Support NeoGAF

[TheChocolateWar]

Science is verified by the methods you mentioned, and the fact that it's done as repetitively and consistently as humanly possible. Calling science reliant upon faith because it relies on the existence of an external, objective reality isn't really a weakness at all, since it would be impossible to get anything done otherwise.

Ah, a practical argument. So says Sir Thomas Reid. But this is not an argument which is supposed to force someone into apathy or indifference. Far from it. It is supposed to place the scientist into a form of intellectual modesty.

The argument acknowledges that science has a worthy goal; the formation of knowledge based on some kind of formalism. It is a step above the often daft approach to knowledge that religious institutions take.

However, that does not mean the results of science are superior to the results of religion. Thats the genetic fallacy. How knowledge is obtained is irrelevant to the falsity of the information. Science is just as plagued by external world skepticism as religion. The results of science, the knowledge obtained, relies on a faith in external senses.

Thus;

A different type of faith, but faith none-the-less

 

[Something Wicked]

Lot of irony here.

Using Wikipedia to quickly verify someone's biography is not the same as using Wikipedia (or some partisan blog) to cite in a debate of a quite controversial, politically-charged, yet still technical theory. Also, I'm not an English major either. So, where is the irony here?

Then again, perhaps you do not the understand the proper definition of "irony", which is, I suppose, common for many people.

 

[Sky Chief]

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

LOL, good one. Too bad that the very basis of most liberal ideas is a complete fantasy - that the government can somehow allocate resources in such a way that is better than what the free market can do and this can lead to some kind of utopian society. Nothing could be further from REALITY.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Well yeah.

Think of all the highly educated architects once part of Communist nations or the Nazi party.

Social science, and a large part of medical science, is a giant pile of mathematical shit. To me it is not a real science until you can postulate and then test a causal relationship. Just using blind statistics, with shitty sampling techniques, does not make for real science. That is what a large part of of these social science and shitty medical studies do. Sure it may (if sampling is done correctly - a big IF), give you a correlation, but correlation is not causation. Finding correlations in data is something a high school student can do, and is not the realm of a true scientist.

The amount of ignorance in this post is incredible.

LOL, good one. Too bad that the very basis of most liberal ideas is a complete fantasy - that the government can somehow allocate resources in such a way that is better than what the free market can do and this can lead to some kind of utopian society. Nothing could be further from REALITY.

What?

 

[squidyj]

LOL, good one. Too bad that the very basis of most liberal ideas is a complete fantasy - that the government can somehow allocate resources in such a way that is better than what the free market can do and this can lead to some kind of utopian society. Nothing could be further from REALITY.

lol what.

 

[polyh3dron]

Um, Hitler was a far left radical (Nazi = National Socialist Party), who was an atheist and also had established universal healthcare in Germany during his reign.

Nice try, though.

bwaaahahaha

Next, you'll tell me the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea is a democracy.

LOL, good one. Too bad that the very basis of most liberal ideas is a complete fantasy - that the government can somehow allocate resources in such a way that is better than what the free market can do and this can lead to some kind of utopian society. Nothing could be further from REALITY.

haha oh wow yeah I guessed you missed 2008 when that invisible hand fistfucked our economy. Same thing happened in 1929 too.

 

[ragemasher13]

At least Republican bias doesn't willfully let people die by denying funding to lifesaving adult stem cell research in order to prop up the wholly useless fetal stem cell research like liberals do in an attempt to create another paper thin argument for abortion at the cost of (more) lives.

 

[Oblivion]

bwaaahahaha

Next, you'll tell me the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea is a democracy.

Blind faith in science is equally as dangerous and deranged as blind faith in religion.

 

[Onemic]

At least Republican bias doesn't willfully let people die by denying funding to lifesaving adult stem cell research in order to prop up the wholly useless fetal stem cell research like liberals do in an attempt to create another paper thin argument for abortion at the cost of (more) lives.

pro lifer I assume?

 

[Aylinato]

Blind faith in science is equally as dangerous and deranged as blind faith in religion.

Blind faith in "science" as u call it would not be science as science is a method to prove how the world works, and always must be looked at as having the ability to be better.

