Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6982)

Bloggingheads 08-19-2011 11:47 AM

The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 

rcocean 08-19-2011 01:03 PM

The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman
 
Here. Yes, Bill he should be the pro-science candidate, because that's why we elect presidents. Forget about the economy, national defense, judicial appointments, foreign policy, trade, and immigration. Huntsman will storm the Republican primaries by discussing evolution, string theory, and global warming.

Or be more literal, very few outside of 'Think progress' or BHTV care what a Presidential Candidate thinks about "science" or "evolution".

Goofy.

miceelf 08-19-2011 01:12 PM

Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 222476)
Here. Yes, Bill he should be the pro-science candidate, because that's why we elect presidents. Forget about the economy, national defense, judicial appointments, foreign policy, trade, and immigration. Huntsman will storm the Republican primaries by discussing evolution, string theory, and global warming.

Or be more literal, very few outside of 'Think progress' or BHTV care what a Presidential Candidate thinks about "science" or "evolution".

Goofy.

I think it's true that no one cares about science per se. (I suspect this is true of most in Think Progress as well). What many find, rightly or wrongly, troubling about some of the GOP in this regard isn't that they are inferior scientists, but that views on global warming and/or evolution are part of a broader pattern having to do with one of two things: 1) the degree to which the candidate is open to having their views informed by evidence, and 2) mental illness.

rcocean 08-19-2011 01:43 PM

The Correct response to questions about 'Science'
 
from Republicans candidates:

Im running for president not the school board, and my views on this subject are irrelevant. Science education should be left to the local authorities.

Or

"I'm not a scientist and haven't studied the issues enough to have expert opinion. I'm too busy studying the more important issues facing our country like the economy, trade, defense, and foreign policy".

That Republicans are constantly responding to these dopey Bible and Evolution questions just confirms they're members of the "Stupid Party".

Florian 08-19-2011 02:05 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Bill says that liberals are "disinterested" in a grand bargain on deficit reduction:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/382...2:15&out=32:27

Are they really disinterested or merely not interested, uninterested? Is "disinterested" a synonym for "sceptical" and "incredulous," as Bill goes on to imply? I don't think so. From an online dictionary:

Usage Note: In traditional usage, disinterested can only mean "having no stake in an outcome," as in Since the judge stands to profit from the sale of the company, she cannot be considered a disinterested party in the dispute. This usage was acceptable to 97 percent of the Usage Panel in our 2001 survey. But despite critical disapproval, disinterested has come to be widely used by many educated writers to mean "uninterested" or "having lost interest," as in Since she discovered skiing, she is disinterested in her schoolwork. Oddly enough, "not interested" is the oldest sense of the word, going back to the 17th century. This sense became outmoded in the 18th century but underwent a revival in the first quarter of the early 20th. Despite its resuscitation, this usage is widely considered an error. In our 2001 survey, 88 percent of the Usage Panel rejected the sentence It is difficult to imagine an approach better designed to prevent disinterested students from developing any intellectual maturity. This is not a significantly different proportion from the 89 percent who disapproved of a similar usage in 1988.

I think it is clear that liberals have a stake in the outcome of this debate. Therefore, they are not disinterested.

whburgess 08-19-2011 03:43 PM

Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222480)
I think it's true that no one cares about science per se. (I suspect this is true of most in Think Progress as well). What many find, rightly or wrongly, troubling about some of the GOP in this regard isn't that they are inferior scientists, but that views on global warming and/or evolution are part of a broader pattern having to do with one of two things: 1) the degree to which the candidate is open to having their views informed by evidence, and 2) mental illness.

Over 80% of Americans believe in creationism either in the form of intelligent designed evolution or the old fashioned way (A giant hand formed adam from a ball of clay?)

A growing number, approaching 50% now, believe the threat of global warming is exaggerated.

If a politician wants to get elected in order to make policy, the last thing he is concerned with is educating the public. Expressing his own views is also not that important; expressing the views of the voters is the most important thing. So, Perry seems to be doing what a politician who wants and expects to get elected does.

