Am 14.01.2017 um 13:25 schrieb Patrick Elliott:

>>> What I actually find even more worrying is the growing scepticism about
>>> the press. Free journalism plays an important role in any free society,
>>> and widespread distrust in it might be just as disruptive to its
>>> function as anything else.
>>>
>>
>> You are absolutely right.
>>
> Mind you, in this case, one needs to make a distinction between a "free
> press", which may not have entirely ever existed, and one solely owned,
> and directed, by specific people and ideologies. When one person owns
> 90% of the press on one side of the line, and the other side is owned,
> again, by a similarly small handful of corporations, with their own
> roughly uniform agenda... where is the "free" coming in exactly. Most of
> radio is now owned by conservatives, who run the same people on there as
> Fox News. Worse, the only opposition to them, on TV at least, is MSNBC,
[...]

Mind you, what you are describing is the situation in the US.

I, on the other hand, am also (and in fact even more) worried about
stuff happening over here in Germany, where at least a reasonable
portion of the news media is indeed (according to my view of things)
quite independent.

It is /particularly/ this independent portion of news media that has
recently become more and more frequently titulated as "Lügenpresse"
("lies press").

Post a reply to this message

On 1/14/2017 12:49 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 14.01.2017 um 13:25 schrieb Patrick Elliott:
>
>>>> What I actually find even more worrying is the growing scepticism about
>>>> the press. Free journalism plays an important role in any free society,
>>>> and widespread distrust in it might be just as disruptive to its
>>>> function as anything else.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are absolutely right.
>>>
>> Mind you, in this case, one needs to make a distinction between a "free
>> press", which may not have entirely ever existed, and one solely owned,
>> and directed, by specific people and ideologies. When one person owns
>> 90% of the press on one side of the line, and the other side is owned,
>> again, by a similarly small handful of corporations, with their own
>> roughly uniform agenda... where is the "free" coming in exactly. Most of
>> radio is now owned by conservatives, who run the same people on there as
>> Fox News. Worse, the only opposition to them, on TV at least, is MSNBC,
> [...]
>
> Mind you, what you are describing is the situation in the US.
>
> I, on the other hand, am also (and in fact even more) worried about
> stuff happening over here in Germany, where at least a reasonable
> portion of the news media is indeed (according to my view of things)
> quite independent.
>
> It is /particularly/ this independent portion of news media that has
> recently become more and more frequently titulated as "Lügenpresse"
> ("lies press").
>
Already being done here in the US. Even as far back as when Palin was 
running as VP (shudder), she and others have been rambling about how the 
"main stream media" are all liars (while apparently Fox didn't count as 
one of them, for some reason). Our new idiot in chief Trumpkins has, in 
the mean time, praised a penny dreadful (as the brits call them) called 
the National Enquirer as, "One of the best news sources in print", or 
something to the effect. This silly assed rag mag has been pushing BS 
about everything from celebrities to Democrats, ranging from the still 
not dead birther BS, to trying to claim that, "If the Russians where 
really mixing up in the election, it was those losers, the Clintons they 
where helping!!" About.. 10 years ago, I guess, they where also the 
paper that bought out one called, "The Weekly World News", which... lets 
say we call it the rag that would be most likely to be consulted in the 
fictional universe of Men In Black about whether or not "The Bat Boy", 
had recently been discovered to have come from Alpha Centauri, and his 
alien parents where due to arrive to recover him.

Basically... you will find nitwits with Info War bumper stickers running 
around the US (the number one, "We believe every right wing conspiracy 
theory there is, even the ones that contradict each other.", website on 
the internet, who think the only legit TV news is Fox. What you won't 
find, at least in the city/state I am in, would be someone with a bumper 
sticker praising... anything that actually bothers to do real research 
on their stories. In fact... even the ones that actually, usually, as 
the other replying put it, is, "The one print media that actually checks 
their facts.", has been caught advocating things that are *not* factual, 
but fit the narrative of what their readers believe (usually involving 
alternative medicines, claimed, but not factually correct breakthroughs, 
etc. Though, this seems to be more of an author issue - they picked 
people to write for them with serious biases, who are impervious, on 
those subjects, to actual facts, or contradictory explanations/positions.

The problem, sadly, is that they are all becoming Russel's Teapotters. 
For so, so, many of them, popularity of an idea is more important than 
whether its backed by facts. Worse, for some the idea have become 
religion, and, like with the Tea Pot, once its cast as, "It must be 
there!", anyone, whether they have facts, or merely opinion, to the 
contrary, must be mentally unbalanced for not accepting it. So, you get 
some bloody idiot, in a paper who, on every other subject, actually does 
fact checking, who calls everyone fools for not believing that their 
"Teapot" will cure your cancer, and all but calling you a fool for not 
accepting this.