 

[Sky Chief]

haha oh wow yeah I guessed you missed 2008 when that invisible hand fistfucked our economy. Same thing happened in 1929 too.

Wrong, it was people again denying reality that caused the bubble in the first place. For decades interest rates were kept artificially low in order to "stimulate the economy" making credit almost free. This led to massive debt, very poor investment decisions, and helped to fuel massive greed. Furthermore, income tax deductions for mortgage interest and many other such policies further bastardized the fundamental incentives in the housing market. This was all based on a utopian dreams that all Americans should own houses but had no grounding in reality. Eventually reality caught up with catastrophic consequences.

 

[Orayn]

Blind faith in science is equally as dangerous and deranged as blind faith in religion.

Give me an example.

 

[Aylinato]

Wrong, it was people again denying reality that caused the bubble in the first place. For decades interest rates were kept artificially low in order to "stimulate the economy" making credit almost free. This led to massive debt, very poor investment decisions, and helped to fuel massive greed. Furthermore, income tax deductions for mortgage interest and many other such policies further bastardized the fundamental incentives in the housing market. This was all based on a utopian dreams that all Americans should own houses but had no grounding in reality. Eventually reality caught up with catastrophic consequences.

It was caused by the degeruglation of the free market, making the market viotile and unhealthy for an economy to have diversity. Same thing happened before the Great Depression. FDR saved capitalism, anyone who thinks otherwise needs to go back and read more on his politics.

 

[videogames]

Man you sure showed him.

diminishing returns on information provided over time due to acceptance of said source.

what goes up must come down.

i sure showed him with ~science~

 

[TheChocolateWar]

It was caused by the degeruglation of the free market, making the market viotile and unhealthy for an economy to have diversity. Same thing happened before the Great Depression. FDR saved capitalism, anyone who thinks otherwise needs to go back and read more on his politics.

Merely because deregulation coincided with a volatile market does not mean one caused the other. Nor does it mean a completely deregulated market is a worse option than a regulated market.

 

[ragemasher13]

pro lifer I assume?

Yes, but thats besides the point. My views on stem cell research come from my degree in genetics.

Adult stem cells have been used in over 6,000 successful cures, ranging from acquired diseases such as HIV, to inherited genetic conditions such as sickle cell anemia, and even had great success in treating physical acquired conditions such as chronic back pain. They are successful and they deserve more funding and research because they work, have zero moral or ethical implications, and more importantly, THEY FUCKING WORK.

I recently read an article about THE FIRST successful transplant of human embryonic stem cells in treating a disease. Scientists transplanted embryonic stem cells into a subject with macular degeneration and after four months there hasn't been any tumorgenesis or rampant growth or tissue rejection.

This is their greatest success. It hasn't killed the subject after four months. No improvement, but it hasn't killed them. A success because every other human trial of embryonic stem cells has resulted in rampant growth, tumorigenisis, tissue rejection, and death of the subject.

Might I add that Adult Stem cell transplants have successfully treated macular degeneration for years.

Embryonic stem cell research doesn't deserve funding because it is a scientific dead end, morally reprehensible, and a complete waste of goverment funding as well as a gross misuse of public funds. Especially when there are non-controversial AND SUCCESSFUL alternatives to it.

So whose worse?

The Republican who stupidly (and harmlessly) thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old?

Or the Democrat who is letting thousands of people die painfully because he wants to have another bullshit reason to buy support buying fetuses from Planned Parenthood, no matter how many cures are delayed or not discovered because of his political stupidity?

 

[Aylinato]

Merely because deregulation coincided with a volatile market does not mean one caused the other. Nor does it mean a completely deregulated market is a worse option than a regulated market.

It was the deregulation that caused the depression and recession. It happens everytime and is very well documented.

 

[KHarvey16]

diminishing returns on information provided over time due to acceptance of said source.

what goes up must come down.

i sure showed him with ~science~

That's what you were trying to say? How disappointing. It makes even less sense then I thought it might.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

It was the deregulation that caused the depression and recession. It happens everytime and is very well documented.