Attempting to educate the majority of the public on natural selection, or to embrace Algore's assessment of global warming as the greatest crises facing mankind, would be the insane thing for any politician to do.

Florian 08-19-2011 04:10 PM

Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222480)
I think it's true that no one cares about science per se. (I suspect this is true of most in Think Progress as well). What many find, rightly or wrongly, troubling about some of the GOP in this regard isn't that they are inferior scientists, but that views on global warming and/or evolution are part of a broader pattern having to do with one of two things: 1) the degree to which the candidate is open to having their views informed by evidence, and 2) mental illness.

I am pretty sure that it must be mental illness. All politicians have attended college (at least), so unless American colleges are doing a terrible job, what else could be the explanation for believing such things as creationism, or that global warming is a hoax? If whburgess is right and Republican politicians are merely feigning ignorance and stupidity in order to pander to their base (many of whom have also attended college), they are suffering from split-mindedness, otherwise known as schizophrenia.

whburgess 08-19-2011 04:23 PM

Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 222500)
I am pretty sure that it must be mental illness. All politicians have attended college (at least), so unless American colleges are doing a terrible job, what else could be the explanation for believing such things as creationism, or that global warming is a hoax? If whburgess is right and Republican politicians are merely feigning ignorance and stupidity in order to pander to their base (many of whom have also attended college), they are suffering from split-mindedness, otherwise known as schizophrenia.

My scientific mind is skeptical of the idea that the only way any educated person could believe God created the universe and human beings, is if they are 'schizophrenic'.

I'm also skeptical of the idea that schizophrenia is the only explanation for why anyone would believe that the global warming industry may be fueled by self-interest and politics in addition to disinterested science.

badhatharry 08-19-2011 04:25 PM

Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 222476)
Here. Yes, Bill he should be the pro-science candidate, because that's why we elect presidents. Forget about the economy, national defense, judicial appointments, foreign policy, trade, and immigration. Huntsman will storm the Republican primaries by discussing evolution, string theory, and global warming.

Or be more literal, very few outside of 'Think progress' or BHTV care what a Presidential Candidate thinks about "science" or "evolution".

Goofy.

Personally, before I ever become friends with someone, I ask him whether he believes in evolution. I mean, at every dinner party, the conversation is all around evolution. I just can't get enough of evolution. It's absolutely everywhere.

It would be interesting to give the folks at Thinkprogress a pop quiz about evolution to see how much they actually know.

Florian 08-19-2011 04:30 PM

Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 222503)
My scientific mind is skeptical of the idea that the only way any educated person could believe God created the universe and human beings, is if they are 'schizophrenic'.

I'm also skeptical of the idea that schizophrenia is the only explanation for why anyone would believe that the global warming industry may be fueled by self-interest and politics in addition to disinterested science.

I was being tongue-in-cheek. I am quite aware that schizophrenia is a serious mental illness. Etymologically, it means "split-mindedness":

1912, from Mod.L., lit. "a splitting of the mind," from Ger. Schizophrenie, coined in 1910 by Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler (1857-1939), from Gk. skhizein "to split" (see shed (v.)) + phren (gen. phrenos) "diaphragm, heart, mind," of unknown origin. Slang shortening schizo first attested 1920s as an adj., 1945 as a noun.

badhatharry 08-19-2011 04:31 PM

Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 222503)
My scientific mind is skeptical of the idea that the only way any educated person could believe God created the universe and human beings, is if they are 'schizophrenic'.

I'm also skeptical of the idea that schizophrenia is the only explanation for why anyone would believe that the global warming industry may be fueled by self-interest and politics in addition to disinterested science.

Most of us suffer from faithiness in something. There are just not enough hours in the day to be fully informed about anything. I think David Hume spelled this out a while back.

stephanie 08-19-2011 04:43 PM

Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 222503)
My scientific mind is skeptical of the idea that the only way any educated person could believe God created the universe and human beings, is if they are 'schizophrenic'.

This is not what is normally meant by "creationism," as I'm sure you know.

