The anti-science battle of Green -vs- Mooney

So he says that the left can’t be anti-science because some liberals chastise the others when they make exaggerations. But he also says the right is anti-science because some of them don’t believe in evolution, even though some conservatives chastise the others for that……

If you are looking at contemporary US politicians the right has the lead in anti-science nonsense. This is certainly true among the presidential candidates and in the US House and Senate. If you look at pseudo-scientific beliefs in the population at large the picture is more mixed. There have been plenty of times is history when parts of the left were anti-science, from the Scopes Monkey Trial to the Lysenko Affair. But Stalin is not running for president.

Latitude says:
September 24, 2011 at 3:05 pm
“On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.”
…And I would expect that almost all people with an ounce of common sense would realise that climate has always changed and people will have to learn to adapt or die. Shame that common sense seems to be such a scarce commodity amongst the pro-CAGW believers!

Too many non-scientists fail to understand one of the most important fundamentals of science – that science doesn’t provide answers, it only provides methods that allow scientists to guess where the truth might lie. This is especially true in the natural sciences where data to support those guesses are sparse and usually of questionable quality.

I don’t see where “believing” in evolution has any effect on the welfare of the world population. This is a long way economically from “believing” in catastrophic global warming where the lives of millions will be put in danger because of an unscientific belief in effect of carbon dioxide on the climate.
Both a belief in God, and a belief in catastrophic global warming are religious endeavors.

Second hand smoke rules and the ban on DDT are perfect examples. Neither had the science to support the bans. AIDS — Govt scientists, at the behest of the left, deliberately choosing to hype the very small threat of straights getting HIV in order to scare the hell out of the public into spending larger sums for research.
John Edwards.

Ken Green ·
Oops! Oh yes, then there’s the giant plastic ocean graveyard that was never seen again, and, let’s not forget the now-famous drowning polar bears.
==============
About 2 years ago I did a google search for “the giant plastic ocean graveyard”, figuring there would be some pictures. I found none. Anyone got any pictures ?

James Sexton says:
September 24, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Damn! Beat me to it.!
================================================
It’s from your blog ……………..LOL
You already blogged about this very thing…………..
…..I just have faster fingers
BTW James has an excellent blog on this very subject……..shameless plug…..because I’m shameless

I have a post on this at Climate Etc.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/24/whos-anti-science/

If you’d sign a petition to ban DHMO (Dihydrogen Monoxide), then you’re anti-science or at least gullible; and I’d bet more liberals would sign such a petition than conservatives.

Philip Bradley ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_left
They’re big on ” social justice ” .

This is all just an exercise in trying to attribute ill will to the “rightwing,” Christian voting population. Any one could believe that CO2, generated by mankind, might be causing the warming of the earth. I don’t, I don’t see how you could think that given just a few pieces of technical data. I can understand how the un-inquisitive could “believe” that…
But, when the ex-Communist politico’s, Socialist dictators, the UN, the Democratic political leadership, the Hollywood brain trusts, nose-fixed rock “stars” & the MSM, all want to raise our taxes & redistribute the wealth of the world… isn’t it obvious that this has nothing to do with CO2?
“The sky is falling, the sky is falling!” “Unless you agree to pay tribute to the small islands of the South Pacific… then we can arrange for the sky not to fall.” Dah!

Latitude says:
September 24, 2011 at 3:05 pm
“…the most scientifically literate…”
===========================
I wonder what that really means? Most PhDs I know couldn’t plan a BBQ let alone read a thermometer.
Speaking of honey bees, I had a large nest in my house this summer (maybe up to 10,000). Feeling a bit “green” about the whole thing I phoned around to various bee-keepers to have them safely removed (the bees). Not one bite. Apparently bee-keepers don’t like “natural” bees because they might infect their imported hives. So I called an exterminator and had the hive killed and then removed. The guy used a poison so I couldn’t even eat the honey. So much for my dreams of infinite mead. Oddly I feel mad at the bee keepers.

Of course the Great Garbage Patch exists! It must exist, it has its own website!
http://www.greatgarbagepatch.org/
Gaze upon the nigh-unbearable Absolute Truth of Un-debatable Science!

Most of our waste today is comprised of plastic. Plastic, which is made from petroleum, is a material that the Earth cannot digest. Every bit of plastic that has ever been created still exists, except for a small amount that has been incinerated, releasing toxic chemicals.

The Earth cannot digest plastic. Really?

Published online 28 March 2011 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2011.191
Marine microbes digest plastic
Gwyneth Dickey Zaikab
Specialist bacteria seem to be eating the plastic garbage we throw into the ocean. But whether they’re cleaning up our poisons or just passing them back up the food chain remains to be seen.
The ocean contains vast amounts of plastic, mostly as tiny shards floating just beneath the surface. Under an electron microscope, each scrap of “plastic confetti” becomes “an oasis, a reef of biological activity,” says marine microbiologist Tracy Mincer of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.
Mincer and his colleagues examined bits of fishing line, a plastic bag and a plastic nurdle (a pre-production plastic pellet) fished out of the Sargasso Sea, an area of the North Atlantic where currents cause debris to accumulate. The region as a whole contains more than 1,100 tonnes of plastic1.
Scanning electron microscopy revealed bacteria-like cells living in pits in the plastic, as if they were eating the surface away.
“They look like you took a hot barbecue briquette and threw it into snow,” says Mincer. “You see this melting bit all around the outside of the cells, and they’re just burrowing into the plastic.”
Microbes have been found digesting plastic in landfills, he says, but this is the first evidence of marine bacteria breaking down plastic in the ocean. The work was presented the 5th International Marine Debris Conference in Honolulu, Hawaii, on 24 and 25 March.
(…more…)

The Earth cannot digest plastic. These microbes are digesting plastic.
Therefore these microbes cannot be of Earth! Extraterrestrials must have sent these microbes to our planet. But why, why, do aliens want our old plastics digested?
But wait! All the plastic ever created, save that incinerated, is still on Earth somewhere. Therefore these alien microbes are only pretending to digest, they are actually somehow incinerating the plastic! That would generate heat. These microbes are found all over the globe. Ah-ha! The aliens sent the microbes to cause global warming!
Ah, science. Isn’t it wonderful?

“In the case of Evolution, it is not about science at all but about naturalism, supernaturalism is ruled out regardless of the evidence, because God must be eliminated.”
No, it’s because the concept of a “god” is not evidence-based.

Bob (September 24, 2011 at 3:34 pm) said:
“I don’t see where “believing” in evolution has any effect on the welfare of the world population. This is a long way economically from “believing” in catastrophic global warming where the lives of millions will be put in danger because of an unscientific belief in effect of carbon dioxide on the climate.”
That may be true up to a point. Nevertheless, “evolution” is often used as a pseudo-scientific cover for “biologism”, the reduction of every phenomenon of human life to some biological (nowadays usually neurological) function. This implies animalizing humans, first as a pseudo-scientific proposition (“We are really only animals”) and then as a justification for treating people as animals to be controlled and “trained” by experts (for their own good, of course). This is NOT a long way from believing that mankind is doomed, unless the AGW thesis is accepted as a framework for policy.
By the way, I would not qualify AGW as “a religion.” If we are justified in distinguishing between true science and pseudo/false/junk/mad science then we should be prepared to make a similar distinction where religion is concerned. AGW is a pseudo-religion far more than a pseudo-science.
I see science and [theïstic] religion as complementary undertakings: science aims to discover the object (“Nature”) as it is in itself by eliminating as far as possible all contaminating factors, in particular all subjective, ideological and cultural factors that stem from the fact that science is a human undertaking. Religion, likewise, aims to get at the essence of personhood (“God”) by eliminating as far as possible all contaminating physical, subjective and ideological factors. It is surely unwarranted to claim that only the first endeavour is rational or legitimate.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 24, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Of course the Great Garbage Patch exists! It must exist, it has its own website!
============================================================
lol, its true about the aliens!!!! Lefty science was right after all!!!

Brad says:
September 24, 2011 at 5:34 pm
The problem with Ken Green’s list is that he can’t differentiate those risks that are real from those that are not. Science is not easy, but deciding all science is wrong is not the way forward.
============================================================
Brad, you’re missing the point of Mr. Green’s comment. He’s not saying all science is wrong. He’s saying that leftists have wrapped themselves in these issues where the science behind them was demonstrably wrong or the alarm out of proportion to the potential harm. So, perhaps anti-science isn’t the proper verbiage when describing the left’s embracing of non-issues, perhaps pro-psuedoscience would be more apt.