Correlation =/= causation. Aside from it happening at the same time, what other evidence is there?

 

[Oblivion]

Give me an example.

Evolution.

 

[Kapura]

Ah, a practical argument. So says Sir Thomas Reid. But this is not an argument which is supposed to force someone into apathy or indifference. Far from it. It is supposed to place the scientist into a form of intellectual modesty.

The argument acknowledges that science has a worthy goal; the formation of knowledge based on some kind of formalism. It is a step above the often daft approach to knowledge that religious institutions take.

However, that does not mean the results of science are superior to the results of religion. Thats the genetic fallacy. How knowledge is obtained is irrelevant to the falsity of the information. Science is just as plagued by external world skepticism as religion. The results of science, the knowledge obtained, relies on a faith in external senses.

Thus;

Alright, I'm gonna go ahead and chew on this statement: "How knowledge is obtained is irrelevant to the falsity of the information." That sounds pretty good on the face of it, but if we're going to go ahead and say that we can't actually determine if anything is "really" true or false, it's entirely moot. You can believe any god damned thing you want and it won't matter because hey, you can't determine it. It's either true or it isn't. If I start saying the sky is red, but human's have a perception barrier so we only see it as blue, who is wrong? We can't very well BOTH be correct

 

[KHarvey16]

Correlation =/= causation. Aside from it happening at the same time, what other evidence is there?

The financial instruments that caused the whole mess were only allowed to exist because sane regulations were non-existent. These instruments provided the profit motive to offer more and more loans with fewer and fewer assurances, also allowed because of insufficient regulation.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

Alright, I'm gonna go ahead and chew on this statement: "How knowledge is obtained is irrelevant to the falsity of the information." That sounds pretty good on the face of it, but if we're going to go ahead and say that we can't actually determine if anything is "really" true or false, it's entirely moot. You can believe any god damned thing you want and it won't matter because hey, you can't determine it. It's either true or it isn't. If I start saying the sky is red, but human's have a perception barrier so we only see it as blue, who is wrong? We can't very well BOTH be correct

Well no, I don't think it follows that because methodology alone won't make your results any better that you can't find truth in statements. Its the basic difference between a sound and valid argument. Your reasoning can be valid, your methodology can be valid. But if your premises aren't sound, it doesn't mean crap. I'm not saying external world skepticism is true. I'm saying; if it is true, science is reduced to the same state as religion. But that does not mean there aren't other options of gaining knowledge besides science or religion.

The financial instruments that caused the whole mess were only allowed to exist because sane regulations were non-existent. These instruments provided the profit motive to offer more and more loans with fewer and fewer assurances, also allowed because of insufficient regulation.

I think that is a slight improper characterization of the issue.

There is a huge difference between there being no regulations and there being improper regulations. A basic invisible hand proponent would say "NO REGULATIONS!" I don't think saying, "we didn't have good regulations" would overcome their basic thesis.

 

[Something Wicked]

Give me an example.

Over 100 years ago, the "scientific community" (or in this case, mostly physicists), thought they nearly had explained everything in the universe... well except, this little thing called "light."

Over the next couple decades, theories of particles having "quantized energy" began to emerge, yet such theories became very controversial in the physics community. Much of the established scientific community of the time was very much against the concepts within quantum mechanics, including Albert Einstein, whose photo-electric effect paper actually inspired many of the first physicists to consider a "quantum universe."

The history is science itself has shown that many theories have caused controversy within the "scientific community", including the one stated above and now currently AGW.

 

[CorvoSol]

Is the Republican Brain like Mother Brain? Do we have to wait till Super Murica for Samus Adams to kill it?

 

[KHarvey16]

Over 100 years ago, the "scientific community" (or in this case, mostly physicists), thought they nearly had explained everything in the universe... well except, this little thing called "light."

Over the next couple decades, theories of particles having "quantized energy" began to emerge, yet such theories became very controversial in the physics community. Much of the established scientific community of the time was very much against the concepts within quantum mechanics, including Albert Einstein, whose photo-electric effect paper actually inspired many of the first physicists to consider a "quantum universe."