My best friend in jr high was a fundamentalist Christian who believed in creationism, the hard core kind in which the earth was young and there were never any dinosaurs. What made this more surprising to me at the time was that she was also an excellent science student and read a lot of popular science stuff. Her family's take on it, which is different than that of some creationists I've met, was that the evidence of evolution, the age of the earth, etc., was planted by God to test one's faith. Therefore, the empirical evidence could well support the scientific conclusions but those conclusions still be wrong. Based on this, learning science was fine, one just had to keep in mind that it wasn't reality.

I think this is pretty bizarre -- both in trying to wrap my mind around how that would affect conclusions about other things to think like that and from a theological standpoint. I would have thought a more common Christian notion was that God was truthful and thus that the evidence of the world wouldn't mislead us. Having learned more about theology, I think it could be a form of radical Calvinism -- total depravity affecting our ability to understand the world or some such. (And from a Dawkins-esque perspective, I guess all Christians or theists are involved in some form of this.)

But odd as I may find it, I think it bothers me less than the more common claim that scientists are just lying about the evidence or the efforts to twist science to support conclusions that it just doesn't support.

Anyway, I don't have a point here, it was just something the discussion made me think of.

(I lost touch with the friend in question years ago, so I don't know if she maintains that form of creationism, studied science in college, or what her views are on climate change.)

badhatharry 08-19-2011 04:51 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
This is interesting. So Perry may be on the right track!

I just wonder how the belief or skepticism about the evolution of the human race from another species would affect one's life in some important way.

harkin 08-19-2011 05:02 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Pro-science conservatives.....as opposed to pro-science liberals?

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/5148/agwaliens.jpg

AemJeff 08-19-2011 05:05 PM

Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 222503)
My scientific mind is skeptical of the idea that the only way any educated person could believe God created the universe and human beings, is if they are 'schizophrenic'.

...

It obviously wasn't meant literally. However a "scientific mind" should have a great deal of trouble with the statement "God created the universe" as a matter of epistemic import.

AemJeff 08-19-2011 05:14 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 222510)
...

I just wonder how the belief or skepticism about the evolution of the human race from another species would affect one's life in some important way.

It's a marker for stupidity and/or ignorance, firstly. Not appearing to be an idiot seems prima facie to be something important. If it's a belief held by a large number of people, it'll have the effect of making their lives more miserable, since the society they inhabit will be that much less likely to value reason and education, or even to understand the difference between knowledge and opinion.

AemJeff 08-19-2011 05:14 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 222512)
Pro-science conservatives.....as opposed to pro-science liberals?

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/5148/agwaliens.jpg

What exactly is your complaint?

Don Zeko 08-19-2011 05:18 PM

Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 222503)
I'm also skeptical of the idea that schizophrenia is the only explanation for why anyone would believe that the global warming industry may be fueled by self-interest and politics in addition to disinterested science.

What industry? Whose self-interest? I've never heard an account of this in which the interested parties are anywhere near capable of the conspiracy that this theory implies.

badhatharry 08-19-2011 05:30 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 222514)
It's a marker for stupidity and/or ignorance, firstly. Not appearing to be an idiot seems prima facie to be something important. If it's a belief held by a large number of people, it'll have the effect of making their lives more miserable, since the society they inhabit will be that much less likely to value reason and education, or even to understand the difference between knowledge and opinion.

Some people, actually most people, are probably a lot more tolerant of other's views (even if they disagree with them) than you are. As I said in my first post about this unless you are at the university, discussions around evolution are probably nil. I mean the closest thing would be standing at the rim of the Grand Canyon and hearing your aunt murmer something like "God is good'. Are you going to start arguing with her, think she's an ignorant fool or are you just going to give her a smile?

badhatharry 08-19-2011 05:36 PM

Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 222516)
What industry? Whose self-interest? I've never heard an account of this in which the interested parties are anywhere near capable of the conspiracy that this theory implies.