Some days it makes be dispair, because.. with fact checking itself being 
deemed either "too hard" or "unnecessary" to merely "report people's 
opinions", i.e., its not their job to tell you which one is pulling it 
out of their ass, even if they don't have an agenda of their own... how 
do you convince anyone to either a) stop doing this absurd nonsense, 
when supposedly reporting news, or b) actually start doing what they 
need to inform the public - which is make sure that the public knows 
which one of the two is lying their ass off, or merely making shit up, 
instead of presenting an evidenced opinion?

When even the ones that usually get things right publish complete BS, 
with no factual basis. Or, worse, in my opinion, a "factual basis" that 
is based on bad studies, with small sample sizes, which amount to pure 
opinion and speculation.... who do you trust then? Not everyone, even 
those with internet access, know where, or who, to go to, among actual 
scientists, or any other legit source, to find out if the story was 
based on, say, 20 years of research, and a credible claim, or either a) 
a leftist version of a study, conducted on 5 people, who already believe 
in the effects of stuffing mushrooms up their ass, or something.., or b) 
a right wing study, which turns out to have been shoveled out the door 
of some study farm, like Cato, which just makes shit up, whole cloth, 
without actually even doing a study at all.

What ever the press once aspired to, it has discovered, almost 
universally, across the board, that fiction pays more than telling the 
public they are actually wrong about what they believe. And.. when that 
happens... how do you salvage it?

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.01.2017 um 20:26 schrieb Patrick Elliott:

> What ever the press once aspired to, it has discovered, almost
> universally, across the board, that fiction pays more than telling the
> public they are actually wrong about what they believe. And.. when that
> happens... how do you salvage it?

In Germany, the solution is pretty simple: The commercial media are
complemented by a set of publicly financed radio and TV stations,
semi-controlled at the federal states level. We all pay most of their
budget through a kind of dedicated tax, and in turn they are obligated
to provide not only entertainment but also educational and informational
programs, and their shows include some dedicated to genuine
investigative journalism, produced by sub-stations attached to federal
states with different political "tint", which helps to keep the entire
blend reasonably neutral as a whole.

Of course in a country where capitalism is the state religion, and where
having any government-directed social traits in the society is perceived
as socialism, socialism is perceived as synonymous with communism, and
communism is perceived as identical with Stalinism, that concept
obviously won't fly.

In other words: Yes, you're screwed. I guess you've always been, ever
since the day you allowed religious fanatics to immigrate into your
country, whose agenda has always been to impose their religion as law
upon the whole continent.

I'm talking of course about the Puritans and similar riff-raff.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/15/2017 1:39 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 15.01.2017 um 20:26 schrieb Patrick Elliott:
>
>> What ever the press once aspired to, it has discovered, almost
>> universally, across the board, that fiction pays more than telling the
>> public they are actually wrong about what they believe. And.. when that
>> happens... how do you salvage it?
>
> Of course in a country where capitalism is the state religion, and where
> having any government-directed social traits in the society is perceived
> as socialism, socialism is perceived as synonymous with communism, and
> communism is perceived as identical with Stalinism, that concept
> obviously won't fly.
>
Yep. We have NPR, which isn't always sensible, and PBS, which doesn't 
carry much news, let alone anything else. Both have been lambasted as 
liberal havens, which is hardly a surprise, since, as one blogger has 
commented, "Reality has a liberal bias." lol But, they also fall prey to 
some of the same errors I mentioned with the printed press - support for 
ideas not due to being factual, but being both popular, and liberal. 
This might be correctable, again, if not for the fact that they are also 
constantly in a state of being threatened with, or in the process of, 
being attacked and defunded by the right wing.

And, you are definitely right about the capitalism as a religion thing. 
Stupid morons are trying to gut the ACA (Affordable Care Act), even as 
they try to repeal it, stating, "Government subsidies will ruin health 
care. What we need instead of even looser regulations on insurance 
companies, and fewer complications for them.", or some stupid BS like 
that. Because.. the fact that they are the ones refusing to work across 
state lines, constantly raising costs, refusing to provide coverage for 
things, and arguing against having to cover people, who *might* actually 
need the insurance (instead of just the ones that will pay into it and 
never/rarely use it), has nothing to do with why so many people are 
still without any, and even the people with it can't bloody afford 
doctor visits. Oh, no, as usually, according to the bloody idiots that, 
in one case, actually used a picture from the Bioshock game's fictional, 
hyper-libertarian, propaganda on their own political website (while 
totally failing to recognize the irony, or nature of the game)- "The 
market will always fix things, if you just let it do what ever the F it 
wants, and everyone gets out of the way."

But, there is a backlash already. One ass had to sneak out of a town 
hall meeting early, due to the 150 completely hostile people that showed 
up, demanding to know how the frak they would keep their insurance, 
given their individual situations, if they gut, and never replace, all 
the provisions that specifically exist to make sure they can currently 
get it at all, like the one for pre-existing conditions. lol

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

Am 16.01.2017 um 13:43 schrieb Patrick Elliott:

> But, there is a backlash already. One ass had to sneak out of a town
> hall meeting early, due to the 150 completely hostile people that showed
> up, demanding to know how the frak they would keep their insurance,
> given their individual situations, if they gut, and never replace, all
> the provisions that specifically exist to make sure they can currently
> get it at all, like the one for pre-existing conditions. lol

Sounds like he was worried he might be gutted himself...