BorgHumer above says, “In the case of Evolution, it is not about science at all but about naturalism, supernaturalism is ruled out regardless of the evidence, because God must be eliminated.” Sorry, but all the Prostestant main line churches, the Catholic Church, and many of the evengelical churches accept evolution as a fact and as the organizing principal in biology. Take your head out of the sand. Bob, above, says, “I don’t see where “believing” in evolution has any effect on the welfare of the world population.” Yeh, right, medicine and everything else based on biological science hasn’t effected the welfare of the world population. Get real!
Sadly, there’s a lot of anti-science among the skeptics and critics of the IPCC and the “team.” Those anti-science global warming critics make it much more difficult for those of us who base our critical arguments on the empirical data and on science. A bit unfair-maybe- Newton had a lot of anti-science beliefs- but the left and the right both are guilty of ad hominem thinking, and that’s part of the reason for climate change confusion, and why it’s so difficult to convince anyone to think outside of their tribal groupthink.

Don’t forget the warmlist:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Also, though Romm is a serial abuser of the term, “anti-science” is centuries old.

Doug Allen says:
September 24, 2011 at 6:02 pm
BorgHumer above says, “In the case of Evolution, it is not about science at all but about naturalism, supernaturalism is ruled out regardless of the evidence, because God must be eliminated.” Sorry, but all the Prostestant main line churches, the Catholic Church, and many of the evengelical churches accept evolution as a fact and as the organizing principal in biology. Take your head out of the sand. Bob, above, says, “I don’t see where “believing” in evolution has any effect on the welfare of the world population.” Yeh, right, medicine and everything else based on biological science hasn’t effected the welfare of the world population. Get real!
Sadly, there’s a lot of anti-science among the skeptics and critics of the IPCC and the “team.” Those anti-science global warming critics make it much more difficult for those of us who base our critical arguments on the empirical data and on science. A bit unfair-maybe- Newton had a lot of anti-science beliefs- but the left and the right both are guilty of ad hominem thinking, and that’s part of the reason for climate change confusion, and why it’s so difficult to convince anyone to think outside of their tribal groupthink.
=======================================================
Holy crap!!! Doug you’re attributing all the advances to medicine and biological science to the belief in evolution? I won’t even bother posting some of the countless examples of advances not pertaining to the evolutionary theory. Your example of Newton contradicts your point! Read his Optiks.
What really gets me is the idea of rejecting current thought is somehow anti-science. It isn’t. And thank God we had and still have people willing to publicly do so and set about set about scientific work to come to a better understanding of the subject rejected.

looks like the discussion is about sanity and how it correlates with a person’s location on the political axis ‘red.statist vs blue.statist’, really. that’s not a real dimension.
for ‘science’, read ‘the ability of man to make sense of his observations’. or just say ‘sanity’.
it is a historical agenda of the statists to enslave men, having defined him as chattel of the state.
they especially go after man’s ability to reason – knowing that if they cripple that, he may be enslaved easily.
i’ll submit that they are all nutso and identically rely on victims for their livelihood. none of them wish for others not to care – they all want a job calling for, standing behind, elevating the awareness, licensing, regulating and monopolizing – at whose expense?
so there certainly is an idealogical component but it’s hardly a qualitative difference that can distinguish one rent seeking policy making taxing trough guzzler from another.
although i did hear it said once that republicans at least know that when shearing sheep, they should stop at the skin.
to the list, therefore, i’ll add ‘belief in the state as omniscient omnipotent distributor of causeless wealth”. the repetetive indoctrination in the santa myth prepared you to prepare your kids’ malleable psyches for that to be indelibly imprinted. remember, you are on the list – they know where you live – they know who’s naughty and nice. that’s how we learned coal was bad.
maybe it wouldn’t hurt to outgrow that childish insanity.
i’m sure we go nowhere but downhill until the opposite is instilled from infancy and repeated annually.

I don’t see the disconnect that is supposed to exist between a belief in God and embracing science. When I learn of some exciting new thing science is revealing about the origins of the universe I think to myself “so, that’s how God must have done things.”

Ok, in the spirit of compromise, but not to include increasing gov’t spending, I can accept the Leftist “CO2=CAGW” = “climate change”, er, Science that places the beginning of the very Climate itself at about 1000 yrs. ago, hasn’t gotten a relevant prediction right yet, and now makes it definitional that any “climate change” whatsoever must be Anthropogenic. But only if the Killer Bees remain held at bay! You may have not noticed that the ipcc Climate Scientists don’t seem to have acknowledged this all important benefit as currently achieved! Or any possible benefit of “climate change”, come to think about it.
But for that certainty alone, I’d even concede the most basic scientific tenet of the Left’s favorite Religion – of course secondary to Progresssivism itself: “Mecca is the center of the World!”

u.k.(us) says: September 24, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Ken Green ·
Oops! Oh yes, then there’s the giant plastic ocean graveyard that was never seen again, and, let’s not forget the now-famous drowning polar bears.
==============
About 2 years ago I did a google search for “the giant plastic ocean graveyard”, figuring there would be some pictures. I found none. Anyone got any pictures ?
Yep, but not verified.
The ghost nets and Aboriginal Ranger program that has developed over some years in northern Australia. A precursor to a carbon exchange or indigenous carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS).
http://www.ghostnets.com.au/pdf/Kimberley%20post%20trip%20Media%20Release.pdf
http://www.ghostnets.com.au/ (likely they run a database as the images demonstrate they code and classify the nets according to the WWF Netkit) see:- http://www.wwf.org.au/about_us/404_error.cfm But a specific Northern Australia kit remains avail here: – http://www.wwf.org.au/news_resources/resource_library/?1698/The-Net-Kit-A-Fishing-Net-Identification-Guide-for-Northern-Australia
The data may feed into such agreements eg http://www.ioseaturtles.org/electronic_lib2.php?cat_id=10&sort=title&order=desc and provide ?evidence to international sea treaties etc.
Many of the nets were previously collected and used for shade awnings, hammocks, sandhill stabilisation etc.This was in the days of ‘being a conservationist’.
Trade in illegal shark-fin and others predominate in these waters. Customs and Navy may have further information.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/black-market-in-dugong-and-turtle-meat-in-far-north-queensland-opposition-says/story-e6freon6-1225853299845
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/conservation/dugong-killed-in-illegal-nets-20100426-tmu9.html
Also a few mentions and 1-2 photos here:-
http://www.australianwalkingholidays.com.au/index.php?section=trips&id=58736
http://www.antar.org.au/sea_of_hands
http://www.tapirback.com/tapirgal/gifts/friends/marsupials/aboriginal-ranger-plastic-f1763.htm
Smokey @3.22 and 5.07
Thanks for the neat youtube link and apt comment re: communists.

SteveB:
You are right about the “How does it work?” part. But you missed my point. Science is the method used to investigate the question. It does not however provide any absolute answers, only clues as to whether you have asked the right question.

Malcolm Miller [September 24, 2011 at 4:29 pm] says:
“I am still amazed that many Americans seem to believe in their bones that ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ are somehow one and the same. They ain’t!”

Socialism is the religion of legalized theft. Communism and Fascism are just recent implementations of this long running human foible. Translated to modern speak, Socialism is merely ‘government’ camouflaged as Robin Hood or Santa Claus benefiting the ‘have nots’ at the expense of the ‘haves’. The modern twist is using elected governments to place the stamp of legalization of this theft as democratic socialism.
Coveting thy neighbors private property is one of the world’s oldest professions. In the past the perps were quickly flogged or stoned, lately they are given welfare checks, political offices and golden parachutes. But they’re still criminals. Those that vote for them and promote glorious theories of this enterprise are also criminals or at the minimum, promoting criminal activity.
Even though you seem to think that the consensus is at your back and that Socialism is partially good because it has some degree of rationalization and voter approval, you haven’t done the math. Furthermore, and rather ironically, if you were in a ‘Survivor’ situation, you would be among the first voted off the island.

Gail Combs [September 24, 2011 at 6:05 pm] says:
“Religion has always been a very good way of controlling the masses.”

That is a rather cynical description. I got you pegged as a glass half-empty kinda gal. Others would describe religion as a very good way for the masses of controlling themselves. You know, a method of differentiating themselves from the 99.999% of other species on Planet Earth that steal, rape, murder, etc, amongst themselves as a matter of Darwinian daily routine.
Historically, two of the most well-known religions are known NOT for ‘controlling the masses’, but instead, for being practiced by minorities of those masses that were under the control of ‘controllers’ (Egypt, and later, Rome). At least in these two instances, religion was the enemy of the controllers of the masses.
However in more modern times, if we can establish that Communism and Fascism are in fact religions, then your quoted comment makes really great sense. The 20th century is chock full of masses being controlled and body bags being filled by these two religions.

First, I want to apologize to readers of this blog for bringing evolution into the discussion. I should know better.
Now, for the rest of the comment.
James Sextson said.“Bob, above, says, “I don’t see where “believing” in evolution ….” Yeh, right, medicine and everything else based on biological science hasn’t effected the welfare of the world population. Get real!”
Just why do you think you can put words in my mouth. Just why do you think that a belief in God precludes the acceptance of medicine or science? What we are hearing from you is a summary of your ignorance and prejudice. Cool it, dude. Most of us Christians love going to the doctor, and praise His Name that science is letting us to live longer to propagate His Word.
Now that I have your attention, pay heed to the fact that there are problems with evolution as other sciences. I am ashamed that I ever thought connecting fossils in the Leakey manner as a proof of evolution was scientific, but also recognize the message genetics is presenting. What it really means is that evolution may be the mechanism that explains life on earth, but so far nobody understands the exact mechanism. Even so, what ever I think about evolution will not spin the earth off its axis, nor will you knowledge of religion, history, or of science win any awards.