But there is definitely a conspiracy about denying AGW. That's for certain.

stephanie 08-19-2011 05:36 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 222514)
It's a marker for stupidity and/or ignorance, firstly. Not appearing to be an idiot seems prima facie to be something important. If it's a belief held by a large number of people, it'll have the effect of making their lives more miserable, since the society they inhabit will be that much less likely to value reason and education, or even to understand the difference between knowledge and opinion.

It's cynical. If it doesn't matter, why not acknowledge that you accept evolution? Because some portion of our population sees that as a culture war marker and sees those who accept evolution as inherently waging a war on God. That causes them to fight science education and to portray scientists as untrustworthy elitists and to basically reject facts or any ability to know anything, with the pop postmodernism of "there are different opinions on these things, and the evidence is too hard to worry about."

These attitudes toward science and toward reality are problematic. And to the extent there's a cynical use of the culture war it bothers me, since the culture war is in essence the demonization of mainstream liberals and American culture as destructive and ungodly and all the rest. I wish more would stand up to it, as Huntsman did and as Christie did (including re the don't appoint a Muslim judge thing).

badhatharry 08-19-2011 05:38 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 222515)
What exactly is your complaint?

yeah, isn't that basically the plot from The Day the Earth Stood Still?

AemJeff 08-19-2011 05:41 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 222517)
Some people, actually most people, are probably a lot more tolerant of other's views (even if they disagree with them) than you are. As I said in my first post about this unless you are at the university, discussions around evolution are probably nil. I mean the closest thing would be standing at the rim of the Grand Canyon and hearing your aunt murmer something like "God is good'. Are you going to think she's an ignorant fool or are you just going to give her a smile?

"Tolerance" isn't what I was discussing, nor was "agreement" at issue in what I said. Regardless of whether you're "at the University," understanding the difference between facts - even abstract facts - and opinions is a basic tool without which one is ill-equipped to fully participate in a modern society. Holding some peculiar belief about evolution is a pretty clear sign that a person doesn't make that distinction in a functionally relevant way. I would assume ignorance, not foolishness in the context of your hypothetical - also, my opinion wouldn't matter at all.

AemJeff 08-19-2011 05:44 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 222520)
yeah, isn't that basically the plot from The Day the Earth Stood Still?

Heh. harkin displayed a headline, without a link or any hint about the content of an underlying article. So what's the point here?

harkin 08-19-2011 05:52 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 222515)
What exactly is your complaint?

Holy fleurking schnit!

I mean.....um......no problem at all dood.......as you were.

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/172/tinhatedt.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry
yeah, isn't that basically the plot from The Day the Earth Stood Still?

Actually, it's kind of the reverse, in the film, the aliens were threatening to prevent man's horrible weapons and aggresiveness from venturing forth into the galaxy. In this new bit of deep thinking, aliens are going to destroy humanity before humanity can destroy humanity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff
Heh. harkin displayed a headline, without a link or any hint about the content of an underlying article.

"Rising greenhouse emissions could tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report" would be a hint of content to most folks but I accept your assessment regarding your own powers of deduction.

badhatharry 08-19-2011 05:54 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 222521)
"Tolerance" isn't what I was discussing, nor was "agreement" at issue in what I said. Regardless of whether you're "at the University," understanding the difference between facts - even abstract facts - and opinions is a basic tool without which one is ill-equipped to fully participate in a modern society. Holding some peculiar belief about evolution is a pretty clear sign that a person doesn't make that distinction in a functionally relevant way. I would assume ignorance, not foolishness in the context of your hypothetical - also, my opinion wouldn't matter at all.

Sorry, I just don't see that whether or not you accept evolution as the explanation of why things are the way they are has much of an effect on a person's quality of life in a modern society or makes one ill equiped to function in it.

rcocean 08-19-2011 05:54 PM

Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 222505)
Personally, before I ever become friends with someone, I ask him whether he believes in evolution. I mean, at every dinner party, the conversation is all around evolution. I just can't get enough of evolution. It's absolutely everywhere.

It would be interesting to give the folks at Thinkprogress a pop quiz about evolution to see how much they actually know.