Post a reply to this message

On 1/16/2017 8:05 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 16.01.2017 um 13:43 schrieb Patrick Elliott:
>
>> But, there is a backlash already. One ass had to sneak out of a town
>> hall meeting early, due to the 150 completely hostile people that showed
>> up, demanding to know how the frak they would keep their insurance,
>> given their individual situations, if they gut, and never replace, all
>> the provisions that specifically exist to make sure they can currently
>> get it at all, like the one for pre-existing conditions. lol
>
> Sounds like he was worried he might be gutted himself...
>
lol Yeah. There has been a massive backlash over this, once people 
figured out that, "Whoops, this Obamacare thing is actually what I have 
my insurance through, and the people I stupidly helped elect want to 
kill it over *all of the stuff I actually like about it*."

Apparently, listening to the people that have been telling them all 
along that Trump, the Tea Party, and all these damn American 
hyper-libertarians was cutting our collective throats wasn't enough. Two 
of the most perfect cartoons for this idiocy too, both commented on by a 
blogger I read a lot today:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2017/01/thetest.jpg
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2017/01/The-Church-Unprophetic.jpg

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Christoph's had some worrying aspects about how science is
> viewed/presented in a popular way. This is another - darker - aspect:
>
>
http://www.nature.com/news/fantasy-politics-over-fetal-tissue-research-1.21263?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20170112&spMailingID=5
3176252&spUserID=MjA1NzUyMzA4OAS2&spJobID=1082042362&spReportId=MTA4MjA0MjM2MgS2
>
> --
> Thomas

Is your faith not shaken in "scientific" polling?

Post a reply to this message

On 1/12/2017 3:09 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Christoph's had some worrying aspects about how science is
> viewed/presented in a popular way. This is another - darker - aspect:
>
>
http://www.nature.com/news/fantasy-politics-over-fetal-tissue-research-1.21263?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20170112&spMailingID=53176252&spUserID=MjA1NzUyMzA4OAS2&spJobID=1082042362&spReportId=MTA4MjA0MjM2MgS2
>
>

A lot of things in medical research (or even in cosmetics, shampoos, 
etc.) suck. But the alternatives suck too.



Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 9-3-2017 21:37, Shay wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Christoph's had some worrying aspects about how science is
>> viewed/presented in a popular way. This is another - darker - aspect:
>>
>>
http://www.nature.com/news/fantasy-politics-over-fetal-tissue-research-1.21263?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20170112&spMailingID=5
> 3176252&spUserID=MjA1NzUyMzA4OAS2&spJobID=1082042362&spReportId=MTA4MjA0MjM2MgS2
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>
> Is your faith not shaken in "scientific" polling?
>

I am foremost concerned these days by the way in which science and 
scientific results are simply dismissed as irrelevant, lies, if not 
'evil', by any person without the training/knowledge and for reasons of 
his/her own, those being political and/or religious. Climate change is a 
good example, especially in the US.

On the other hand, I agree with Mike in being concerned by some 
'scientific' developments, especially in the areas of cosmetics and such 
which only concern the money bag and which exploit human vanity and 
futility. One can also be concerned for instance by the ridiculous 
prices being asked for by laboratories for whole ranges of medicines 
being developed for different ailments. However, what are alternatives?

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 9-3-2017 21:37, Shay wrote:
> >
> > Is your faith not shaken in "scientific" polling?
> >
>
> I am foremost concerned these days by the way in which science and
> scientific results are simply dismissed as irrelevant, lies, if not
> 'evil', by any person without the training/knowledge and for reasons of
> his/her own, those being political and/or religious.

You don't seem interested in the "scientific" polling question. Let's skip it.
Let's put aside all questions of bias and any reservations about the
shortcomings (and, in some areas, terrible track record) of induction. Let us
accept, for the moment, "science", not as a methodology, but as our
best-available equivalent of absolute truth.

Do you believe in science yourself? Do you eat junk food or charred meat? Watch
television within 1/2 hour of bedtime? Drink soda? Buy lottery tickets?

Science can only advise us to "Do THIS to achieve THAT." The value of THAT is a
meta-ethical proposition. We can (possibly) debate the comparative merits of
such propositions, but we'll need more sophisticated tools than "science QED" to
do so.

As for explicit denial of "science", everyone I've ever met is an implicit
deny-er of some sort.

"Believers" implicitly deny the existence of God by acting differently in public
than in private.

"Non-believers" implicitly deny a deterministic universe by offering (or even
accepting) value propositions.

The person who says "I don't /believe/ in the Big Bang"--as in "Evidence of the
Big Bang does not inform my behaviors or moral intuitions"--is arguably offering
a more rigorous description of a belief we all share.

My only point is that "science" is a poor, lazy argument for the /value/ of
fetal stem cells (or any other kind of organ harvesting).

Post a reply to this message