To James Sexton: I apologize for my previous comment that I addressed to you. I jumped to the wrong comment and it should be addressed to Doug Allen.
Please accept my apology, James.

The Left is anti-science on evolution because they have a prolonged and turbulent hissy fit at the mention of any criticism of Darwin. They want to preach that Darwin proved that man evolved from chimpanzees and many similar matters but will brook no criticism whatsoever.
Because Darwin is taught in high schools, it is absolutely essential that any one teaching Darwin use the critical tools of science on Darwin’s work. Perhaps Darwin’s greatest gift to biology was the insight that similar morphology is the best evidence that two species have a common ancestor. It remains a powerful heuristic in biology today. However, as a physical hypothesis it is false. There are species whose morphology are all but identical yet they have no common ancestor. Does any one graduate from high school knowing that? I cannot find them among my students. Criticism of Darwin is forbidden by the Left because it threatens their faith that Darwin displaced God. And they are terrified that God’s voice might return to the public square.

Anna Lemma says:
September 24, 2011 at 7:33 pm
“Anti-Darwinists keep harping on the idea that Darwin didn’t explain the origins of life. Well, he never claimed to have the answer to that mysterium tremendum, so it’s a strawman argument. His book, after all, was titled “The Origin of SPECIES”, not the Origin of Life.”
Darwin’s fundamental posit is unique among scientific Laws because it contains by necessity an exception clause. It reads: “All species evolved from some other species, except the first one.” That states the problem of life largely and clearly. Some special explanation is needed for the first species because it did not come from a living thing.

Theo:
“Darwin’s greatest gift to biology was the insight that similar morphology is the best evidence that two species have a common ancestor.”
that’s just wrong. it’s the shallowest gloss over what he wrote and dumbed down past distortion.
his greatest idea was the proposition that ‘the fit survive and the unfit -not so much’ and that there are natural criteria – values- that each creature must pursue, by its nature – in order to survive. and that variation is natural and subject to natural selection.
then you actually quote darwin as saying “All species evolved from some other species, except the first one.”
i have sincere doubt that he ever wrote any such thing – but i’ll be pleased to have a wrong idea corrected. plz provide a reference so i can check that.

Malcolm Miller [September 24, 2011 at 4:29 pm] says:
“I am still amazed that many Americans seem to believe in their bones that ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ are somehow one and the same. They ain’t!”
Right, Malcolm, not even according to the great Karl Marx himself, who saw the perfected Socialist State as merely the closest form of government to the Communist Utopia, where instead there simply wouldn’t be any need for the State anymore due to its own irrelevance, with only the perfected Communists left over who had managed to make the State into their Selves and would then apparently be able to finally access the Horn of Plenty, for about half of each day then spend the rest of it fly fishing and such!
Well as we know, the Soviet Socialists silmply gave up on the whole idea of perfecting Socialism, but just try telling that to Kim Jong Il and the Castro Bros, not to mention Greece! After all, “they are the people they’d been waiting for”. And I did notice today that in “Boy on a Dolphin”, Sophia Loren made her money mostly by tending a Windmill with cloth blades, so that there was at least some reason for hope in Greece around 50? years ago, if that would have indeed given us more Sophia Lorens. But instead all we got was Winona Rider, to introduce the damn movie! And a bunch of dead monoliths as more testimony to the “future of an illusion”.

“2) Chris argues that the anti-science issues usually associated with the Left (vaccines, nuclear-danger exaggerations, GMO danger claims) aren’t really left-wing issues, but rather, are held by people on both sides of the political spectrum.”
There are people on both sides of the political spectrum on any issue. It’s just a matter of degree. Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is predominantly a liberal cause-celebre but that doesn’t mean there aren’t conservatives who embrace it. And there are certainly a very great many conservatives who swallow have faith in blindly accept don’t doubt the bandwagon pseudo science underwriting the neo-atheistDarwinian narrative dogma account of creation life.
Just sayin…

“Furthermore, it appears that the universe as we know it is so statistically impossible that the chance of it appearing randomly, without aid from an intelligent designing being, are 1 chance in 10*10*123”
love those statistics, eh.
no better way to make nonsense sound authoritative, non?
here’s what the abrahamic goat herders contributed to ‘civilization’ –
they practiced animal husbandry.
then they immediately applied it to each other.
the simpleminded notion of men as chattel became the divine order.
the fossil mindset is preserved in the language, my lamb.
but anton lavey has written much cleverer essays on this sort of thing.

i sort of like the erisian apologetics best.
they believe in chaos.
their argument runs thus:
who do you think put all the chaos in the universe – vast impersonal forces or something!?!?!
no! it’s got to be goddess! nobody can prove otherwise, of course.
but for service to humanity- perhaps the pastafarians have done more-
http://beta2.tbo.com/news/nation-world/2007/dec/22/na-polk-needled-noodled-in-evolution-flap-ar-176172/

RACookPE1978 says:
“Now … to repeat my question: What is “anti-science” about religion, if religion could “discover” and correct use the principles of twentieth century nuclear physics, paleontology, biology, evolution sequences, geophysics, and continental drift before they invented writing?”
What is “anti-science” about religion?
one of the distinguishing characteristics of religion is belief in an afterlife, right?
science is the process of verifying a logical proposition.
the statement ‘death is (everlasting) life’ is a logical self contradiction.
therefore a basic tenet of religion is anti-science.
a proposition which can not be falsified, such as an invisible supernatural entity that’s omniscient and omnipotent and wants to be friended on facebook, is not to be accepted as true.
accepting as true, that which is not susceptible to verification at all – that’s anti-science.
religion requires faith. faith means belief because of no proof. that is anti-science.
the rest of your sentence is just really silly.

Um, I consider myself to be a conservative but I do not believe in gods and I do not believe in creationism. How many people here actually do not beleive in evolution?
It is a somewhat nuanced subject in regards to that I suspect that most people accept evolution as a grand process but dispute elements of it? Yes, No??
There are many areas of evolution that science has not yet totally figured out. Doesn’t mean its wrong, just that we still remain ignorant, just a little bit less so.
Most people have a polyglot of beliefs that run the whole spectrum of left to right. I really dislike it when they try to lump people into polar camps, implying an either or rather than wide spectrum.
So seriously, how many people around these parts reject evolution?

Malcolm Miller says:
September 24, 2011 at 4:29 pm
“One day we will have an elected government that swings furtehr back towards socialism, and we’ll all (in Australia) benefit from it,[…]”
Milton Friedman: The Most Persistent Economic Fallacy of All Time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrg1CArkuNc&feature=related

Dirk @2.06, thanks for that.
Blade says: September 24, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Gail Combs [September 24, 2011 at 6:05 pm] says:
“Religion has always been a very good way of controlling the masses.”
That is a rather cynical description. I got you pegged as a glass half-empty kinda gal. Others would describe religion as a very good way for the masses of controlling themselves.
Thanks for this commentary Gail and Blade.
I do not know what Gail may describe as the masses, however I assume she is referring to religions with the attendant ‘witchcraft/sorcery’ being well established in the populations of Sth & Central America; Africa, Asia-Pacific and vast regions of indigenous US of A, Canada and Australia. The former having a weighting in written history of explorer and missionary endeavour, and later in embedded forms of Catholic-founded governance.
This ‘religion’, has economic and social policy implications. Social justice in the form of GDP funding aka medicare (10-20% GDP), VAST aid $ and VAST research funded alternate health care practices. NOT science.
And that BOTH private and govt practices employ under various awards; a variety of health care practitioners, regulatory and telecommunication directions and policy hecklers.
That’s me having a (half-educated) guess at Gail’s post. And that it is predominantly males that control treasury expenditure and can who read and decide on this ‘evidence-base’ that which informs policy which directly informs that expenditure! That’s some scope in steps to decisions and gross expenditure.
Heck, even here in Australia we had the ‘health practitioners’ crawling out from the woodwork following the Victorian bushfires and then the Brisbane floods. Aided and abetted by the lure of govt subsidised medicare recompensing their post-facto socialised diseases coded under ICD’s and DSM’s.
Maybe we will see a DSM coded directly under ‘climate change’ soon? Though I note posts on the FBI website posts articles on fraud post Katrina.
It was the local community, Churches and their families that supported the war veterans in decades past.
The Marxists Alinsky and Freire are well established education movements within the Catholic religion in Sth America. cf Gail Combs says: September 24, 2011 at 6:05 pm
That’s some equation of grab in developing nations GDP and the investment by and by others!. History tells us they did that for a few ‘leader’ notables but doubtful they would do so for the masses. We have yet to see results from crony capitalism and the dark green lock up of productive areas (though much the same end game), AND foreign AID $ and media/entertainment types under the current ideology of ‘economic development through the education principle’ lately touted for the developing nations. Basically all 0-25 years + biological and kin adults, a substantial mass of a population, are provided with extraneous $ (special schools and funding, endless training and EEO legislation) to re-develop themselves?
The Constitutions can not escape the diaspora of this vileness, in lands they once visited, traded with, colonised, de-colonised and now support.
One has to wonder whether it is dishonouring a religion, tradition, a family, an individual, or, being a [reproductive] pawn in a free society they thought heading to that individual light on that individual hill titled ‘freedom’.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/murder-wave-that-shames-the-world/story-e6frg6z6-1225928867204