The history is science itself has shown that many theories have caused controversy within the "scientific community", including the one stated above and now currently AGW.

AGW is not controversial within the scientific community.

 

[Tawpgun]

Evolution.

Evolution is bad?

What would you consider blind faith in science?

I consider blind faith in religion to be believing whatever you are taught by parents, and then also whatever you are taught by your clergy authorities.

Blind faith in science would be trusting what scientists say because you yourself don't understand it fully, whereas they do. I suppose you could go another way into blind science by trusting the science of people who don't peer review their findings, who don't follow the proper procedures etc. etc. Things like young earth "scientists" and creation "scientists" Them, along with the the scientists who believe the moon landings were faked, that Planet X will collide with Earth in 2012, and other crazy people...

I could also say the same thing for blind faith in religion, ie. believing one thing and having your bible say another, or picking apart a bible and choosing what is right and true and what is wrong/"they didn't know at the time"/"tradition at the time"/metaphor. People like the Westboro Baptist Church. People who form cults. etc.

It all comes down to scientific literacy, something this country needs to improve on drastically. And also have religious people, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE A CHURCH AUTHORITY be more educated on their bible and beliefs. I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church has endorsed evolution. Just moved God out and said he was in charge of it and whatnot.

The only difference is that a scientifically literate person still requires evidence, expirements, proof, etc. to believe something about the world.

Whereas a religiously literate person believes something about the world because it says so in a book.

The term blind faith is a bit redundant. It just carries a negative connation. But faith itself is essentially blind belief. You believe something based solely on a feeling, a connection maybe. There's no way to prove it.

 

[ronito]

Correlation =/= causation. Aside from it happening at the same time, what other evidence is there?

"Sir, right before the car crashed into the wall going 80 mph the mechanic removed all the break fluid."
"Well, now correlation != causation..."

 

[Kapura]

Well no, I don't think it follows that because methodology alone won't make your results any better that you can't find truth in statements. Its the basic difference between a sound and valid argument. Your reasoning can be valid, your methodology can be valid. But if your premises aren't sound, it doesn't mean crap. I'm not saying external world skepticism is true. I'm saying; if it is true, science is reduced to the same state as religion. But that does not mean there aren't other options of gaining knowledge besides science or religion.

what utter rubbish. You're saying then, that you can't verify the premises of arguments that waver in truth value with the truth of the premises (which still cannot be verified). You've said nothing.

 

[ragemasher13]

It really annoys me how fundies and protestants make all the rest of Christians look bad. There have been innumerable advances to science, scientific thought, and discoveries because of Catholics, and specifically, the Catholic Church itself, but those get completely overlooked by bigots in their attempt to insult fundamentalist protestants. Not to say that fundamentalist protestants can't or aren't bigots, mind you...

 

[TheChocolateWar]

"Sir, right before the car crashed into the wall going 80 mph the mechanic removed all the break fluid."
"Well, now correlation != causation..."

As seemingly obvious as your hypothetical may be there could still be countervailing reasons as to why the car crashed into that wall. And I think this is a bad analogy to the financial situation the United States faced. There are far more potential reasons that the economy could have crashed, in the absence of further evidence, than deregulation.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

what utter rubbish. You're saying then, that you can't verify the premises of arguments that waver in truth value with the truth of the premises (which still cannot be verified). You've said nothing.

I did not say that the truth cannot be verified. I'm saying that there are currently no represented means of proving truth that can survive external world skepticism. That is not the same as saying external world skepticism is true or that it defeats all means of inquiry.

 

[ronito]

As seemingly obvious as your hypothetical may be there could still be countervailing reasons as to why the car crashed into that wall. And I think this is a bad analogy to the financial situation the United States faced. There are far more potential reasons that the economy could have crashed, in the absence of further evidence, than deregulation.

You do understand however that the reason regulations exist is to mitigate the reasons that could bring about an economic crash right? Much like brake fluid in a car.

 

[happyfunball]

The history is science itself has shown that many theories have caused controversy within the "scientific community", including the one stated above and now currently AGW.

When theories are new, there is little evidence to support them leading to skepticism. This is how it works.

