The Left’s War on Science

Many in the media say there’s a conservative war on science. Is this true? No, says John Tierney, Contributing Editor at the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. Tierney says “the real war on science is the one from the left.”

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Great video – Funny how the “tolerant left” will accuse you of racism, homophobia, etc etc if you point out these truths

Bryan A

More like Totaliterant Left

Gary

The Left’s war is on freedom and individuality. Science is collateral damage.

Pop Piasa

I see this carbon (quasi)science as a tool, used to support the global socialist agenda, which also utilizes religion and seeks to pervert the legal system and constitution to enforce this agenda.

Chimp

OK, I’m going to say here, where it’s more visible, what I didn’t say when brain differences between the sexes arose in the Governor-Scientist post comments.

Until about a decade ago, it was thought that men and women had the same average mental abilities and IQ, despite the differences in our brains. But it turns out that this conclusion was based upon the fact that females mature more rapidly than males. Hence, 14 year-olds of both sexes, when typically first IQ-tested, perform the same.

But after male brains mature, they’re two or three, possibly more, IQ points higher on average than those of women. Size might matter, but the differences probably go deeper into evolutionary hormonal and wiring history.

The slight difference doesn’t mean that women can’t cogitate just as well as men. It does mean that proportionally more men can function at the highest levels than women, who are better at lots of other stuff.

Twins also have on average lower IQs, because one usually parasitizes the other.

Let the hate chips fall where they may.

What about chimp brains?

MarkW

Since you are the expert there, will let you talk on that subject.

Chimp

Chimp brains of both sexes are superior to both human sexes at spatial or working memory.

Of course only the females are regularly tested, because adult male chimps are essentially uncontrollable.

This is an easy version of the test, since the subjects are given a lot of time to memorize where the numbers are. In more advanced tests, the time is fixed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXP8qeFF6A

Chimps mature more rapidly than humans, and are born at a later stage of development, so are smarter than us from birth in areas other than spatial memory, to include reasoning. But we eventually catch up and surpass them at most mental tasks.

Our big brains mean that we are born as extrauterine fetuses, due to the obstetrician’s dilemma, ie that while our ancestors’ upright posture made for smaller birth canals, our heads were getting bigger over the millennia.

sycomputing

LOL clever!

beng135

Chimp, thanks for your measured & informative response to Stokes’ drive-by, tho Stokes doesn’t deserve it.

Trevor

CHIMP : Yep ! AND we “generally OUT-LIVE them as well ” https://chimpsnw.org/2013/03/how-long-do-chimpanzees-live/
DOESN’T IT MAKE YOU FEEL PROUD TO BE A HUMAN !
Our ancestors did well by us genetically and , UNTIL RECENTLY ,
culturally and ideologically .
We NOW seem to be DEVOLVING to a more violent , less intellectual ,
certainly less tolerant creature !
( at this point I have SAVED THE MODERATOR the trouble….by NOT
continuing in this vein !!! Now THAT is consideration for you !!?? )

sycomputing

You too, Nick, “clever” that is!

Rich Davis

Seriously Chimp, you are a masochist apparently.

I’m sure you agree that the variation within the populations is far greater than the differences in the means. And also that IQ measures something, but not the full spectrum of what we call intelligence, much less is it a number that can describe a person’s probability of success in life.

Trying to throw you a lifeline here.

WILLIAM ABBOTT

IQ does a pretty good job of predicting income variations.

Chimp

Thanks, but no thanks. Don’t need it. Masochist, maybe. Misogynist, not. Not even. Babes are my life. My mom taught me always to respect them, and it has worked wonders for me! I highly recommend it.

The IQ-sex studies have been well done. They control for other variables. With a large enough sample, the difference is statistically significant.

I’m pretty well versed in IQ issues.

For my senior thesis in human genetics, in Dr. Cavalli-Sforza’s lab, I noted that kids without fathers during key young formative years, all other factors held as equal as possible, did statistically significantly worse on their math SATs. This result was found among Harvard students whose dads had been absent during the Korean War.

I used this to explain some part of the observed difference between black and white IQ test scores. A now verboten topic, but then controversial, especially at Stanford, because of Shockley.

Dr. C-S found it a useful contribution to the nature-nurture debate.

Men and women differ in every cell, every tissue, every organ and every system of our bodies, to a greater or lesser extent. More often than not, to the benefit of women.

The basic development path is female. Males are deviants shunted off that path. Hence, our nipples. Lack of one X chromosome alone produces all kinds of sure and potential problems. Hence, shorter male lives.

Not to mention being hopped up on natural steroids.

I fondly recall pacifist moms in the ’80s who refused to let their sons play with toy soldiers or guns, but were appalled when they in the absence thereof resorted to sword fighting with sticks.