Kozlowski says:
September 25, 2011 at 12:28 am
“Um, I consider myself to be a conservative but I do not believe in gods and I do not believe in creationism. How many people here actually do not beleive in evolution?”
If all we observe wasn’t created then how did it get here?
Why did you choose to phrase your question about evolution as one of belief?
I would ask how many here are certain that they are just the purposeless result of a random dance of matter and energy that began billions of years ago.
Personally, I’m not at all certain. Having spent years investigating what math, science, and engineering can tell me about why and how the universe is what it is I keep coming back to the incredible complexity of it all. There is such a huge degree of interdependent laws, order, and initial conditions in the universe that, as an engineer, it’s absolutely absurd to think it all just happened by accident. If it didn’t happen by accident then it happened on purpose.
So how strong is your faith that the universe and living things is an accident? Faith is all you can possibly have about this. What I believe is that if you have faith in the accident scenerio then it’s a misplaced faith. What we observe in the universe today is a massive feat of engineering. It’s really the only satisfactory explanation. Exactly who or what engineered it is a different question and I have nothing objective upon which to base speculation about that.

gnomish says:
September 24, 2011 at 11:54 pm
“… that which is not susceptible to verification at all – that’s anti-science.”
Well, I guess you just made the case for AGW skeptics since CAGW cannot be scientifically verified.
We all have faith in something, whether it is verifiable or not. Doesn’t your scientific model tell you that you can verify an hypothesis over and over and still prove nothing? Don’t you have to have a falsifiable hypothesis in science? By definition, faith is not provable nor falsifiable.
You probably accept the physical view of the string theorists, and yet there aren’t many people in the world who can understand it, much less verify the notion. It may never be verifiable to most people.
Science is only a handy process for measuring the physical world. Even that notion takes a certain faith.
You have to have faith in something, and you have placed your stake in the ground of having faith in the words of other people, and maybe even yourself.
I hope you believe in luck. You will need it.

All generalizations are false, ………………. 8^D

gee, bob –
“Well, I guess you just made the case for AGW skeptics since CAGW cannot be scientifically verified. We all have faith in something, whether it is verifiable or not. ”
is your epistemology so badly broken you don’t even get that you just confessed to the same irrationality you remark upon?
look up epistemology if you are interested in how it is possible to know something.
it’s what the brain does – it’s adequate for the task unless it’s been crippled by indoctrination with anti-concepts made for the purpose.
the world has been around a lot longer than you – take a couple walks around the block. wisdom is out there, not in your navel.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) –
you’d have to read some of lavey to actually know what you’re talking about.
not only was he not religious, he was an excellent satirist. he simply chose particular institutional taboos to ridicule because there are so many lulz for so little effort when you yank the chain of a zombie worshipper. they don’t own themselves and have virtually no control over their actions- their decisions having been preset by indoctrination. thus they are both easy and worthy targets of mockery. the best name i know for them is ‘lulcow’. thanks for the moue.

gnomish says:
September 24, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Max Planck says
1932
“Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.”
Perhaps you should endeavor what he meant by that.
James

jim says:
September 25, 2011 at 10:09 am
I think the attack on Christians is purely political, in most cases.
===========================================================
It goes beyond that. It is the absolute refusal of accountability and the pursuit of relative morality.
Here’s a quick read that just scratches at the subject relating to some of the topics here. And a very brief coverage of a few contributions to modern science by Christians.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/christians-have-been-and-are-great-contributors-to-science/
There is, of course, much more to sate, but I’ll do it piecemeal.
James

“Grant says
Doc Martin,
It is, of course, prudent to understand the effects of widely used chemicals on humans, plants and animals. DDT is a special case because of its life saving potential.”
Well yes and no. The complete ban, including home spraying was too much, but the general spraying was prudent.
There are three properties of DDT that should give one pause for thought to its wide spread usage in the biosphere.
1) It is very long lived. The t 1/2 is very long both inside of and outside of biotica.
2) It is highly lipophillic and as such it will be transferred from maternal fat to neonates/infants during gestation/lactation.
3) It bypasses the natural xenophobic oxidation pathways of fish, amphibia and birds.
Mammals can both oxidize and conjugate DDT, but our pray species can’t. Cows are a special case as they deliver all the DDT they can find into milk.
So we have concentration food webs which deliver high levels of persistent organochlorines like this:-
DDT in soil from 1950’s enter soy.
Soy fed to chickens.
Chickens can’t metabolize DDT/DDE and so it partitions into fat/feathers
Rendering plant takes chicken fat and feathers which is hydrolyzed and pelleted into fish food. Concentrated DDT fed to fish where it concentrates in their lipid.
Pregnant women want child with high IQ and slim figure so undergo calorific restriction and high fish diet.
Mothers transfer DDT from own fat and fish into largest lipid reserve of fetus; brain.
Brain development linked to astrocyte/neuronal sculpting and is dependent on estrogen/androgen levels.
Lucky that brain developmental mechanism is so robust and we have no indications of any rises in disease states that may be linked to disruption of hormone signaling isn’t it?

Bob-
“Perhaps you can use the scientific method to prove that science, as a thing, God, or person, exists.”
That existence exists is an axiom, not an article of faith.
Yes, it is easy to prove the existence of something which exists.
No, science is not a matter of faith.
No, irrationality is not to be characterised as ‘disagreement’ as if it were merely a choice of flavored bubblegum. It is a contradiction of reason and therefore has negative adaptive significance because reason is man’s means of survival.
There is a distinction to be drawn between ‘unproven’ and ‘unprovable’. Religions are special collections of ‘unprovables’. Science is the opposite. All ‘unprovable’ statements are false.
That’s the nature of the ineffable ‘mysteries’ – they can’t be effed – they are lies.
There is no such thing as divine revelation.
Bob- did you ever read Woody Allen? He has been over this ground many times. Irrationality is the fountainhead of satirical grist. One of his little parables went something like this:
“A brooding person went to the rabbi and told him “I’m not sure what’s real – I’m not even sure if I exist!”. The rabbi punched him in the nose and asked “So, what hurts?”
I’m pretty much convinced that it takes at least a broken nose to wake a zombie worshipper from his trance.
Jim – just for you this once – not that I admire ee cummings style or anything, but this is more or less grafitti by anonymous in the style of Steinbeck’s stream of unconsciousness – it’s not that critical. I only hope it’s engaging enough at some level to be considered worth the bother.
I can spell and punctuate perfectly when I wish, but it’s casual Friday for me every day. I don’t wear a double windsor Brookes’ Brothers’ tie most days either, though i’m not allowed in certain restaurants… lol – but i eat to get fed – not to make friends and influence people. I’m old enough so I’m allowed. 🙂 I’m past the finger.exercises phase of learning English. I’ve corrected my share of library books. That’s how come I’m not so particular and don’t feel a need to draw attention to poor syntax.
Misuse of the word ‘endeavor’ might be bad enough to remark on, though. But no big deal – I understand what the man was trying to say despite his poor attempt to create the appearance of erudition.
James- there is no such thing as irrational belief in the rational nor is there a rational belief in what is irrational. Exorcise that little demon and study its etiology. It didn’t spring up by spontaneous generation. Faith is not reason. That’s why we have 2 different words, eh. We also have a word ‘antonym’ just for the relationship between word pairs like that. Logical self contradictions are the loaves and fishes, I understand. Understanding is not divine revelation. No heretics were ever burned at stake in support of science.
David Ball – yah – so simple any 3 yr old child of 2 can do it, eh. Without an army of liars to confuse kids, they’d still be able to do it as adults.
But just because i pick up after some litterbug once, doesn’t make me the appointed garbage man forever.
i wrote more than 20,000 words about ismism so i’m not gonna be able to avoid reruns – and i hate reruns. time for me to move along to something new, for i have the novelty seeking gene. 🙂

gnomish says:
September 24, 2011 at 11:54 pm
one of the distinguishing characteristics of religion is belief in an afterlife, right?
science is the process of verifying a logical proposition.
the statement ‘death is (everlasting) life’ is a logical self contradiction.
therefore a basic tenet of religion is anti-science.
a proposition which can not be falsified, such as an invisible supernatural entity that’s omniscient and omnipotent and wants to be friended on facebook, is not to be accepted as true.
accepting as true, that which is not susceptible to verification at all – that’s anti-science.
religion requires faith. faith means belief because of no proof. that is anti-science.