Human causation of climate change is not a new theory and has a plethora of evidence to support the hypothesis. There is no controversy (although I can guess which sources of media that you are using to derive this conclusion).

This reminds of another recent topic of "controversy" in science. Do you believe HIV causes AIDS? If so, great; so does about 99.9% of the scientific community in the related field. HOWEVER, we have about 1 or 2 high-profile scientists that don't:
Cary Mullis -Nobel Laureate (Discovery of PCR)
Peter Duesberg - UC Berkeley

Their denial gave enough cover for African nations to say there is a "controversy" and to ignore the HIV infection rates in their countries. There are plenty of conspiracy websites out there touting this "controversy". However, any objective individual would look at the totality of evidence supporting HIV-induced AIDS and say there is no controversy. This climate change denial is much the same; gives the individual/country/corporation enough cover to ignore the issue and not deal with the difficult consequences of reality.

 

[ronito]

When theories are new, there is little evidence to support them leading to skepticism. This is how it works.

Human causation of climate change is not a new theory and has a plethora of evidence to support the hypothesis. There is no controversy (although I can guess which sources of media that you are using to derive this conclusion).

This reminds of another recent topic of "controversy" in science. Do you believe HIV causes AIDS? If so, great; so does about 99.9% of the scientific community in the related field. HOWEVER, we have about 1 or 2 high-profile scientists that don't:
Cary Mullis -Nobel Laureate (Discovery of PCR)
Peter Duesberg - UC Berkeley

Their denial gave enough cover for African nations to say there is a "controversy" and to ignore the HIV infection rates in their countries. There are plenty of conspiracy websites out there touting this "controversy". However, any objective individual would look at the totality of evidence supporting HIV-induced AIDS and say there is no controversy.

Ironically, I think John Hunstman, a republican, put it best.

If I get an MRI and 99% of Doctors thought I might have cancer. I'd sure as hell listen.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

You do understand however that the reason regulations exist is to mitigate the reasons that could bring about an economic crash right? Much like brake fluid in a car.

I understand the philosophy and purpose of these regulations, but purpose is far from sufficient to prove that the failure is because of what they were trying to prohibit.

EG:

State A passed a new legislation which has the purpose of making students nice and fat so granny crumbcakes can bake them into food. School A hasn't been serving students unhealthy food in line with the legislation and now children are all healthy and skinny. Clearly it was because they stopped serving unhealthy food!

Uhhhh, no, they could just be working out.

 

[ronito]

I understand the philosophy and purpose of these regulations, but purpose is far from sufficient to prove that the failure is because of what they were trying to prohibit.

EG:

State A passed a new legislation which has the purpose of making students nice and fat so granny crumbcakes can bake them into food. School A hasn't been serving students unhealthy food in line with the legislation and now children are all healthy and skinny. Clearly it was because they stopped serving unhealthy food!

Uhhhh, no, they could just be working out.

But you'd have us believe the opposite.

We REMOVE legislation saying that students food must be healthy (when the school districts have incentive to save money and make them unhealthy) then suddenly students start gaining tons of weight. And you'd have us believe that the removing the healthy requirement had nothing do with it.

That's silly.

 

[Kapura]

I did not say that the truth cannot be verified. I'm saying that there are currently no represented means of proving truth that can survive external world skepticism. That is not the same as saying external world skepticism is true or that it defeats all means of inquiry.

Alright, let's assume that you weren't implying that the truth cannot be verified. This is me, now, asking you, can the truth be verified? If so, how?

 

[TheChocolateWar]

But you'd have us believe the opposite.

We REMOVE legislation saying that students food must be healthy (when the school districts have incentive to save money and make them unhealthy) then suddenly students start gaining tons of weight. And you'd have us believe that the removing the healthy requirement had nothing do with it.

That's silly.

In the absence of any evidence to prove it, I cannot say the removal of the legislation caused it. But that is not the same as saying the removing the regulation had nothing to do with it. I just don't know. I'm ignorant, until evidence is presented to me, as to the impact of the regulation. How many students started bringing more unhealthy food afterwards? Were workout patterns constant before and after? Are more children biking now? So on and so forth.