More males are conceived, but more abort spontaneously. More are born, but from the outset die at higher rates than females, from a variety of causes. Until females come to predominate in later years.

Sylvia

” I fondly recall pacifist moms in the ’80s who refused to let their sons play with toy soldiers or guns, but were appalled when they reverted to sword fighting with sticks.”

You need to keep up! That is still going on, except it is far more extensive, and the push is intensifying to remove all gender differences. Some big stores have gender neutral clothing sections for children, some schools have banned skirt uniforms altogether in the UK. The UK is currently looking at amending its Gender Recognition Act so that you can simply self-declare your gender and it has to be legally recognised. There are currently 135 transgender prisoners in UK and Welsh jails, one of whom (a pre-op transwomen) has just been accused of sexually assaulting four female prisoners. As for Sweden…

Chimp

It won’t work. It’s against nature.

Boys will be boys. Even if they’re girls.

The most horrible instance was the boy in the ’50s, whose genitals were damaged at birth, whose parents took the advice of a lunatic psychologist and had what was left removed, then brought the boy up as a girl.

Needless to say, it didn’t work and he later tried to undo his mutilation, as best as was possible at the time.

Sylvia

I’m familiar with the case. A truly tragic story.

As for “it won’t work”…at some point, when you push people too far and too fast away from the norms that provide their identity and give structure to society, you get a backlash.

Red94ViperRT10

It’s not just the

”…push[ing] people too far and too fast away from the norms that provide their identity and give structure to society…”

that causes a backlash. Men and women are different, and it was on purpose. Especially in the cases of raising children as gender-neutral creatures, once puberty hits and the hormones assert the genders they have been all along, suddenly (and I’m sure to the comic surprise of these child-abusing “parents”) the men will start behaving like men and the women will behave like women.

Gary Ashe

Yeah had that with horses.
Any idea how quick a horse stood infront of you can ruin your morning,………

Grass sky grass sky grass sky,…….like 10 pin bowling ball you go.

Graemethecat

I believe the unfortunate person later committed suicide.

Trevor

CHIMP :
“It won’t work. It’s against nature”…..YES !!!!
BUT NOT to a POST-MODERNIST MARXIST !
In SWEDEN and most of SCANDINAVIA they are
already APPLYING IT !!!
The entire world ( including science , gender
and everything else !!)
is a mere social construct with NO BASIS IN REALITY
because there is NO REALITY !!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism
To YOU and ME this is delusional and the confirmation of
MENTAL ILLNESS ….but when it BECOMES THE LAW…….
it’s become a real problem and resort to REASON is
no longer an acceptable means of resolution !!
SO MUCH FOR EDUCATION !
IT IS NOW A MARXIST WEAPON successfully destroying
“our”finest young minds and turning them against “us”
and all “our” cherished values and standards !
SORRY FOR THE PESSIMISM ……but it……along with
OPTIMISM and REALISM are the only “-ISMS”
I can deal with at the moment !

J Mac

These perverse child abusers calls their babies ‘Theybies’, to avoid sex/gender identification.
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/22/u-s-parents-raise-gender-neutral-theybies-counteract-stereotypes/

Gary Ashe

It is the same psychosis as the parent who harms a child to be the centre of attention, open child abuse, centre of attention and praised for it Mac.

Trevor

SYLVIA : Having watched the “Gender Free Video” of a
delusional couple in Sweden raising a couple of bright
(but confused and obviously embarrassed ) children
I have great doubts that this will have a “good outcome”
for anybody OR for the society of Sweden !
As if it is NOT already difficult enough to raise a child ..
..then to throw in an unnecessary complication like
“induced GENDER dysmorphia”and the World becomes
that much LESS COMPREHENSIBLE to the child !
I can’t help feeling that eventually
( when this FAILS DISASTROUSLY )
this practice will constitute REPREHENSIBLE
CHILD ABUSE and that Swedish Society will be
irreparably damaged in the meantime !
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I can see where the Marxists in ALL the University
“Social Studies”Departments are salivating in
anticipation of the INTRODUCTION
OF IT GENERALLY IN THE WESTERN COUNTRIES !
Destroy the INDIVIDUAL in child-hood and you
successfully destroy them for life :
together with their Western culture and ideology
and their resistance to further Marxist indoctrination !
THIS IS ANTI-SCIENCE in action !
The Swedes are NOT STUPID ,
but they MUST BE VERY GULLIBLE !
Destroy BIOLOGICAL FACT….and replace it with
BIOLOGICAL IDEOLOGY and improve society ??
Never in a million years !!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let’s HOPE that “we” can PREVENT THIS GROSS DISTORTION
OF REALITY taking a foot-hold in ALL “our” Universities !
THIS represents a very real SECURITY THREAT
if ever there was one !
( obviously , if we put them into “dresses”
and teach them to play the bag-pipes ..
..like the Turks and the Scots…..there is STILL HOPE ! )

Sylvia

Sweden has an election coming up in September. The Far Right Sweden Democrats is polling strongly. Push too far one way and you get an opposite and equal reaction. I think people have had enough. Check out the #WalkAway movement in the US and listen to the many personal testimonies. The mask has slipped from the left; they just haven’t realised that everybody can SEE them for what they are.

sycomputing

The basic development path is female. Males are deviants shunted off that path. Hence, our nipples. Lack of one X chromosome alone produces all kinds of sure and potential problems. Hence, shorter male lives.