I'd love to give MSM journalists the same quiz. Can you imagine the answers Chris Matthews would give (lol)? I'm sure they all think the following:

1) Evolution was invented by Charles Darwin on HMS Beagle after visiting the Galapagos.
2) Evolution and Darwin's theory of Natural Selection has been proven by massive amounts of fossil records and other evidence - and is scientific proven fact - like the earth circles the sun. There are no Gaps.
3) Anyone who questions any part of Darwin's evolution theory is ignorant and/or a right-wing extremist.
4) In red state America vast Christian mobs roam the countryside demanding schools teach that God created the earth 6,000 years old.

I doubt their "Knowledge" extends beyond this.

whburgess 08-19-2011 05:55 PM

Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 222508)
This is not what is normally meant by "creationism," as I'm sure you know.

I'm referring to supposedly 'scientific' creationism, rather then the biblical expression, taken at face value, that "God formed a human out of clay and breathed life into him" form. The latter is a mythological expression that is very compatible with the science of natural selection, in my opinion.


Quote:

My best friend in jr high was a fundamentalist Christian who believed in creationism, the hard core kind in which the earth was young and there were never any dinosaurs. What made this more surprising to me at the time was that she was also an excellent science student and read a lot of popular science stuff. Her family's take on it, which is different than that of some creationists I've met, was that the evidence of evolution, the age of the earth, etc., was planted by God to test one's faith. Therefore, the empirical evidence could well support the scientific conclusions but those conclusions still be wrong. Based on this, learning science was fine, one just had to keep in mind that it wasn't reality.

I think this is pretty bizarre -- both in trying to wrap my mind around how that would affect conclusions about other things to think like that and from a theological standpoint. I would have thought a more common Christian notion was that God was truthful and thus that the evidence of the world wouldn't mislead us. Having learned more about theology, I think it could be a form of radical Calvinism -- total depravity affecting our ability to understand the world or some such. (And from a Dawkins-esque perspective, I guess all Christians or theists are involved in some form of this.)
I think the Calvinistic doctrine that God creates delusions for some people he chooses to damn and gives faith to some he chooses to save, completely apart from any qualities within the persons themselves, and based on his own mysteriously unknowable will, certainly would give a great deal of support to these ideas your friend had.

However, in my own experience of growing up devout in a fundamentalist home, the idea that the Bible is without factual error and anyone who doubts this is on the highway to hell plays a more direct causal role in this. Although Calvinism in its purist form, as described above, is much derided by fundamentalists, in that they say God chooses and enlightens those who seek him, but the vestige of Calvinism remains in that He sends delusions to those who don't choose Him.

My own experience with those fundamentalist authorities in my life that I respected most was that they would simply say "We don't know just how God did it or how long he took to do it, the important thing is to acknowledge he did do it, and to respond accordingly". Every now and then though, I'd encounter a minister who took pains to publicly preach that God created the world with dinosaur bones already in it, in order to send delusions to those people who would choose to believe this evidence over His Holy Word. I found this highly offensive, and was disappointed that others, even those who didn't agree with this, weren't offended as well. Just one reason among many that I'm not a fundamentalist christian anymore.

Quote:


But odd as I may find it, I think it bothers me less than the more common claim that scientists are just lying about the evidence or the efforts to twist science to support conclusions that it just doesn't support.

I think very few people who call global warming a hoax believe that some scientists got together with a conscious written plan to delude the public, get grant money, bring in venture capitalists, create a carbon market exchange, create companies which would make them wildly rich in these markets, and influence governmental policy to make this happen. And are now in the process of putting this plan into effect while taking time to giggle diabolically in chorus now and then.

I believe it is possible, although not necessarily the case, that there is some fraudulent aspects of the Global warming industry. Here are some factors that cause me to believe this.

I believe it highly possible that the scientific establishment is very diverse and the branches among themselves depend largely on the findings of the others without actually knowing the science itself. Much in the same way that many of us non scientists do.

There is considerable evidence that some of the climate scientists regarded as most influential in GW alarmism were defensive, in a very unscientific way, to critics. Particularly when some of their findings were proven to be substantially flawed.