Alright, let's assume that you weren't implying that the truth cannot be verified. This is me, now, asking you, can the truth be verified? If so, how?

I'm brave enough to admit I don't know if I have been able to overcome external world skepticism yet despite constant reflection and a degree in philosophy. But I'm not prepared to say I'll never solve it. Heck, I'm not even prepared to say I have not solved it. I may have solved it and just have been too ignorant to realize I solved it.

 

[iapetus]

It really annoys me how fundies and protestants make all the rest of Christians look bad. There have been innumerable advances to science, scientific thought, and discoveries because of Catholics, and specifically, the Catholic Church itself, but those get completely overlooked by bigots in their attempt to insult fundamentalist protestants.

You... he... but...

Where do you even start with someone this delusional?

 

[nyong]

Eh, denial of global warming (etc) can be summed with one word: trust.

Many don't trust the government, don't trust the rich/elite, don't trust left-leaning academia, and definitely don't trust the result of studies where the line is blurred between all of these groups (i.e. Al Gore, UN, left-leaning media, etc). Religion has nothing to do with it.

 

[Kapura]

I'm brave enough to admit I don't know if I have been able to overcome external world skepticism yet despite constant reflection and a degree in philosophy. But I'm not prepared to say I'll never solve it. Heck, I'm not even prepared to say I have not solved it. I may have solved it and just have been too ignorant to realize I solved it.

So, no. you can't hide behind diction on this one. If the "truth" can be verified, then there is a right answer. If, as you are saying, truth cannot be verified, then all methodologies are equally valid as long as they have a cause more valid then "meh."

 

[iapetus]

However, that does not mean the results of science are superior to the results of religion. Thats the genetic fallacy. How knowledge is obtained is irrelevant to the falsity of the information. Science is just as plagued by external world skepticism as religion. The results of science, the knowledge obtained, relies on a faith in external senses.

Science, however, takes a consistent approach, which religion doesn't. It can be useful in that respect, which religion can't. The results may be no better than results obtained from religion, or from pulling tiles at random out of a Scrabble set, or setting up a finite number of simians with a single typewriter with a French keyboard and a tendency for the T to stick. But the same resultant knowledge achieved through science will be far more useful than the equivalent obtained from the monkeys and their typewriter, because the same model allows for building on it and extending it.

Science also provides a framework for testing the knowledge it provides. Religion doesn't, and frequently has edicts against testing built in for that reason.

So, no. you can't hide behind diction on this one. If the "truth" can be verified, then there is a right answer. If, as you are saying, truth cannot be verified, then all methodologies are equally valid as long as they have a cause more valid then "meh."

There's also, of course, the argument that if our external senses are being fooled completely, then it's as useful to understand the fake world as it might be to understand the real world were they not being fooled.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

So, no. you can't hide behind diction on this one. If the "truth" can be verified, then there is a right answer. If, as you are saying, truth cannot be verified, then all methodologies are equally valid as long as they have a cause more valid then "meh."

That is assuming all possible methodologies rely on external senses and there aren't any ways of inductive reasoning for ascertaining the truth. (Which I never claimed)

 

[soundahfekz]

To further explain the post I was quoting;

To grant advocates of science at least some leeway; scientists approach the creation of knowledge in a different way than theists. They take their experiences based on indepth methodology and formulate a workable theory which is subject to change over a period of time based on progress in research methodology and tools available to scientists.

In contrast, theists primarily rely on evidence largely personal in nature and not subject to the same kind of rigorous internal checks as scientists. The system isn't open to advancement in methodology.

Where the two are the same is their reliance on a fundamental theory of knowledge which relies on the validity of the external senses, the belief in an external world independent from their own perceptions. In the absence of an objective, extraneous existence science is whittled down to a self-verifying system with no basis to overcome the religious.

A simple thought experiment to elaborate;

A blind, deaf man sits on the side of the road. Two others approach from different directions. As these three men meet an earth shattering event occurs. The blind and deaf man feels intense heat and intense vibrations.