I can’t help but notice that you very neatly encapsulate all of science into one single tenet of experimental science – verification and proof. In doing so, I believe you turn a cold shoulder to the many disciplines of the theoretical sciences where there simply exists no proof or falsification of a proposition.
Practically speaking, science doesn’t really work so narrowly confined as you make it. It necessarily engages quasi-religion and philosophy to formulate hypothesis on very deep and profound questions that seek answers far beyond our understanding. Such questions involve a form of faith on the part of the scientist to consider the possibilities of other dimensions, states, and continuums that, in reality, may or may not exist. Because a proposition is neither provable nor falsifiable doesn’t mean that in reality, it can’t exist.
You seem to point to the notion of “eternity” as a problem for science and therefore anti-science. Leon Lederman, the brilliant Nobel Laureate of experimental physics, and a man who’s work I admire, made the following statement, which I find very insightful. He is quoted as saying “In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately, there are no data for the very beginnings – none, zero. We don’t know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up – we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning.”
To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Lederman is an atheist or possibly an agnostic – I don’t know as I’m not him. I am certain his reference to God wasn’t intended to be a statement of belief but rather to put the limitations of science into a proper context. But what I find most interesting in his statement is the notion that the “laws” which govern the clockworks of our universe existed before matter and before time. Following that assertion, the laws will exist after these things ceases to exist. They are “eternal”. I see nothing anti-science about that and I see nothing anti-religious about it either.

“…Left is anti-science when it comes to things like their exaggerations of the risks of genetically modified crops, nuclear power, and vaccines.”
Don’t forget the left’s disdain for ICBM defense technology

gnomish says:
September 25, 2011 at 3:29 pm
=====================================================
lol, I’ll endeavor to ensure I write properly. No assurances, beer has a nasty effect.
That stated, the lie is that dichotomy doesn’t exist. Provable? Not a chance, and for the reasons you’ve stated. Well done. In the end, it all boils to, “You must have faith”. Its just a matter of which way you’re gonna jump.

To James Sexton
“Further, while I agree with your general description, Christianity is a matter of faith. It isn’t necessary to find scientific evidence for our origins. God said for it to happen, and so it was.”
Incorrect, the bible actually states the exact opposite, here:
Rom 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Note what it says, that God’s invisible qualities are shown by the visible world, by observation of nature, in other words, by science. In other words, that which cannot be proved, because it is invisible, can be proved by what IS visible, thus, we need NOT rely purely on faith. It specifically states “since the creation of the world”, which means we can then look at Genesis the first chapter, where this is specifically covered, and compare it with what we know from science, and see if they match. In other words, the bible is specifically stating, in no uncertain terms, that it is scientifically falsifiable, like any good scientific hypothesis. So the hypothesis is, there is a God, who spoke personally to a man called Moses, and described the creation of this universe and this world in particular, and we can test this hypothesis by comparing what is written in Genesis with what science knows (not just believes, KNOWS) about the big bang and planetary formation as it specifically relates to the planet earth, and the evolution of life in the correct order (how would they know?) and see if science matches the bible. If it does, we have to ask ourselves, how did those folks almost 4000 years ago know all these scientific details if they were not themselves a witness and had no science to tell them anything, could they have had it described to them by an actual witness? The links I gave are the science, big bang http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTS5ZVuK6Jw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDY6o-VP8Lo&feature=related , Genesis and science http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html and a page of stuff here, look specifically at the Genesis stuff http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html .
Then, looking at this, we see two statistically impossible things that appear to have happened anyway, the big bang making a universe like this one (anyone who actually KNOWS about the big bang knows how improbable this universe is), and life appearing from non life. It appears that such things cannot happen by random chance, and that therefor they must have happened by planned chance. The only being who could plan such a thing must have infinite intelligence. No being subjected to the natural laws of this universe can have infinite intelligence any more than a computer of infinite speed can be made, therefore, there must be an extra dimensional being of infinite intelligence. Such a being, who can unaided by us dream up and create an entire universe, does not need us to do anything to please it or get in it’s good graces, since nothing we can do can effect such an interdimentional being in any way, either pro or con, thus, we cannot do anything “for” such a being. All religions say that we can get God to love us by some actions of ours except Christianity, which says that we are simply to accept what that God did for us, thus, only Christianity possibly can be true, the others are denied by the physical fact of this universes existence. We also see that this God must be love, the opposite of love is hate, hate comes from fear, fear that I can hurt you, God has nothing to fear, being an interdimentional being that I cannot even reach, therefore God does not fear, does not hate, and can only love. In other words, starting with the big bang, one must, in a logical and scientific and fact based progression, come to Christianity.
Or…you can go the other way, as many scientists have, and propose an infinite number of extra dimensions and universes to try and explain away the impossibility of this one. However, to do so, you must do so simply on blind faith. There is not one single shred of evidence that any such universes exist, nor is there any possible way to do so. And, realize what you are doing here, you ae saying that science, based on what we know, in this universe and it’s natural laws, is all that there is and all we should base what we believe on. Then you propose other universes, undetectable, with different natural laws, universes that spring into being out of nothing, do you see the contradiction here? Which is it, science based on what we know, or not? And in these different, possibly very different, universes, what might exist, might there be other intelligent beings? What if the laws in that other universe are very different, could there be a thing we would call God? Are you trying to replace faith based belief in magical beings with faith based belief in magical universes with magical beings, have you even really replaced anything here? Seems to me you have come full circle, from God back to God.
Thus, to believe this universe exists (you do, right??), you are stuck with infinite universes or God. Some quotes about that:
To believe string theory you must believe:
1 There is such a thing as an inflation field.
2 A potentially infinite number of bubble universes exist.
3 Strings exist.
4 Six additional hidden spatial dimensions (7 in m-theory).
5 An infinite number of compactivations of these six additional spacial dimensions exist and EACH corresponds (via inflation) to a potential infinity of ACTUAL universes.
6 That the string landscape, when combined with inflation, explains away the problem of our universes finely tuned initial conditions, laws, and constants.
And
In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all
in other words, a materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as an explanatory principle (to not believe in non random miracles).
In a theistic universe, noting happens without a reason, miracles are intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities and are expressions of rational propose
Thus scientific materialism is self-defeating and makes scientific rationality impossible.
And finally, about the chance that the universe is simply random:
Roger Penrose’s probability for low entropy calculated on the order of 10*10*123 (10 to the power 10 to the power 123, 2 exponents). That is as close to infinity-to-1 probability as any number can get, and again, that is irrespective of the number of universes.
That above number is the chance against this universe coming into being by purely random chance, and that is only considering it’s state of entropy, not even counting all the other things mentioned in the “anthropic principle”, where many other aspects of this universe and it’s laws are also very very improbable.

John B says:
Dave Springer says:
If all we observe wasn’t created then how did it get here?
——————
The religionist’s answer to this is: Don’t know, let’s make something up.
“Lets make something up” assumes, prior to any evidence, that there is no God, and that God did not tell anyone how those things were made. Is it now science to believe stuff like that without ever bothering to find out if it is true or false? Do we just assume that they made it up, well, why, exactly? Do you have a working time machine, and so went back in time, and thus can show us actual EVIDENCE that they just “made it up”? Is just assuming things like that without any evidence at all scientific? Do you know what the scientific method is? Do you use it?
My scientific hypothesis (because I will NOT just decide something without evidence), there may be a God (or, of course, may not be). One possibility, the book of Genesis may be exactly what it claims to be, a man called Moses wrote something that God personally told him about the creation of the universe and the earth, it’s planetary formation, the change of it’s atmosphere from what it started out initially to what we know now, the evolution of life starting from plants, then sea creatures, then dinosaurs (which have become birds by the time the reader sees them), then mammals, then us. Read about it here http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html and here http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html .
The scientist’s answer is: Don’t know, let’s try and find out
Odd, what they found out looks exactly like what they wrote in Genesis, now, how could that be?
We don’t (yet) know why the universe exists, or how life first started, or why or how we are conscious of it, but we do know this: All the evidence points to life as we know it being the product of billions of years of evolution, directed by natural selection and other natural factors. If some “intelligence” played a part, he/she/it/them have hidden their tracks very successfully.
Or…you could just be doing everything you can to ignore any evidence that you don’t wish to see. What are the chances that you will click on the links above? The likely chance, very slim, you will decide that it is “just all that religious nonsense” and NEVER LOOK, and then tell yourself, “well, there is no evidence for all that religious stuff” Is that honest?
Come one people, if you believe in the scientific method, well, USE IT. Turn the idea “there may, or may not, be a god” into s scientific hypothesis, and then proceed from there. The people who claim there certainly is no God are doing so without EVER bothering to use the scientific method to look into it all all, instead, all I see is a bunch of non fact based opinions and emotional arguments, and ignoring of large swaths of evidence. Do you believe in this science stuff at all? SHOW ME.