Well look at that…we’ve come full circle from Aristotle, who argued that women were incomplete men. He thought that if a fetus came to full term without interference in its proper development, it would be male, otherwise, it would be female (Generation of Animals 729b, 737-38).

So, what do you really make of all this IQ thing, Chimp? What do you make of the fact that in my experience, I’ve known some extraordinarily highly intelligent STEM types capable of what I considered impressive things, i.e., doing Geometry in their head and/or beating calculators at crazy square root calculations, etc., but then they couldn’t actually reason their way out of a wet piece of toilet tissue? For example, they might be AGW proponents, or Progressive Marxists and such as this.

What gives?

Chimp

IQ doesn’t measure ideology. No matter how strong their reasoning ability, people are human, hence swayed by their emotions, and subject to irrational impulses.

Newton, who said what goes up, must come down, and knew that its stock price was mad, still allegedly took a bath in the South Sea Bubble. This isn’t known for sure. But his emotions might have gotten a hold of him.

Meanwhile, the clever, cunning but hardly genius Mrs. John Churchill, sold and founded her family’s fortune. Augmented of course by the gift of a grateful nation for her husband’s victory at Blenheim.

One of the smartest people I ever knew, my fellow Northwesterner Linus Pauling, was a naive Commie dupe.

Aristotle should have thought more deeply about that conclusion. Nipples alone ought to have clued him in. Obviously, in his culture, men would be considered superior, and granted, the penis is bigger than the clitoris, the scrotum more extensive than the labia and testicles descend while ovaries remain in the abdomen. Plus, men are bigger and stronger.

Yet just one man can cover a dozen women, to borrow a term from animal husbandry. Which sex is more important for the continuation of the species?

sycomputing

IQ doesn’t measure ideology. No matter how strong their reasoning ability, people are human, hence swayed by their emotions, and subject to irrational impulses.

In other words, no matter how strong the Intelligence Quotient determines an individual’s ability to reason might be, many of extraordinarily high IQ are unable to do so, in which case, it would appear the idea of IQ contradicts itself.

Or have I got that wrong?

Yes.you have got that wrong.

Reason is just one dimension.

sycomputing

Leo! Wonderful you’ve joined the cadre!

Yes.you have got that wrong.

Reason is just one dimension.

So you disagree with Chimp’s premise that IQ is a measure of how well one is able to reason?

No. Reason is only one quality. Kant et al. We need others as well. I agree with chimp about I Q

sycomputing

Chimp didn’t mention “Kant, et al.,” did he?

Leo you’re always good for a muddle, I do appreciate that about you!

Kant: “Critique of pure reason”. One cannot arrive at a worldview with pure reason alone.

Reason is deductive logic. We can use it to rest a hypothesis in terms of the results it predicts,. but to construct a hypothesis takes imagination.

IQ may ensure a logically consistent worldview: It does not guarantee a functional one.

sycomputing

See how easy that was? Now you’re finally offering substance to your objections, rather than just one word, grumpy old man, recalcitrance.

IQ may ensure a logically consistent worldview: It does not guarantee a functional one.

Amen to this, Leo! I’m with you on this one!

sycomputing

Yet just one man can cover a dozen women, to borrow a term from animal husbandry. Which sex is more important for the continuation of the species?

Whoops didn’t catch this until now (bed time unfortunately…I’m old and I need my “IQ’ sleep, if I had any IQ).

Now this is interesting! You’re arguing one sex is “more important” than the other for the continuation of humanity?

Why am I wrong to believe both are equally as important, since one cannot propagate without the other?

While it might be true that “one man can cover a dozen women,” it certainly isn’t true that he will, unless that same dozen women agree to allow it. Presupposing the propagation is without force, that is.

Chimp

In a state of nature, women don’t have that option. Men are stronger, for a reason.

sycomputing

In a state of nature, women don’t have that option. Men are stronger, for a reason.

errmm…eh?

[EDIT: What “state of nature” would that be?]

Chimp

Nature. As in before feminism. Hunter gatherer, ag and early industrial society.