When I am told, by a politician, that a consensus has formed and the debate is over, and yet I still see debates and articles by reputable and respected scientists who disagree.

When companies have formed to take advantage of 'markets' which will be created whole cloth from government policy, and the people who support this are either ex politicians who will financially and publicly benefit enormously or they are capitalists who will do so. And all these people have pooled their efforts to influence public policy into one political party.

When the MSM, which in my view are in the pocket of one political party, use every occasion of notable weather, whether its overly warm, overly cold, overly windy, overly dry, overly wet, etc, as proof that global warming is happening.

When the very alarming statements and outrageous statements are made by scientists who play a central role in the United Nations study on the subject are allowed to continue making those statements and holding their position until they are outed by skeptics.

When global warming skeptics, some of who are respected reputable scientists, are equated with holocaust deniers or flat earthers. I ask myself, why are these people so hysterical or more likely, why are they so desperate to politically marginalize skeptics?

I could go on.

However, regarding my own position, I do believe that human activity influences the climate in the long term, and that this has some potential to be devastating both to the ecosystem and to humans.

However, I don't trust everything I read about the risk assessment and the resulting policy prescriptions. I very much support continued funding in studying this, and I hope those who are alarmed and responsible for informing the public will find a more convincing, i.e. less political, way to present their side of the story. Because a lot is at stake and I want to hear what they have to say.

And if someone else takes a more skeptical view then I do, for the reasons I gave above, I can't blame them really.

AemJeff 08-19-2011 05:59 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 222519)
It's cynical. If it doesn't matter, why not acknowledge that you accept evolution? Because some portion of our population sees that as a culture war marker and sees those who accept evolution as inherently waging a war on God. That causes them to fight science education and to portray scientists as untrustworthy elitists and to basically reject facts or any ability to know anything, with the pop postmodernism of "there are different opinions on these things, and the evidence is too hard to worry about."

These attitudes toward science and toward reality are problematic. And to the extent there's a cynical use of the culture war it bothers me, since the culture war is in essence the demonization of mainstream liberals and American culture as destructive and ungodly and all the rest. I wish more would stand up to it, as Huntsman did and as Christie did (including re the don't appoint a Muslim judge thing).

You're right, when a Rick Perry expresses something like this it's pure cynicism. I'd still argue that for people without something tangible at stake, like high public office, that prizing cultural markers over the underlying epistemic issues is evidence of a form of ignorance, or an inability to understand the underlying importance of the epistemic issue.

(I guess calling it an "epistemic issue" might seem to dress it up a bit and sound a little high-falutin' to some ears - but this is obviously not some abstruse, irrelevant philosophical cul-de-sac. The issue is "What counts as knowledge?" We ought to be able to agree about that in broad outline - and generally I think most of us do.)

badhatharry 08-19-2011 06:02 PM

Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 222525)
2) Evolution and Darwin's theory of Natural Selection has been proven by massive amounts of fossil records and other evidence - and is scientific proven fact - like the earth circles the sun. There are no Gaps.

From what I have gathered, Darwin's theory has been confirmed because of the phenomenon it was able to predict correctly. It has done this quite impressively.

Kind of like the theory of relativity was confirmed by a solar eclipse in 1919, three years after Einstein published it.

AemJeff 08-19-2011 06:02 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 222523)
Holy fleurking schnit!

I mean.....um......no problem at all dood.......as you were.

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/172/tinhatedt.jpg



Actually, it's kind of the reverse, in the film, the aliens were threatening to prevent man's horrible weapons and aggresiveness from venturing forth into the galaxy. In this new bit of deep thinking, aliens are going to destroy humanity before humanity can destroy humanity.



"Rising greenhouse emissions could tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report" would be a hint of content to most folks but I accept your assessment regarding your own powers of deduction.


You still haven't actually produced an article, or even an argument, despite a huge hint. But nice pic!

whburgess 08-19-2011 06:08 PM

Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 222513)
It obviously wasn't meant literally. However a "scientific mind" should have a great deal of trouble with the statement "God created the universe" as a matter of epistemic import.

