|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/10/2017 2:19 PM, Shay wrote:
> 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.
What "scientific" polling question? What am I missing?
> 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.
>
I won't. Science is a methodology. And any "scientist" that talks about
"absolute truth" is not worthy of the name. Whenever do you hear or read
the phrase "to the best of our knowledge"? Because that is all we can
say, in my opinion.
> 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?
>
Foe me the answers are: Sometimes, very seldom, sometimes, never, seldom
and never. Not because of "Science" but because they don't interest me.
> 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.
>
I will agree that. Most people I know are or have been in denial of
something at one time or another. Myself included. It is part of the
human condition. It helps us get through life. (Only to regret it later,
if we can.)
> "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).
>
>
Yes, I agree with that. I'll make no judgement on using "Science" as a
justification for a belief system. I lost my faith in "Science" when my
chemistry teacher showed us an experiment to electrolyse water into
hydrogen and oxygen. He lied. He electrolysed dilute sulphuric acid into
hydrogen and oxygen. H2O is such a good insulator it takes between 65 ~
70 million volts to pass a current through a meter of the liquid.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 3/10/2017 2:19 PM, Shay wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> I won't. Science is a methodology. And any "scientist" that talks about
> "absolute truth" is not worthy of the name. Whenever do you hear or read
> the phrase "to the best of our knowledge"? Because that is all we can
> say, in my opinion.
"Best-available equivalent to absolute truth" vs "to the best of our knowledge."
I think we're on the same page here.
I put aside the distinction between science (the methodology) and one of the
above in order to parse the phrase "science deny-er."
Of course, I put aside a lot more than that. I completely bypassed any arguments
regarding the potential for corruption between "scientific results" and "what is
presented as true 'to the best of our knowledge.'" That's where I was going with
the "scientific" polling, but Thomas didn't seem interested, and applicability
is a stronger point besides.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/10/2017 6:49 PM, Shay wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 3/10/2017 2:19 PM, Shay wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> I won't. Science is a methodology. And any "scientist" that talks about
>> "absolute truth" is not worthy of the name. Whenever do you hear or read
>> the phrase "to the best of our knowledge"? Because that is all we can
>> say, in my opinion.
>
> "Best-available equivalent to absolute truth" vs "to the best of our knowledge."
> I think we're on the same page here.
>
Yes I think we are. I didn't realise that until the end of your post.
> I put aside the distinction between science (the methodology) and one of the
> above in order to parse the phrase "science deny-er."
>
Again I didn't get that until I was writing my reply.
> Of course, I put aside a lot more than that. I completely bypassed any arguments
> regarding the potential for corruption between "scientific results" and "what is
> presented as true 'to the best of our knowledge.'" That's where I was going with
> the "scientific" polling,
True, there is too much to go into. Unless you don't mind TL;DR ;)
But Scientists are human too and can worry about where the next project
is coming from or they might be fundamentalists. Or as you say/imply
they might have no morals.
Personally I prefer engineering. 'Cause if you can't hit it with a
hammer or a shifting spanner (monkey wrench). It won't stand up. ;)
> but Thomas didn't seem interested, and applicability
> is a stronger point besides.
>
Well I misunderstood your post to start off with and English is my
native language. (Sae te speak. :) )
We will wait until the morning to see.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-3-2017 20:45, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/10/2017 6:49 PM, Shay wrote:
>> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>> On 3/10/2017 2:19 PM, Shay wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> I won't. Science is a methodology. And any "scientist" that talks about
>>> "absolute truth" is not worthy of the name. Whenever do you hear or read
>>> the phrase "to the best of our knowledge"? Because that is all we can
>>> say, in my opinion.
>>
>> "Best-available equivalent to absolute truth" vs "to the best of our
>> knowledge."
>> I think we're on the same page here.
>>
>
> Yes I think we are. I didn't realise that until the end of your post.
>
>> I put aside the distinction between science (the methodology) and one
>> of the
>> above in order to parse the phrase "science deny-er."
>>
>
> Again I didn't get that until I was writing my reply.
>
>
>> Of course, I put aside a lot more than that. I completely bypassed any
>> arguments
>> regarding the potential for corruption between "scientific results"
>> and "what is
>> presented as true 'to the best of our knowledge.'" That's where I was
>> going with
>> the "scientific" polling,
>
> True, there is too much to go into. Unless you don't mind TL;DR ;)
> But Scientists are human too and can worry about where the next project
> is coming from or they might be fundamentalists. Or as you say/imply
> they might have no morals.
> Personally I prefer engineering. 'Cause if you can't hit it with a
> hammer or a shifting spanner (monkey wrench). It won't stand up. ;)
>
>
>> but Thomas didn't seem interested, and applicability
>> is a stronger point besides.
>>
>
> Well I misunderstood your post to start off with and English is my
> native language. (Sae te speak. :) )
> We will wait until the morning to see.
>
I am only online a couple of hours each day, so most of the discussion
is bypassing me so to speak.
Just to resume a few catch words that are dropped here: when speaking
about science, terms of 'faith', 'believe', and such are irrelevant.
Science is not a faith nor a believe; like a former colleague used to
say: "models are to be used, not believed". I am afraid that many people
think that 'science' is a kind of 'faith', which it is emphatically not.
In short, I tend to avoid that kind of discussions. Other wise, I agree
with what Stephen said earlier.
About "scientific" polling, I have not the slightest idea what that
could be. In my view, polling is the application of statistical models
based on assumptions and applied on what humans are thought to think ;-)
I have never taken a serious look at any polling results in my life
Oh I forgot: "Do you eat junk food or charred meat? Watch
television within 1/2 hour of bedtime? Drink soda? Buy lottery tickets?"
The answers are: no, no, no, no, and no. :-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/11/2017 7:56 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I am only online a couple of hours each day, so most of the discussion
> is bypassing me so to speak.
>
> Just to resume a few catch words that are dropped here: when speaking
> about science, terms of 'faith', 'believe', and such are irrelevant.
> Science is not a faith nor a believe; like a former colleague used to
> say: "models are to be used, not believed". I am afraid that many people
> think that 'science' is a kind of 'faith', which it is emphatically not.
> In short, I tend to avoid that kind of discussions. Other wise, I agree
> with what Stephen said earlier.
>
Science, for some, has become another form of religion. They might not
understand the details but they have "Faith". It is probably one of the
reasons that Mr Trump is able to "rubbish" experts. A lot of people are
loosing their faith. For lots of reasons.
> About "scientific" polling, I have not the slightest idea what that
> could be. In my view, polling is the application of statistical models
> based on assumptions and applied on what humans are thought to think ;-)
> I have never taken a serious look at any polling results in my life
>
If it has any meaning. I think it is modern American usage.
> Oh I forgot: "Do you eat junk food or charred meat? Watch
> television within 1/2 hour of bedtime? Drink soda? Buy lottery tickets?"
>
> The answers are: no, no, no, no, and no. :-)
But I bet you eat old cheese. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|