The Victorian euphemism that “they held their women in common” in practice meant, as is the norm among today’s hunter gatherers, that the best hunter and strongest man got first dibs on whatever women in the tribe he wanted.

The human penis evolved its pump like shape so that second and third comers, as it were, would have a chance at passing their genes onto the the next generation.

Those who romanticize the state of human nature are fools, at best.

sycomputing

Nature. As in before feminism. Hunter gatherer, ag and early industrial society.

So, immediately after the hunter gatherer phase, we entered the feminism phase?

The Victorian euphemism that “they held their women in common” in practice meant, as is the norm among today’s hunter gatherers, that the best hunter and strongest man got first dibs on whatever women in the tribe he wanted.

Which should presuppose that men who’ve never hunted or are terribly weak should never get a man, because the women that would want such a man will only choose the best and the strongest, and never the weakest?

But then what do you do with Justin Bieber? Doesn’t he contradict your assumptions outright? His gal is (at least on the outside) attractive, though I’d never in a million years trade her for mine.

But then, if this is true, then isn’t this a function of IQ, i.e., a matter of how well individuals are able to reason, at least under your assumptions, even though your assumptions regarding IQ seem to contradict themselves?

The human penis evolved its pump like shape so that second and third comers, as it were, would have a chance at passing their genes onto the the next generation.

I see. So it didn’t evolve it’s shape in order to best service the orifice for which it was intended (which, btw, it seems to service very well), but rather to service many such orifices at the same time instead? But why should it be so that because it serves the one orifice well that it follows it was made to service “second and third comers,” i.e., the many?

Could it not be the case that the reverse is true? E.g., the orifice for which the penis was intended is especially suited to accept it, therefore, why couldn’t it have evolved to accept many penises instead (as seems to be the case amongst much of the youth today)? Isn’t this just your assumption?

E.g., did my finger evolve to pick many noses, or just my own? Perhaps the nose evolved in order for my finger to pick it? But if just mine, why only mine?

Perhaps then, the penis was just made to serve the one, since they’re all built in much the same way as the finger and the nose.

What say you?

gnomish

can you imagine a world where nasal sex led to procreation?
tv would sneak in tantalizing glimpses of philtrums…
hustler would have a centerfold of hairy nares…
flipping the bird would shift 2 fingers over…
women would be stoned for the same old reasons…
but i fear the anime elephant pr0n…

gnomish

generality:
at puberty, girls discover tit.power. (#me too, the unspoken truth!)
they are able to work their will in the world by control of males.
so they stop thinking.
around menopause, when the lose confidence in their withering dugs, they resume thinking.
bless em – they keep the human race going – cuz if your lust were mediated by reason and you really did think about how much work raising a kid is- u might find the birds and the bees less compelling.

joelobryan

Reminds me of the great scene from Dr Strangelove.
In the bunker, deciding how many people to take into shelters and the ratio of women to men. 10:1 was I think was the number the good Dr threw out.

Found it!
https://youtu.be/FtJzF6PD2nM

BobM

Sure, for procreation, but not much else. In every other endeavor necessary to survival it is primarily the male that builds, hunts, creates the abode while the female primarily creates and nurtures the family. Both are necessary and there is a lot of overlap. Apparently more males than females are necessary or they wouldn’t be born. We no longer live in a world where pure survival is a daily issue. While creating the modern world the male “builders” have largely concentrated on eliminating their own work, and hence in many cases their own necessity. That just makes “retirement” possible.

The ability to construct pictures in your head is orthogonal to the choice of subject matter…

sycomputing

The ability to construct pictures in your head is orthogonal to the choice of subject matter…

Leo! Great to see you!

Thanks so much for confirming that my pictures have been constructed “rightly”!

[EDIT: I’m still having fun and you’re still the one making me smile!]

🙂

I have confirmed no such thing

sycomputing

Too late to change your mind now…

Oh, that explains a lot. American Renaissance(race realists, just plain weird to me) quoted a study on racial IQ differences that showed melanin blessed folks as slightly less intelligent. I think it was a study from South Africa that happens to have a 40% single parenthood rate, but it was purely symbol based to avoid literacy issues. Thomas Sowell quoted a small study of black soldiers that settled in Germany after WWII and didn’t find any IQ differences in their offspring. Sowell also went on to say he thinks IQ is more environmental. I would suspect soldiers, with a 15% divorce rate, would be more intact and not show that difference. I still say that the act of taking tests makes you better at any test and that the illiterate take a lot less tests and would generally be at a disadvantage.

