Hello world!
7 years ago
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Slavemasters to science
Lefties are quick to hurl accusations that others are "at war with science" . . . it is an ironic charge given the Left's hostility to advances like those discussed in this report--I'd say many American Liberals are only "pro-science" inasmuch as it can help advance their agenda. ("Patients, Not Politics"--National Review Online).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Gallup Poll:
The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.
The data from several recent Gallup studies suggest that Americans' religious behavior is highly correlated with beliefs about evolution. Those who attend church frequently are much less likely to believe in evolution than are those who seldom or never attend. That Republicans tend to be frequent churchgoers helps explain their doubts about evolution.
Considering this, and the fact that in the last election, there was a significant correlation between educational attainment and presidential vote, what conclusions should we draw from this?
Oh yeah, conclusion: all voters in Blue America are brilliant.
Oh, and see here.
Politics, science and religion are not good bedfellows. They need to stand independently of one another. There extremists on both sides of issues when science becomes political.
Stem cell research is encumbered by bioethics, global warming encumbered by politics and Al Gore, and evolution by creationist science deniers.
Is it possible to simply just look at the data and the best science available on these issues?
Well, William, the reality is that you can't effectively keep them separate. You believe abortion isn't murder because the thing being removed from a woman's womb isn't a "person" (that's a religious view, by the way). You believe--despite centuries of scientific data and despite the contrary interests of most citizens of the world, that we have to STEEPly increase the cost of a high quality of life for humans because the mean temperature appears to have increased recently.
"Politics" isn't necessarily a bad word . . . it is the means by which we decide the rules that we are going to live under.
Gosh, I hope that stem cell research (and all medical research) would be "encumbered" by bioethics.
And I've seen you argue before about Al Gore as if it is some obsession . . . I don't care who is your front man on this issue; although it does make it more fun to ignore because the man who thought he should have been elected president is (or appears) so bent out of shape about it.
By the way, stay tuned on the issue of "obsessions" and your amateur psychologizing (e.g., "authoritarianism").
Ned, you're wrong about the Al Gore/global warming thing and my personal opinion. I am not an extremist. I own 2 SUVs and a boat that I have no intention of changing my lifestyle. To be a realist on the science of global warming has nothing to do with my opinions on speculative remedies, which often involve the politics of the issue. However, I often do cite the political motives of the Bushie 30%ers, which true to their authoritarian character, both uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs and uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear.
Again, I propose the question and the answer to debates regarding science. Why can't we leave politics out?
Like I tried to say, politics are part of having laws. Can't you see that "science" cannot speak to how we should respond to this or that "fact" of life?
Oh, and I can appreciate your candor about your lifestyle . . . I'm assuming your defense of Gore and his global warming crusade is related to your observations about "Authoritarianists" and not hypocrisy?
By the way, William, I've devoted an entire post to you--here. I hope you'll read it and let me know what you think.
The Al Gore crusade has 2 main points:
1) Global warming science awareness.
2) The so-called "moral imperatives" of mitigation and the methods thereof.
I find 1) the science to be sound, and 2) the mitigation 'responsibilities' speculative and likely ineffective during the period of our lifetime. I realize this is a rather short sighted and selfish outlook. I do respect Gore for wanting to 'do something' but personally, I believe the tipping point has been reached and any mitigating factors will not bear fruit in our lifetime, and your kids' lifetime. You can't change the world industrial complex or mother nature overnight, or likely over a lifetime.
Well said. Why do you find the "science" compelling though? Most people allow their political agenda to influence how credulous they are about said "science"--I'm more of a skeptic, frankly, and I don't trust that Gore (or most anyone else leading the charge on this issue) shares my values (and, no, I don't mean religious ones).
Why do I find the "science" compelling?
Because I make an effort to understand it.
When climate models from research facilties in Canada, US, Germany, Japan, the UK, Australia, and various other countries come up with essentially the same information, it transcends politics. Don't you think?
Forget about Gore.
William, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS CURRENT, MINIMAL WARMING OF THE CLIMATE IS CAUSED (much less able to be remedied) BY HUMANS.
I just report the evidence. You can choose to call it a coincidence that global temperature rise and the rise of CO2 correspond almost exactly to the burning of fossil fuels beginning with the industrial revolution. I think that it is likely the two are correlated, most science accepts this view as well. More than likely, your denial comes from a political source or perspective.
I wouldn't call the projections of global warming 'minimal'. The present warming is at least of the same magnitude of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum that caused significant extinctions and evolutionary adaptations of mammals.
Perhaps.
Post a Comment