Mike says at 3:16 pm:
If you are looking at contemporary US politicians the right has the lead in anti-science nonsense. This is certainly true among the presidential candidates and in the US House and Senate. If you look at pseudo-scientific beliefs in the population at large the picture is more mixed. There have been plenty of times is history when parts of the left were anti-science, from the Scopes Monkey Trial to the Lysenko Affair. But Stalin is not running for president.
Actually, THIS is very much debatable. For example, who among Left leadership, Obama and Democrats are a well-informed about climate science astrology as 50% of the posters here? Same with oil and energy policies and renewables and “Green Jobs” mantra seen everywhere but totally unrealistic in practice.
The Left’s biggest sin in the 20th century was its widespread embrace of eugenics. This chapter sordid pseudo-scientific fad has been air-brushed from American history, post World War Two and Nazi Germany (SEE “American Socialists and Evolutionary tThought, 1870-1920,” by Mark Pittenger).
Today it lives on in social media web sites and in places like “OKcupid” dating sites, which asks people questions like “Do you think it would be better for people with lower IQs to simply not reproduce?” – which most answer “Yes.” (OKcupid is often touted as the free online dating site for “progressives.”) It is an unspoken Truth for the Left. And it calls up an ugly past.

hi Hank.
“I sense a circular argument. Define nothing.”
ok
nothing is the negation of an absolute, existence.
the negation of an absolute is not an absolute.
remember that cowboy joke about ‘ima fill ya full of holes’?
that illustrates the nature of interpreting the negation of an absolute as if it were an absolute.
if somebody fails to destroy a tree, does not mean he created one.
Legatus-
“Can you match this kind of authority on this area of science that Roger Penrose does, can you even come close?”
no, because i’m nobody. everything i say is false.

Well, I guess my opinions are unworthy of gnomish’s considerations. His mind is like a mechanical ping-pong game hopping from one idea to another without foundation.
He obviously believes in his own capacities as the ultimate authority.

I am trying to think of other nations where the candidate for head of State has to repudiate the common ancestry of humans and chimps and the role of the anthropogenic 30% increase in CO2 in warming the climate. Both are acknowledged by even the most ‘skeptical’ scientists, Behe recognises the evolution of man and chimps from a common ape ancestor and Lindzen, Spencer and Christy all accept the role of CO2 in the warming – they just dispute the magnitude of the effect…
There are a few fundimentalist Islamic theocracies where this level of anti-science is not just acceptable but nessecary, and probably a couple of backward African States where such dogmatism is obligatory.
But it is strange that a world superpower which derives its preminence from scientific advances now requires from at least one of the political parties such a level of rejection of science that it puts it on par with Somalia or Zimbabwe.

Malcolm Miller says:
September 24, 2011 at 4:29 pm
YOu are correct. Socialism is rich bastards paying so that the leeches don’t have to work.
Which is why it always fails. Eventually you run out of rich bastards to sacrifice.

Kozlowski says:
September 25, 2011 at 12:28 am
So seriously, how many people around these parts reject evolution?
—
That depends on how you define “evolution”.
There are as many definitions for that term, as their are debaters in the field.
What does one have to do in order to “reject evolution”?
I’ve seen some who declare that unless you believe that random mutation is sufficient to explain all eveolution, then you don’t believe in evolution.

“All ‘unprovable’ statements are false.”
Now there’s a statement of faith if I ever saw one.

legatus-
your argument – your howl of outrage – rests on nothing but appeal to divine authority. gaze in terror as it whirls down the vortex with a whoosh and a gurgle. you show yourself to be disturbed to the point you’ve even lost muscular control. exposing yourself to the public is probably a bad idea just now. everybody will see how easy it is to pwn a fanatic. they’ll make sport of you forever. you know how cruel people can be.
but obviously you can expect no sympathy for your panic. it’s what you paid for when you chose to stop thinking for yourself. you get what you settle for.

Late on this thread, but let me just say that those who paint the anti-vaccine types as nutso religious fanatics have an all too blind faith in scientists and WAY too much faith in Big Pharma. They are under the mistaken notion that Big Pharma wouldn’t fudge test results in order to get a multi-billion dollar product to market. Especially one that is mandated by the state.
They are also under the mistaken assumption that all vaccines react exactly the same way in every single person on earth the same way they did with the study group or that every single vial of vaccine is an exact copy of the study vaccine and/or manufactured to the same tolerances.
Not saying I agree with the anti-vaccine types (especially not the ones playing it strictly for political gain) but their are reasons for some precautions.
Let’s not forget how many perscription drugs have been recalled for deathly side-effects that were not detected in trials.

gnomish says:
September 25, 2011 at 3:29 pm
i think one scotoma you’ve not yet resolved is the self contradictory proposition that nothing is something. there is no such a thing as nothing – that is what nothing means – no.thing.
…
gnomish says:
September 25, 2011 at 9:24 pm
nothing is the negation of an absolute, existence.
the negation of an absolute is not an absolute.

There is no such thing as nothing? Now, there’s a logic puzzle. Allow me to refer you back to my earlier quote from Nobel Laureate, Dr. Leon Lederman:

In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. [My emphasis]

Dr. Lederman doesn’t seem to have a problem with the universe being nothing then something. Nor do I or most other scientists although it is cause for much head scratching. For now, the questions of what caused it to happened and how it happened remains philosophical ones as we lack the the understanding to know how validate or invalidate any scientific proposition about it. By your strict logic, any conjecture put forth would be anti-scientific. I remain in disagreement.

truth or falsehood is hardly a moral judgement. it’s pure logic. the choice to use logic or not is a moral choice.
i understand the motivation for post normal relativism, the need for shades of gray – for shadows to lurk in, where the supernatural powers are conjured from to do the bidding of the sorcerer.
your black/white and no gray metaphor is faulty, of course – i’ll use it to make run you around the palm tree till you’re butter for my pancakes.

You used the term “lie”. A lie is where one states something to be accepted as truth when they know it to be patently untrue. All cultures, as far as I know, judge a lie as immoral. False is a boolean state. In the context of your usage, they are not interchangeable and thus, your point confused.
Post normal relativism? That came out of left field. I don’t know how to begin to respond to the bunny trail that follows as it seems you want to chide and dance around metaphors. I’m not so good at innuendo and double entendre so I’ll respectfully acknowledge that you certainly did run me around the palm tree to the point of being dizzy from changing direction so many times. Enjoy them pancakes.

gnomish says:
September 26, 2011 at 4:29 pm
“Dr. Lederman doesn’t seem to have a problem with the universe being nothing then something. Nor do I”
-nailed it, didn’t i?

Huh? Are we saying the same thing in different languages? I’m really not sure what you think you nailed.

no big quibble. when you use the word ‘lie’ next time i’ll know what you mean by it.

Double Huh? Go back and follow our dialog, I didn’t use the word, you did.

still, if your grammar parses ‘nothing’ as equivalent to ‘something’ – it definitely needs a syntactical tune-up.

At no time did I ever say that nothing is equivalent to something. That is something you interjected into the conversation and now make it my point to defend. It needs no defense as it wasn’t my point.
May I call your attention to your rather pendular swings:

i know you are being rational because you can handily define any word you use at any time so whatever you say can be evaluated as logically as you strive to present it

and only a few malformed sentences later:

do you demand that anybody overlook, immunize or grant you absolution for irrationality? is it rude or is it remedial to correct you on such a fundamental error?

Who’s being irrational?
gnomish, you’re an overflowing fountain of enigmatic quips. Yes, you are rude and impossible to connect with in any way that creates common ground for a meaningful exchange. I’m packing it in.

Dear HankH,
i’m used to it. the job of making sense of things often falls to me and not the other guy – because i can.
you’re welcome for the ‘malformed’ sentences. i understood that without some endearing infirmity you’d find me intolerable.
lack of tags does make it hard for someone who isn’t clever enough to recognize it – but that’s deliberate. i like to see who is smart enough to recognize it on his own. it’s economical and reasonably accurate. unlike clothes or titles, smart can’t be counterfeited well enough to pass scrutiny.
the main implication of my statement, when properly parsed, is that without proper definitions, one lacks the most basic cognitive tools and therefore can not parse reality correctly much less do an accurate semantic analysis on somebody’s statements and that until a person is able properly to perform logic – the act of non.contradictory identification, he can’t trust his own attempts at reason – but you will have proven this to yourself many times and need no chafing reminder from me, i think. getting the law of identity wrong is cause for great shame to any man who claims the title sapiens. it’s not timor domini that’s principia sapientiae, eh. it’s the law of identity which is.
to your credit, you didn’t go completely off in the ozone but maintained a certain stability.
that parses out: a couple fellows went on a psychotic fugue, but you didn’t lose it. plz consider that a compliment.
i don’t really love pancakes so much, you know…lol definitely not a substantial diet.
put tags where you need them. they are different than . no sarc here.