I agree. Intelligence tests measure how well you do intelligence tests. If you do enough of them, you score higher. I recall getting to borderline genius, and one commenter (who didn’t realise I was listening) saying “he didn’t take any of it seriously. Just kept cracking silly jokes. How come he comes out with a score like that?” The tests were, and quite possibly still are, culturally specific. I used to teach architecture at the PNG University of Technology. No good testing the kids who came our way with standard western tests. We used our own tried and tested methods.

sycomputing

“he didn’t take any of it seriously. Just kept cracking silly jokes.”

Ah one of the most foolishly wise, and mysteriously obvious truths of life, eh?

We moved to California in 1964, for two-year transfer. Our boys were 11 and 9, and went to the local school in the UK. At their new school in Oakland they were given so-called IQ evaluation. Both came out as “gifted children”, to our surprise, and had we stayed in Oakland would have gone to special schools. They would soon have been out of their depths – they were ordinary, smart and occasionally hard-working youngsters, intent on doing enough to keep up, but not much more. The elder, who has a fairly driving nature, is a director in a big engineering company, and soon to retire. The younger, a relaxed soul, worked in social subjects, especially in the field of conflict resolution. Both have enjoyed their professions.

They had the advantage of the English education system from the age of 5, and completely fooled the experts in Oakland, wth whom they had individual tests! So much for IQ techniques, as used in the mid sixties!

gnomish

oakland was where ebonics was invented for the affirmative action teachers to evade facing their own incompetence. then mayor moonbeam, presiding.
anybody with a pulse would have been ‘gifted’

Trevor

robinedwards36 :
” they were given so-called IQ evaluation”.
“Both came out as “gifted children”
“Both have enjoyed their professions.”
” So much for IQ techniques, as used in the mid sixties!”
BASED ON THE RESULTS it seems to me that the TESTS were
pretty accurate : “Both have enjoyed their professions.”
CAN’T ASK MUCH MORE THAN THAT CAN YOU !!??

Michael 2

“Intelligence tests measure how well you do intelligence tests.”

Which in turn are proxies for various practical skills. The Armed Forces tests recruits and requires minimum scores for each occupational specialty. It is not monolithic, some occupational specialties require exceptional spatial skills, others require math skills, some require logic skills. IQ is a single vector but really it is a composite of many individual vectors whose direction and value provides a more complete picture.

Alan Tomalty

Yes but males are losing out to higher education. The average education level of females is now higher than males.

RockyRoad

And you thought Amazon was just an online store…

Chimp

But not yet their earning power.

That says more about the devaluation of useless college degrees than about female empowerment.

Red94ViperRT10

…except when you adequately control for experience, since women are more likely to take time off if they have children, and actual job held, again as the researcher noted women just aren’t as interested in climbing the corporate ladder as men, and etc. , even the income difference disappears. Although I will say that the choices of the majority of women make it a tad more difficult for those few women who want to focus exclusively on climbing the career ladder.

Chimp, I find your posts on this subject interesting and likely true. I also find them to be generalities, and therefore no one should be blocked from holding a position solely because of their gender. But I also strongly emphasize that because these generalities generally hold true, it is a waste of time to obsessively recruit women (or even minority races) into STEM type career fields. And likely reduces the quality of work produced. Oops. Can’t say that in a public forum.

Patrick MJD

Men are also more spatially aware than women too.

Tom in Florida

Nick Stokes:
“What about chimp brains?”

Chimp, I think Nike was asking about you.

sycomputing

Chimp, I think Nike was asking about you.

Surely he didn’t miss that did he?

Even my wife knew…

Michael 2

Chimp reacts similarly to me in this regard. When a question was intended to be snarky, use it as an opportunity to explore the topic. After all, it is an answer to a question. It makes Nick look snarky and gives Chimp an opportunity to discuss chimps. He was probably hoping for this opportunity.

Sam C Cogar

Chimp – July 22, 2018 6:25 pm

But after male brains mature, they’re two or three, possibly more, IQ points higher on average than those of women. Size might matter, but the differences probably go deeper into evolutionary hormonal and wiring history.

I agree, it has to do with “evolutionary hormonal and wiring history”.

When making choices or decisions, especially critical ones, ……. most all females will, more often than not, make an emotionally reasoned decision …… rather than a logically reasoned decision, ……. whereas, most males will make a logically reasoned decision.

The female’s emotional decision making is an inherited “survival instinct” that is “rooted” in the fact that the female of the species is the primary caregiver of the offspring”, …… and she will protect it at all costs to insure “survival of the species”.

Standardized IQ Tests are not designed to exclude “emotional” responses.

Michael 2

I admire your willingness and ability to stay focused on theory and observations while largely ignoring emotional triggers. High IQ persons are particularly good at doing tasks that require high IQ. You know who you are and what you do.

pls

Not quite. There are more men at the highest IQ levels because men have a higher standard deviation in IQ. There are also more men at the very lowest levels.