I think a scientific mind recognizes statements often express matters of import to human beings even if there is no scientifically epistimic import.

miceelf 08-19-2011 06:11 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 222517)
Some people, actually most people, are probably a lot more tolerant of other's views (even if they disagree with them) than you are.

It depends on the view, doesn't it? That's why there are all of these polls about whether someone would, under any circumstance, vote for an atheist or a Muslim. Because most people are tolerant of others' views.

It's also why people don't even bother asking about how many people would vote for a wiccan or satanist for president. Tolerance.

People never ever ever form impressions of other people based on their views.

miceelf 08-19-2011 06:13 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 222515)
What exactly is your complaint?

I think he assumes that if he googled "scientist" and found something that seemed strange, attributed to "scientists", it would prove that every scientist, everywhere agrees with said thing.

Because, you know, scientists are notorious for their universal agreement with each other about everything. They never get involved in petty squabbles about stuff or anything.

badhatharry 08-19-2011 06:23 PM

Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 222525)
3) Anyone who questions any part of Darwin's evolution theory is ignorant and/or a right-wing extremist.

PS. Actually parts of Darwin's theory have been questioned by people other than right wing extremists. For instance, Darwin claimed that the only mechanism for evolution is natural selection. Since he first published his treatise several other mechanism have been added: biased mutation, genetic drift and gene flow.

badhatharry 08-19-2011 06:27 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222531)
It depends on the view, doesn't it? That's why there are all of these polls about whether someone would, under any circumstance, vote for an atheist or a Muslim. Because most people are tolerant of others' views.

It's also why people don't even bother asking about how many people would vote for a wiccan or satanist for president. Tolerance.

People never ever ever form impressions of other people based on their views.

I never said that people shouldn't form impressions of other people based on their views. That's what people do pretty much all of the time. But to call the whole person ignorant or crazy or stupid because of some belief you don't happen to share is what I would call intolerant. What someone believes about evolution or satanism doesn't affect me or mine at all.

badhatharry 08-19-2011 06:32 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 222529)
You still haven't actually produced an article, or even an argument, despite a huge hint. But nice pic!

How's about this?

whburgess 08-19-2011 06:49 PM

Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 222528)
From what I have gathered, Darwin's theory has been confirmed because of the phenomenon it was able to predict correctly. It has done this quite impressively.

Kind of like the theory of relativity was confirmed by a solar eclipse in 1919, three years after Einstein published it.

There is some of this in experiments in bacteria, but this has been relatively recently.

Other then this, evolution is so slow you can't really predict how more slowly replicating species will evolve. The predictions were based in things like Darwin prediction, after looking at orchids in Madascar, that a moth would be found with a tongue as long as the orchid (a foot long or more), and the moth was found some years later.
There are many examples of this sort of thing.

I think the genome is now turning up the best evidence for evolution..its fascinating.

harkin 08-19-2011 06:54 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 222529)
Heh. harkin displayed a headline, without a link or any hint about the content of an underlying article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 222529)
You still haven't actually produced an article, or even an argument, despite a huge hint.

Progress! We went from without any hint to a huge hint in a matter of minutes.

Speaking of hints, I'm sorry that the website, the section, the topic, the name of the writer and the date are still not enough for you find the article. I know you can do it, you have the technology.

And I'm making no argument whatever; this is the best article regarding man-made global warming errrrrrrrrrr man-made climate change errrrrrrrrrr man-made threats to humanity errrrrrrrrr man-made threats to the galaxy I've seen so far.

Sulla the Dictator 08-19-2011 06:55 PM

Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 222516)
What industry? Whose self-interest? I've never heard an account of this in which the interested parties are anywhere near capable of the conspiracy that this theory implies.

You don't think that there will be massive financial gain in the exchange of carbon credits?

You don't think that there are global warming adherants who, coincidentally, favor the transfer of wealth from the first world to the third?

You aren't aware of the scams that have occurred in the "carbon offset" business, already?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.