One man, an ardent scientist, proclaims it do be a quake. This man is a seismologist who had seen the rictor scales vibrating. He received word from other stations around the world verifying this as an earth quake. He also observes plumes of smoke and observes the rock cleavage, finding out he is on a fault line. He writes all this out on brail and gives it to the blind, deaf man.

The other man is a pious man. He looks across the horizon and sees rays of dark light shooting up from the ground. A demon appears on the horizon, taunting the pious man. A magical pony trots by telling the pious man, "Run sir, it is Lucifer!" This pious man had seen the pony on numerous prior occasions, always accompanied by foreboding and the appearance of the demon. He writes all this out on brail and gives it to the blind, deaf man.

Now this man must decide, without any personal verifying faculties, who is correct. This man is the tabula rasa. How does he decide? Each man has their own internal verifying system of an inductive and deductive nature. Each has supporting evidence of different kinds and equal normality or consistency.

It is hard, but one must put themselves in the shoes of the blind, deaf man to remove the bias of what they perceive. How are they to distinguish themselves from who they think is the crazed beggard?

I just pray to whatever sweet god that's in the sky that you were wearing a trench coat, black boots and shades when you typed this out

 

[ronito]

In the absence of any evidence to prove it, I cannot say the removal of the legislation caused it. But that is not the same as saying the removing the regulation had nothing to do with it. I just don't know. I'm ignorant, until evidence is presented to me, as to the impact of the regulation. How many students started bringing more unhealthy food afterwards? Were workout patterns constant before and after? Are more children biking now? So on and so forth.

Right just like leaving the dog food out where the dog can get it and suddenly the dog gets fat isn't proof that perhaps you shouldn't leave the dog food out where the dog can get it.

"We just don't know. I mean maybe he has a thyroid problem. Maybe he stopped exercising. It could be a chemical change. I'm just saying we don't know."

And republicans wonder why people say they're removed from reality.

 

[KHarvey16]

Eh, denial of global warming (etc) can be summed with one word: trust.

Many don't trust the government, don't trust the rich/elite, don't trust left-leaning academia, and definitely don't trust the result of studies where the line is blurred between all of these groups (i.e. Al Gore, UN, left-leaning media, etc). Religion has nothing to do with it.

And the ideological need to connect all of those things with AGW can likewise be summed up in one word: stupidity.

 

[The Jason]

Many republicans still deny evolution and dinosaurs. As for climate change, they primarily deny it because it suggests that there are limits to growth. The earth's resources are limited, and thus there is a limit of the ability to exploit it for human gain--and suggests a need for regulation. They have been fighting it since the 60's.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

Right just like leaving the dog food out where the dog can get it and suddenly the dog gets fat isn't proof that perhaps you shouldn't leave the dog food out where the dog can get it.

"We just don't know. I mean maybe he has a thyroid problem. Maybe he stopped exercising. It could be a chemical change. I'm just saying we don't know."

And republicans wonder why people say they're removed from reality.

Put out food, food gone, dog fat.

Not enough to conclude that dog ate food. A pterodactyl could have come down and ate it and the dog could have ate a vagrant squirrel. Less likely? Well yes. Can I rule it out? Nope.

I just pray to whatever sweet god that's in the sky that you were wearing a trench coat, black boots and shades when you typed this out

Do camel coats count?

 

[ronito]

Eh, denial of global warming (etc) can be summed with one word: trust.

Many don't trust the government, don't trust the rich/elite, don't trust left-leaning academia, and definitely don't trust the result of studies where the line is blurred between all of these groups (i.e. Al Gore, UN, left-leaning media, etc). Religion has nothing to do with it.

You're right religion has nothing to do with it.
But is it surprising that people that ignore scientific evidence against their claims of belief also turn a blind eye to things that might be inconvenient for them? Hardly.

Put out food, food gone, dog fat.

Not enough to conclude that dog ate food. A pterodactyl could have come down and ate it and the dog could have ate a vagrant squirrel. Less likely? Well yes. Can I rule it out? Nope.

Legislation against making bad loans/loan shorting removed = banks gave out bad loans/shorted their loans =financial meltdown = "Well we don't know for sure..."