Trevor

pls : ” Not quite. There are more men at the highest IQ levels because men have a higher standard deviation in IQ. There are also more men at the very lowest levels. ”
Which , in the lowest levels , according to Prof. Jordan Peterson ,
IS WHY MOST INCARCERATED PEOPLE ARE MEN !!
There are VERY REAL ADVANTAGES and VERY REAL DRAWBACKS too !

Pat Frank

Apparently, the average IQs of men and women are about the same (a 2-3 point differences is well within the noise), but the male distribution is wider, with longer tails.

That means more men can be 3-sigma stupid than women, but also that more men can be 3-sigma intelligent than women.

This apparently explains why there are more brilliant male mathematicians (e.g.) than female. Also why there remain more men in STEM fields than women, despite equality in opportunity.

There’s a long article The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics on sex differences in various cognitive and brain-related functions freely available at PubMed.

Definitely worth the download.

commieBob

The left seems to have drunk the postmodern kool-aid. The idea is that everything in science is a social construct and there is no real verifiable truth. That resulted in the science wars. That led to one of my favorite quotes of all time:

… anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) link

This crap has infested our universities. It’s actually promoting Marxism by the back door. link It needs to be rooted out before it does more damage.

Chimp

Yup. When the Communist God failed, Marxists had to find a backdoor. And so far it’s working in the academy.

God forbid that it should succeed in civil society in general.

Bob. You are almost correct. Everything is a social construct and there is no verifiable truth BUT that does not mean that a reality independent of human conception does not exist.

Post modern thinking is flawed , but not for the reasons you give.

Michael 2

“Everything is a social construct”

Including thinking that everything is a social construct, which means that thinking everything is a social construct might itself be in error.

Trevor

Michael 2 :
“Including thinking that everything is a social construct, which means
that thinking everything is a social construct might itself be in error.”
Michael…….THAT is about as probable
as the WORLD’S WORST GOLFER being paired
with THE WORLD’S WORST CADDIE !!!
Who would you believe ?? and WHY ??

No. he makes a good point that Roger Scruton (Philosopher of the right) also makes.

The left cannot think right: (sic!) Until you organise your knowledge into a hierarchy, then you will always have circular logic in it.

Ergo its about the necessity of making statements like “This statement that there is no demountable truth content in any statement except this statement, is true”

This is a deficiency of language., The meaning is quite clear. At the furthest reaches of human ability to form ideas about the world, is the basic notion that ideas about the world are not the ‘world in itself. Yes that is also an idea about the world, but it stands above and beyond ‘ordinary’ ideas about the world, because it defines itself to be a statement about them, not about itself.

It calaims no absolute context.

So since this statement is not an affirmation of Truth, it does not form part of the set of ‘true statements that can be shown to be unprovable’.

It is the denial of truth content at a given level.

I.e the way science works. Think of a hypothesis, Does it predict the future accurately? No? Then it’s not science. We look for the refutation of its truth content as a means to test its functional validity. NOT its truth content. That is unknowable.

We are left with statements about the world that might be true, but are certainly not demonstrably false.

I.e. Given the physical world expressed in terms of mass space and time (already unprovable, but useful, elements of a complex ‘material’ world-view) as Newton supposed it to be, it is possible to construct equations which allow accurate predictions of planetary motion and cannonballs to be constructed.

These equations introduce a necessary term. G. Newton called it ‘gravity ‘and claimed it was the inherent unexplained property of matter to be attracted to itself.

But it is not observable directly. It is an artefact of the need to make a model of the world – Euclidean space time materialism – conform to observations. If we change the model to relativistic space time, gravity ceases to exist, and what was ascribed to its effects, becomes a property of curvature of that space time instead.

We have a new model that conforms to the data, and in fact somewhat better.

Hence my point that there is no truth content in a particular hypothesis. AT that level we are (as scientists) simply performing algorithmic compressions on the experience we have of the world in the fond hope that it is reasonably algorithmically compressible enough to be – if not losslessly compressed, at least useful, in the sense that a e.g. JPEG is useful even though information is lost from the bitmap that comprised it.

Modern physics seems to suggest that the worlds is not algorithmically compressible without loss. That even if perfect deterministic equations for its subsequent behaviour could be found, the need to have an exact description of it at the instant a computer simulations were started, would require a data store the size of the universe itself.

This is massively important in the construction of climate change hypotheses, because this is the problem in miniature.

Even if we get the ‘right equations’, the collection of the starting point data is only approximate, and if by running simulations with trivial variations in the starting point data we get widely varying results, we have reached a prediction limit. Averaging the possibilities is faux logic: the average state of Schrödingers cat is half dead, but common sense shows us that this in fact has a probability of zero. The cat is alive, or dead. There may be a thunderstorm and torrential rain today, or there may not. There will not be a steady drizzle.

