Random Politics & Religion #00

Because there's a growing amount of people who view science like you do. As a "belief" that's somehow on par with religion or witchcraft or whatever.

It's why homeopathy is on the rise. Because people think somehow that clinically proven medicines are bad (which they can be, at times, with side effects that were not seen on initial trial), but then they take it so far as to say that drinking special water is every bit as valid as say, chemo, for cancer.

And that is patently false, proven false, and absolutely idiotic. As is sitting around hoping your god randomly takes away your cancer.

But somehow we're all just supposed to be okay with them grandstanding on a national level, where people who don't know any better then, in turn, believe them.

The harm being caused is greater than many people want to believe.

This is what happens when celebrity and politicians hijack the word 'science' for their own propaganda.

I'm mostly just baffled by the number of "scientific" studies out there that reach the public eye and influence people but are absolute junk. Science done well is a thing of beauty, but unfortunately a vast majority of the population can't tell the difference. Instead we have incorrigible jackwagons who believe everything they hear with the word "science" attached to it and anyone who disagrees with them is, of course, anti-science.

I'm mostly just baffled by the number of "scientific" studies out there that reach the public eye and influence people but are absolute junk. Science done well is a thing of beauty, but unfortunately a vast majority of the population can't tell the difference. Instead we have incorrigible jackwagons who believe everything they hear with the word "science" attached to it and anyone who disagrees with them is, of course, anti-science.

1) it is propagated by scientists on a non-scientific mission.

2) it is believed because it plausibly explains an observation (increasing global temperature [for a time], increasing heart attacks from smoking in the 1950s and 60s). It taps into large anxieties about too much wealth, too much happiness, in western societies. There must be sin somewhere, and the public is ready to flog itself in the cause of a secularized idea of God, uh, I mean Good.

3) the causal relationship is weaker than first supposed; the research is found to be sloppy, the facts have been fudged, subsequent studies do not fully support the original claims, nevertheless the orthodoxy is promulgated all the more harshly for being doubted.

4) by now, powerful economic and ideological interests have taken hold. They supply an ongoing source of funds and opinion to ensure the perpetuation of the alarm: in the case of cholesterol, the margarine industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the medical establishment, and in the case of AGW, the tribe of bureaucrats and leftists who seek to control markets, whose god of Marxism had failed, and who needed a new god (Gaia) to justify their rule.

5) The skeptics who have patiently argued on the basis of facts that the science of each phenomenon was weak, are ostracized by the opinion establishments of medicine and global warming. Cranks, but the cranks are right and the orthodox priests and Levites are wrong.

6) Eventually, after fifty or sixty years, the subject of discussion just changes. In the case of cholesterol, the evidence gets weaker and weaker, and the problems caused by too much sugar consumption (obesity, diabetes), caused in part by people not eating enough fats and meats, reaches a stage where it can no longer be ignored.

7) the retreat of the orthodoxy is covered by a smokescreen of fresh concerns for some other catastrophe. No admissions of error or apologies for wrecked careers and following bad science are ever issued. Time flows on, bringing neither knowledge nor greater understanding of the role of folly in human affairs.

8) stages 6 and 7 have been reached in the cholesterol cycle; they are beginning in the anthropogenic global warming scam. Fifty years from now, there will still be clanking windmills in the North Sea, but whether they will be still linked to a power grid is less likely, and whether anyone will pay attention is doubtful. The lobbies that keep them there, however, will still exist.

During his Wednesday opening “Talking Points Memo” segment on “The O’Reilly Factor,” host Bill O’Reilly questioned the left’s value of human life and noted how its belief system of that movement transitioned from being one with economic ideals to its current state.

O’Reilly focused on the recent controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood, calling for them to be defunded, and the murder of Kate Steinle, who lost her life when allegedly murdered by a felon illegal immigrant.

“‘Talking Points’ believes human life is no longer a priority for many on the left,” O’Reilly said. “They often live in a world of theory and avoid the key issues. The calculated harvesting of infant body parts is an atrocity and so is allowing criminal alien felons to walk free in America.”

Well maybe if people stopped treating scientists like they're wizards they wouldn't get away with the crap that they do. In reality they have more in common with fast food employees. Some put a lot of pride in their work and make it right, while others throw it all together as quickly as possible and put a lot more emphasis on quantity over quality.

Don't have the necessary money to fund your experiment the right way? Is a deadline coming up much sooner than is reasonable to collect your data? Throw that crap together and hope nobody notices, because your job is on the line.

Scientists are humans of greatly varying intelligence who face a lot of the same day-to-day pressures of work. You gotta do whatever it takes to make your boss happy and keep earning money, and sometimes the Scientific Method is the first casualty.

The fault that produced a 4.0-magnitude earthquake in Fremont early Tuesday morning is expected to produce a major earthquake “any day now” and Bay Area residents should be prepared, a U.S. Geological Survey scientist said.

At least they didn't blame it on man made climate change.

The extra heat caused the planet to expand 0.000000000000003%, thus causing additional tension on the fault and inducing an earthquake. Wake up, denier.

Quote: The fault that produced a 4.0-magnitude earthquake in Fremont early Tuesday morning is expected to produce a major earthquake “any day now” and Bay Area residents should be prepared, a U.S. Geological Survey scientist said.

I'm mostly just baffled by the number of "scientific" studies out there that reach the public eye and influence people but are absolute junk. Science done well is a thing of beauty, but unfortunately a vast majority of the population can't tell the difference. Instead we have incorrigible jackwagons who believe everything they hear with the word "science" attached to it and anyone who disagrees with them is, of course, anti-science.

Tell that to the people that believe in creationism...

It'll be garbage trucks, dinosaurs and grenades silly!

The will of God count as a stimuli?

I hate how much I love to grill. It’s not that I’m inclined to vegetarianism or that I otherwise object to the practice itself. But I’m uncomfortable with the pleasure I take in something so conventionally masculine.

No, which means god doesn't exist, because if you can't prove something with 100% accuracy, it's a conspiracy.

Men, give up grilling! Your credibility as a feminist depends on it!


I'm truly baffled that slate has enough readers to support writing this kind of garbage.

then god does exist as a conspiracy...

Tell that to the people that believe in creationism...

I mean.. If people are willing to believe in something with no proof whatsoever and completely based on faith alone why would you be any less surprised that they do if propped up by some support from something that actually helps us to begin to understand the world around us?

In any case I've found that people will run with the narrative they agree with rather than whatever the truth is unless there is undisputable fact.

You make some decent points. I do find it a bit odd, though, that you would have people making fun of the religious for having no proof, but hold science as absolute truth even though they're not intelligent/educated enough to verify a word of it. Either way, you're putting some degree of faith into something that you can't understand. Perhaps I'm a tad biased because I'm in a life situation where I have the privilege of verifying data, but it seems like there's a lot of blind adherence to a narrative even in science.

Men, give up grilling! Your credibility as a feminist depends on it!


I'm truly baffled that slate has enough readers to support writing this kind of garbage.