: why did you perceive my defense against your accusation I 'idolize' fauci as an 'attack' on you?


                        Did you not read the entire post? Are you unwilling to allow me even a modest defense against YOUR accusations?

                        Other than defending myself against the accusation Fauci is my 'idol', the rest of the post simply sets forth my actual reason for defending Fauci.
                        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-21-2021, 11:28 AM.
                        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by seer View Post

                          How about what sex you had a birth?
                          Okay, how should the IOC decide what sex you had at birth?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                            If you want to be accurate, what he means isn't media, it's "Science Experts". Whether those are from "the media" or "The government" etc.
                            He didn't write that. He made mention of the media
                            He could have mentioned scientists or 'experts' but didn't.

                            By the way, I do absolutely despise the word 'expert'. it's an ad hominem and is despicable imo.
                            A group of people all expert on a particular subject could reasonably be expected to agree about it, but I've seen the dishonest testimomies of too many expert witnesses !

                            Science is a process, but it is a process performed by people who are influenced by politics. And that politics can end up influencing the questions asked, the desired outcome, and how the results are explained.
                            Do you really believe that real scientists are seated by politics?
                            And not all countries are messed up by tribal politics.
                            Over the Covid policies in the UK, most votes in our parliament were massive majorities because the opposition voted to support the government. It moaned, but it supported. Almost a form of coalition.

                            No, scientists stent swayed by politics.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                              Wrong again. Even people who can't stand Trump can see how bad this stuff is with Fauci is. He has been at best negligent with what he's said with regards to the possibility of a lab outbreak since 1. He knew about their research regarding coronaviruses, and 2. Has a conflict of interest regarding this since he funded their research. This means the best case scenario is he unintentionally took eyes off the Wuhan lab for far longer than it should have been, and due to his celebrity status got people who reasonably questioned his dismissal of a lab leak labelled as conspiracy theorists. Worst case scenario he is complicit in covering for the Chinese Communist Party.
                              Feel free to give an example of something Fauci has said or done that reasonable people should criticize him for. Don't forget to provide enough detail (e.g. a link) so that your claims can be checked.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by eider View Post

                                Do you really believe that real scientists are seated by politics?
                                And not all countries are messed up by tribal politics.
                                Over the Covid policies in the UK, most votes in our parliament were massive majorities because the opposition voted to support the government. It moaned, but it supported. Almost a form of coalition.

                                No, scientists stent swayed by politics.
                                Seated by politics? I have no idea what you are asking.

                                But, do I believe that scientists are just as likely to be partisans, and to let their partisan leanings influence their research? Yes.

                                One example of experts withholding their professional opinion based on their political leanings:
                                https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...however-can-be

                                And how it can influence how results come out:
                                Source: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/psychologists-looked-in-the-mirror-and-saw-a-bunch-of-liberals/


                                Suppose, for instance, a study finds that conservatives are less likely to change their opinions on moral issues than liberals are when exposed to counterarguments. “The researchers could explain this as ‘conservatives are cognitively rigid, inflexible, and resistant to new arguments,’ ” said Eric Luis Uhlmann, a psychologist at INSEAD in Singapore and the study’s corresponding author. “However, they could just as easily have interpreted this as ‘liberals are wishy-washy, overly flexible, and don’t stand by their principles.’ ” Uhlmann and his colleagues asked participants to rate whether a study’s findings were equally discussed in relation to liberals and conservatives, or instead were pinned on one group over the other.

                                Sure enough, the abstracts more often explained their findings in terms of conservative ideas rather than liberal ones, and conservatives were described more negatively in the eyes of the raters.

                                The effect sizes they found were “not huge,” Uhlmann said, but they were present. “For a randomly chosen abstract there’s about a 60 percent chance of it describing liberals more favorably than conservatives, and a 56 percent chance of it explaining conservatives more,” he said. (If there were no difference, you’d expect both numbers to be 50 percent.)

                                © Copyright Original Source


                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                173 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                72 responses
                                281 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X