In many cases the average of possibilities is the least of all probabilities.

Where I am going with this is simple. It is a reiteration of Kant’s warning, that Pure Reason wont determine truth content

I.e. science does not lead to Truth, merely the elimination of patent falsehood.

The Postmodern Left have seized on this for political and egotistical reasons to absolutely extrapolate this metaphysical statement well beyond the context in which it applies.

It is absolutely true to say that science per se, for example, reflects the thinking of white male in an age of colonialism. The world view they had, of the world as material ultimately emotionless and genderless, and existing in space time, is the world that they described with Science.
So science is itself relative to that world view.

That fact that postmodernists claim (reasonably, in my opinion) that the world is more than that or different from that does not, however, invalidate science.

My whole point is not to disprove the post modernists claim that truth is relative to culture, because it seems to me that it most certainly is. But to absolutely dispute that truth is ONLY relative to culture.

This is where Kuhns ‘paradigm shift ‘ is actually not inconsistent with Popper’s thesis.

Relativity is a paradigm shift. It is a whole new way (‘culture’) of looking at the issue that Newton called gravity, but it does not invalidate Newton. It is actually more of the nature of a TRANSFORM of Newton into a new paradigm’s axis set.

The essential truth of the universe has not changed. We cannot, by changing our cultural perspective, levitate, but the nature of what we conceive the world to be, the nature of the ‘truths’ that we express in language, are radically altered.

THIS is the post modern mistake. And the average scientists mistake. The scientist makes the ultimate mistake of confusing his models with Truth.
The post-modernist attests that models are cultural constructs, ergo there is no truth but what culture creates.

But both are wrong. There is a truth, but it is not a model, The truth is what the model most conform to, but not be congruent with. Models are indeed cultural constructs, but they still have to conform with ‘whatever is the case’

The scientist and the post modernist have both fallen into the same trap of considering that the model IS the reality, not as Korzybski reminds us, merely a MAP of it.

Poor scientists have only themselves to blame for finding themselves under attack. Intellectual laziness and lack of acuity lead them to the arrogant claim that science reveals the truth. Second raters like Dawkins and Hawking announce that because their models have functional effectiveness they are therefore true. Thus setting themselves up as aunt sallies to be knocked down by the post modernists who make even more egregious claims, that since they cant be shown to be true, truth is and in fact becomes simply what people believe it to be.

This is at the heart of the New Left’s ‘magic thinking’: That simply wanting e.g. cheap electrical mass storage, and throwing enough tax dollars at Elon Musk will magically result in cheap mass grid level storage.

Personally I blame all this on the combination of stupid people and pyschedelics. Reality is for people who cannot handle drugs. And they should have stuck with it. Noting how psychedelics demonstrate the mutability of the nature of the perceived world,. they were unable to grasp the humbling notion, that their perceptions were not the world in itself, merely another map of it. Instead believing that the world was , or would become, in fact whatever they conceived it to be. If everyone meditated on Peace, world peace would result. If everyone concentrated on feeling light headed, they would levitate. If they purified their bodies with macrobiotics, they would become better people, rather than just insufferable prigs.

In short the New Left are just people, and their offspring of a generation who took LSD and never actually understood it.

But oh boy, they certainly thought they did…

Exactly.

commieBob

The absolute, complete, 100% truth eludes us. On the other hand engineering approximations are usually close enough.

Your chances of dying because an engineer didn’t sufficiently understand the truth are so close to zero that it doesn’t matter. That should be sufficient verification of the truth of a whole bunch of scientific and engineering principles.

Trevor

commieBob : ”
Your chances of dying because an engineer didn’t sufficiently
understand the truth are so close to zero that it doesn’t matter. ”
AND YET IT HAPPENS…………..INCOMPETENCE…………..
ARROGANCE……….??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton_Wick_air_crash
The Sutton Wick air crash occurred on 5 March 1957 when a Blackburn Beverley C Mk 1 heavy … An investigation found that a non-return valve in the fuel system had been installed the wrong way round causing two of the engines to be starved of fuel. … The tail section of the aircraft crashed on a farmhouse near the main …
AS SOON AS YOU DESIGN SOMETHING “FOOLPROOF”
NATURE COMES UP WITH A BETTER FOOL !!!
Just ask MY STOCK-BROKER !!!! Well…no….don’t !!
It’s so embarrassing !!