@- gnomish says:
September 27, 2011 at 12:39 am
“the main implication of my statement, when properly parsed, is that without proper definitions, one lacks the most basic cognitive tools and therefore can not parse reality correctly”
Its a common mistake to think that accurate definitions are a primary factor rather than a possible but unlikely contingent result.
The whole idea of a ‘proper’ definition is a Procrustian fit of meaning to word that gains less than is lost. The idea that a word can HAVE a absolute precise definition is always the sign of an arrested mental development!

Yes gnomish, you have certainly proven that statement.
———–
unlike clothes or titles, smart can’t be counterfeited well enough to pass scrutiny.

This/ these discussions are very reason i love this blog. And the premise is most certainly a fun however the inital dicussion is plagued by problems of definition. Firstly what is ‘Science’ and then what is ‘antiscience’? If science is ‘a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.’ Then anti-science must be the belief in unknowable, untestable explainations for the universe. A disbeleif in the face of results contradictory of said tests could also construe being anti-sceince on one level but this must not be confused with healthy skepticism on another. A beleif in god, could therefore seen as antiscience, but then a beleif in something being harmful (such as low level rediation) against all contrary evidence could be seen as antisceince until such time as this beleif is empriically proven. Im not saying I beleive that low level radiation is harmful to human life but sceince would be the lesser without the sceptics and the heretics, i would go so far as to say sceince relies upon heretics to move forward, like the guy who proved ulcers were causedby bacteria in the gut or einstein himself (who may be in the process of being empirically undermined as we talk). So, some antisceintists are indeed sceintists in that they are neccessary to sceince. (if i could spell the word it would help) and THATS the easy part.
In the UK we have a very different view upon the Left/ Right political spectrum than you in the US, with some of what you call ‘liberals’ over here seeming more like what I would regard as freemarket rightwingers. This only demostrates the uselessness of the left/right political spectrum in describing political beleif and discourse. It was after all invented to describe one french parliament of the 17th century. i would advocate adherence to something more like the hans slomp projection which uses cross combination of four terms Authoritarian, Libertarian, Right and Left as more specific, but even this has difficulties in placing any given individual and would face similar problems in descriptive power against the US/ UK example i gave earlier. To then supplant beleifs about sceince upon all this is just plain confusing. And im pretty sure the ‘right’ didnt have a monopoly on religious conviction last time I checked.
For the record im a socialist libertarian atheist who is sceptical about the impact of climate change but wants to be innoculated against low level radiation.

muy bien dicho Hank.
another nice thing about spanish is that subjunctive tense is alive and well – so it’s hard to be ambiguous about what is a fancy and what is a fact.
( straying slightly off topic…)
did you know about king sejong’s invention, hangul?
the original characters were actually maps of tongue, lips and teeth in the position to pronounce the characters. a child could learn to read in a day.
o.t., i know, but it was really brilliant.

“Wow, such prodigious writings!”
The scope of my writing is that God may be known by the physical world, by all of science. Obviously, if I am talking about all of science, I should at least mention some of it, and post links to it, which I did (try clicking some of them to see). The entire universe and the science of it cannot be a small subject, and this is the very edited and chopped version.
“I agree with your quote of Romans, but I don’t agree with the interpretation. It states all that is necessary is already shown.”
Look at it again, really LOOK, look at the very specific wording, and the order of those words, lets see the context:
Rom 1:18 Some guyz are bad and they are gonna git whats comin’ to em. Ah, but perhaps they have an excuse, you say, perhaps they do not know, even cannot know, that there is a God, and that thus they may be doing wrong and may be punished. After all, how can they know of the existence of an invisible, extra dimensional being? Good question, answered in…
Rom 1:19 Ah, but they do know, God has shown then. But, you say, God is invisible, how can they be shown something that they cannot see?
Rom 1 :20 Gods existence and qualities, even though God is pointedly stated here to be invisible, are clearly seen from that which is made and is visible, as specifically contrasted here to Gods invisibility. Well, what is “that which is made? Look around you, can you see anything, as in “clearly seen” that qualifies as “that which is made”, things that are “visible”? It further qualifies it by stating “from the foundation of the world”, thus including ALL the things that are visible, are “made”, can be “seen”, and have existed throughout all of time to the beginning of that time. Thus, it is clearly stating here that Gods invisible qualities and existence can be seen by the entire visible universe.
Rom 1:21-22 But, we are fallible and prone to error, how will we be able to see what the physical world, “the things that are made’, the visible, material world, shows about God? After all, we may decide we don’t want to see God, and therefore don’t want to look too closely at the physical world, and see what it tells us. We may become vain in our imaginations, may think ourselves wise, yet become fools.
Soooo, what method is there to accurately see what the physical world is really like, especially all the way back to “the creation of the world’, despite human fallibility? May I suggest “The Scientific Method”, specifically designed to get at the truth of what is or is not true about the physical world despite the acknowledged fact that human beings are prone to error and even lying to themselves or others about this physical world (hence, this site). And when we look at this universe all the way back to “the creation of the world”, specifically, the big bang, we see a very odd thing. That is, that a big bang should not be able to create a universe such as this one, in fact, science says that this universe is so very VERY unlikely to be created by a big bang that they now have to invent an infinite number of universes (all invisible since we cannot detect them) to get around the fact that otherwise, we are forced to conclude that it was created by an infinitely intelligent being. Such luminaries as Steven Hawkins admit that this entire universe, especially all that big bang stuff, sure makes it look like there is a God, however, he then goes on to state that it is the job of scientists to try and explain that away (and since when did that become the job description of scientists, I thought they were to concentrate on the physical world, not religion one way or the other?). His and others method to try and explain how this universe can come from a big bang necessitates their “infinite universes”, for which there is not the slightest evidence. Thus, they substitute for God invisible magical universes, magical because somehow things can happen there that cannot happen here, and they can suddenly spring into being by methods we know nothing about and cannot test even if we think we do. Example, the very very low entropy state at the moment of the big bang, which is so very unlikely that it has been given the chance to happen randomly as one chance in 10*10*123, a number so big that it essentially makes it impossible. Creating more (invisible, imaginary) universes to solve this problem does not help, as the universe that this one sprang out of would then have to start at an even lower state of entropy, and thus be even more unlikely than this one. And it gets worse if you add even more universes. Hence why I say “magical” universes, universes where things somehow are said to happen that we can prove are impossible, and yet are now said to be not just happening once, but over and over, and sequentially. Basically the old argument of turtles all the way down http://theolarch.tripod.com/turtle.html
So, to replace an invisible, magical God, these scientists, who are against the invisible and magical, first admit that, yes, the universe sure does look like it could only be made by just such a God, and then invent multiple invisible, unproven and improvable universes (thus departing from the scientific method and going into the realm of fantasy and, dare I say it, perhaps even religion), and not only that, magical ones at that, where things can happen that we can prove, scientifically, are not possible. So we have the choice, the idea God, which cannot be proven directly to not exist, or the idea of magical universes, where things happen what we can prove are impossible. When we have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however unlikely, must be the truth.
And a question, an object at rest will tend to remain at rest unless acted on by an outside force, right? So there was this pre big bang singularity, what made it go bang, what was that outside force? Outside what? And do you know what the universes initial “low entropy state” means? It means that the universe contained information. So, now we have a force, outside this universe, which acted on this universe as the outside force, and contained nearly infinite information. What does that sound like to you?
Faith and belief in God’s grace are the requirements to Christianity. While endeavoring to find answers to questions to satisfy people that won’t listen anyway may be a lofty goal, it isn’t required.
Incorrect:
1 Pet 3:15 Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
Note what it says, “always”. This is a command, therefore it IS required. It is basically the same as Jesus’ “great commission”, also a command. Note also the word REASON (not just emotionally, what REASONS you have to believe this stuff). Note also the “gentleness and respect” part, if they don’t want to hear it, you are not to beat them over the head with it. Present it, and they can take it or leave it. If they “won’t listen anyway”, that is not your concern, they asked, you answered, and you at least have done what was required of you. Go to someone who will listen, who actually wants the answer to their question, instead of a liar who may ask a question but does not really want to hear the answer, which makes their very questioning a lie.

” another typically unsupported statement which we are to believe simply because you said it, to accept your word on faith”
it seems we agree on the definition of faith, at least- accepting unsupported statements as truth.
happily enough, you also seem to agree that it is not required to choose faith. given that faith must not depend on reason, do you consider it virtuous for a person choose against reason?
(indeed- do you not consider faith The Primary Virtue?)
this thing you have about appeal to authority- plz note that i’ve cited none for logic requires no man to vouch for it. whereas, if you forgo your appeals to authority, what do you have left?
when i define a term i use, you should accept my definition as the meaning of the word when i use it. feel free to make your own meaning clear by defining your terms.
it’s really hard to be confusing that way – if your purpose were not to confuse.
anti- is a prefix meaning ‘against’. a synonym is contra-. the word ‘contradict’ derives from words that mean ‘speak against’ which means repudiate. anti-science is that which contradicts abstraction of truth by means of logic and experiment which is science.
those ‘commands’ you speak of- this is some supernatural authority issuing the ‘command’?
you say it requires obedience?
obedience is to substitute the judgement of another for your own – it’s a default of reason – that’s anti-scientific. it’s worse. for a creature who depends on reason for his survival, obedience is a way to repudiate his own nature. can you picture a bird struggling to rip off his own wings? a creature that contradicts its nature receives the name ‘monster’.
i’m certainly not certified as any authority – i’m not even peer reviewed like the bible is.
i’ve never issued any commandments, for sure. i merely know what i know.
you know, halloween is coming up. kids will dress as ghosts and devils and witches and try to scare people. are they satanists?
lavey was an entertainer like billy graham. he yanked the same chains – but in the opposite direction. he believed in giving a show.

Legatus says:
September 27, 2011 at 7:06 pm
I would implore you to re-examine the meaning of the verse, I Peter 3:15.
That we are able to adequately and rationally explain some of God’s wondrous ways founded in sound science and theory isn’t what gives us Hope. Our cause for Hope is Christ’s victory over death and God’s Grace to share this gift with mankind. It is this that is the basis of our Hope. And this is the instruction of Peter.
Legatus, this has been most interesting. I thank you for sharing your thoughts on some of the passages. Perhaps we can pick up this conversation in another time or another place.
James

There’s silliness in the exchanges reported in this thread.
Certainly climate alarmists are almost always environmentalists, and environmentalists often believe Marxist economic presumptions as well as the various irrational notions chronicled in the book “Higher Superstition: the academic left and its quarrel with science”.
But many environmentalists are religious – for example, Elizabeth May, “leader” of the Green Party of Canada is studying to be an Anglican Minister. (Apparently common in the Anglican Church of Canada to be environmentalist, and neo-Marxist. I forget the name of the US sect that is equivalent.) And keep in mind that many religious people have odd notions of how to acquire knowledge, such as “discernment”.
I’d expect many skeptics of AGW etc. are in the more fundamentalist Christian category, but other individuals are definitely not religious – notably Objectivists. (Alex Epstein, Keith Lockitch, and Yaron Brook come to mind as public speakers on energy and environment, there are many others.)
I think there are a few skeptics who are racist, which is an irrational position. (Of course many alarmists are fundamentally against human life.)

gnomish says:
September 27, 2011 at 11:22 pm
” another typically unsupported statement which we are to believe simply because you said it, to accept your word on faith”
it seems we agree on the definition of faith, at least- accepting unsupported statements as truth.
We do NOT agree on that definition. It is very possible to have faith in something that IS supported. I have faith that when I flip the switch, the light will come on, that is very defiantly a supported faith. The Christian religion at least (other religions differ) specifically states that it IS a supported faith, supported by eyewitness accounts and by the facts of the visible universe and this world. It is specifically stated, for instance, that if a real live Jesus who was killed very very dead did not then come back to life and was witnessed by many to have done so, then the entire faith is unsupported and is in vain. You should also note that there is at least some difference between belief and faith, it is possible to believe that there is a god without putting your faith in that god. It is possible to believe in a god, what you do about that is where faith comes in. This latter is more of a biblical definition of faith, and may not be what you mean by faith.
happily enough, you also seem to agree that it is not required to choose faith. given that faith must not depend on reason, do you consider it virtuous for a person choose against reason?
(indeed- do you not consider faith The Primary Virtue?)
The Christian faith, at least (other faiths differ) states the exact opposite. It states that it is entirely supported on reason, on witnessed facts, and that without those facts it is entirely groundless. Paul said to “give a REASON for the hope that lies within you”, note the word REASON, you cannot give them something you do not have. It is NOT virtuous to choose against reason. Also, if you choose against reason, then you have no basis to believe the Christian religion, which is entirely based on reason from observed facts. Faith is stated not to be the primary virtue, it is stated that if you have faith to move mountains, but do not have love, you are nothing. Of course, that includes love of God, which requires reason-from-fact based faith that God exists, of course.
this thing you have about appeal to authority- plz note that i’ve cited none for logic requires no man to vouch for it. whereas, if you forgo your appeals to authority, what do you have left?
Well…science. Science tells me about the big bang. The big bang tells me that this universe started at such a low state of entropy that it is impossible to have done so unless it was planned that way (as does the anthropic principle, evolution from non living matter, etc). Therefore, reason based on science, tells me there is a God, and even tells me which one it must be (the others are not supported by these facts). Therefore, it is possible to believe in God the authority, not based on direct “appeal to authority”, but based on science and reason from observed and eye witnessed facts.
Logic may need no one to vouch for it, but the underlying premises on which you base your logical statements do. If the premise is false, it doesn’t matter how correct the logic is.
Also, note that some people may have faith in God, but not do so based on scientific facts. Just because they believe something in a non fact based way does not automatically make it not true, any more than my believing that the light will come on if I flip the switch will not be true if I know nothing about electricity.
when i define a term i use, you should accept my definition as the meaning of the word when i use it. feel free to make your own meaning clear by defining your terms.
it’s really hard to be confusing that way – if your purpose were not to confuse.
I will only accept that your definition is your definition, I do not see, nor have you given me reason to see, why I should just change my definition of a word to what you wish it to be. Or are you claiming now that I should “appeal to authority”, in this case, you, for my definition of the word, is that not illogic, unreason, anti-science? I feel perfectly free to state that your definition is a false one, and the reasons why. Or am I now to give up reason?
anti- is a prefix meaning ‘against’. a synonym is contra-. the word ‘contradict’ derives from words that mean ‘speak against’ which means repudiate. anti-science is that which contradicts abstraction of truth by means of logic and experiment which is science.
There are religions that are, indeed, anti-science, they state that you must have faith, unsupported, in everything. Christianity is not one of them, being a religion that specifically states that it is entirely fact based. Therefore you can be said to be partially correct, SOME faith (based on some religions) is anti-science, but not ALL.
those ‘commands’ you speak of- this is some supernatural authority issuing the ‘command’?
you say it requires obedience?
obedience is to substitute the judgement of another for your own – it’s a default of reason – that’s anti-scientific. it’s worse. for a creature who depends on reason for his survival, obedience is a way to repudiate his own nature. can you picture a bird struggling to rip off his own wings? a creature that contradicts its nature receives the name ‘monster’.
i’m certainly not certified as any authority – i’m not even peer reviewed like the bible is.
i’ve never issued any commandments, for sure. i merely know what i know.
Well, lets look at this idea, “supernatural authority”. Scientists tell us that there is really only two possible explanations for this universe coming out like it did, God, a supernatural authority, or there being an infinite number of universes (which latter doesn’t really solve the problem, see my earlier posts). If you have faith in these infinite other dimensions (there being no evidence, that is all you can have), then, in an infinite number of dimensions, there could be other beings. Since they are not part of this nature, they are by definition “supernatural”. Thus, science tells us we can either believe in the supernatural, or we can believe in the supernatural (natures other than this one). Either way, we must believe in the supernatural, and in the latter case, entirely on blind faith. So, do you believe in the supernatural, or the supernatural?
How is it a default of reason to, by a chain of reason, which tells me that there is a God (from science), which one it is, that that God is, in fact, the authority (having created all the rules, such as the laws of nature), and that therefore it would be wise to listen to that authority? That is not anti-scientific, it is, at it’s core, based on science and fact. To substitute the judgment of someone who has demonstrated that their judgment is always correct is not anti-reason, it is the height of reason. To admit that my judgment, in contrast, is prone to error, that I am not all knowing, is also the height of reason, based on observation and personal experience. Your belief that you CAN base all your judgment on only your own knowledge is anti-reason. And to make a statement such as “i merely know what i know”, is to state that you, yourself, must be all knowing, since you know it simply because it is YOU doing the knowing. Thus you are making the illogical statement:
There is no God.
And I know because.
I am God.
you know, halloween is coming up. kids will dress as ghosts and devils and witches and try to scare people. are they satanists?
Nope, just kids having fun. I am able to tell this by reason, by observing them, and by having been them once. Some people who call themselves Christians seem intimidated by anything that might even remotely be called “Satanism”, however, that shows that they don’t know much. In the bible, Satan comes out the loser, and also, God, with infinite power, must therefore be more powerful than Satan. So, if God is on you side, what, exactly, are you intimidated about? Chill out and go out and have fun this Halloween.
lavey was an entertainer like billy graham. he yanked the same chains – but in the opposite direction. he believed in giving a show.
He certainly seemed to be an entertainer. I don’t usually choose entertainers as my arbiters of truth. And, unless he can back up HIS statements with proof, they are “anti-science” (by your definition).
May I point out something?
The statement “you cannot prove there is a God” may be considered true if you only stick to direct detection of a non material being, which, by definition cannot be detected directly (assumes it did not create a universe and thus leave evidence of it’s existence).
However, the statement “you cannot prove there is no God” would then also be true.
Is the latter statement also, then, anti-science?
Therefore, the only statement science can make about direct (as compared to indirect) detection of God is “we don’t know”.
Which sometimes is the smartest thing a scientist can say.