TonyL

The Academy is an incoherent place.
The hatred of science in general, and chemistry and physics in particular on many campuses is palpable. The student body in general has no qualms about ostracizing and attacking any student who has the “Wrong” major. Of course, to have the “Wrong” major means to have a social status in the negative numbers, and to be in the ranks of the “Untouchables” where the majority will not allow themselves to even be seen with such a “Wrong” major.
Consider that status seeking and social climbing are primary activities on the campus and we can appreciate what a powerful social force the Hating is.
So who is doing the Hating?
In my experience, the Big Three are the Education dept, the Sociology dept, and the English dept. Three extreme Left departments, all top-heavy with female enrollment. And all espousing an irrational disdain for all things science.
{Ever wonder why math and science education in the public schools is so bad? Wonder no more.}

So how does the University address this mess?
“We Need More Women In STEM!!!”
Sure. Just after you have made it perfectly clear that a major in STEM is social suicide on campus, particularly for the female undergrads. Yup, the young ladies are just going to flock to those majors.

Sylvia

I worked in a policy role in a Government bureaucracy once. I left. I remember one of my seniors (a Trotskyist) mocking the engineers at university. The cool kids, like him, you see, had been in the humanities/political sciences. My father was an engineer. A brilliant one, who built things and solved problems. Anyway, I looked at this bureaucrat, sitting on his swivel chair, in a nice air-conditioned office in front of his computer, and just thought “What a w*nker, everything that you use to spread your Marxist world view, and all the money that goes into your pocket, gets there by virtue of men (and women) who create and build the tools you use” Talk about ingratitude!

TonyL

Yes, indeed. Very typical.
This calls to mind an incident I has as an undergraduate. At the time I was taking Physical Chemistry. The Prof was a real Thermodynamics guy, so we were doing all the mathematical derivations of all the Laws of Thermodynamics from equations of state. These derivations were all partial differential calculus. We were up to our ears in good old “Partial Diffy”.
I was at lunch one day, sitting at one of the long row tables. Eventually, I was surrounded by a group of Education majors (all females). {Ordinarily these girls would not be caught dead sitting with me, but as the cafeteria fills up, you sit where you can.}
They spent the whole lunch time telling me how stupid I was. My main fault, apparently, was that I had to study. They, on the other hand, could get an easy A in every course without ever even opening the textbook. That is how smart they were. Impressive!
25 years later:
A feature article in a local newspaper during late summer.
“Not ready to go back to school? Your teachers are hard at work!”
The article then went on to describe a “Professional Development Workshop” the middle school teachers has attended. The teachers were very excited. They claimed the workshop gave them a full theoretical understanding of the topic, and now they could teach it with great confidence. The mysteries had been revealed.
So what was the topic which had so flummoxed the teachers prior to the workshop?
Fractions. Adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing *fractions*. Schoolteachers. They could finally “do” fractions. They could not “do” fractions prior to the workshop.

I could not help but think back all those years, to that lunch with the Education majors. I was up to my ears in partial differential calculus and was getting berated for my stupidity by a bunch of girls who could not “do” fractions.

Chimp

My favorite story along those lines is about the brother of a buddy of mine, who is a real nuclear engineer, unlike the Peanut. His wife was an elementary education major.

She graduated with a 4.0 from WSU, while his GPA was only 3.8. She got credit, literally, I kid you not, for learning how to cut out multiple human figures, an A+, of course, while he got a B+ in advanced particle physics.

Sylvia

They hand out PhDs in the humanities like lollies these days, and obviously in climate ‘science’ too. If you ever want a good laugh, you should check out “Real Peer Review” to see what passes for scholarship now.

Sylvia

Things are far worse than that. I know for a fact that there are students studying to be teachers at university level who don’t know their times tables.

PS I could always ‘do’ fractions. : )

OweninGA

This is completely unsurprising. Many of our education majors started as another major and bolted for education the moment they hit a 300 level course in their first major.

One of our physics professors (who is teaching at her first American university) was completely flummoxed by the behavior of her students in her introduction to physical science course. 90% of the students refused to do homework, and complained about every quiz and test. The really bad part is that she couldn’t give them the grades they truly earned because she would be fired for failing 90% of her class. They were all education majors! The worst part is this class is about the most dumbed down course I have ever seen at the college level. It is very similar to the course that was a requirement for 9th graders when I was in high school. It is all about concepts with very little math, and nothing above basic algebra when there is math at all. These are the same people who will be complaining about how lazy their students are when they are out teaching. I feel sorry for their students!

MarkW

I remember my college days, two years of calculus, 1 year of differential equations.
Then we got to the hard stuff.

Darrin

It starts in K-12, passing students through because it would be bad for their esteem to fail them. Once they reach college they are passed through because they are paying for that diploma. College fails to many students and their income will drop as students switch to colleges that will grant them a degree…It’s just business after all.

Sylvia

That sort of thinking has some rather serious implications… How did we get here???

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/06/07/revamped-lawsuit-vows-to-expose-discrimination-in-obama-faas-diversity-hiring/

“After the announcement, the FAA notified Brigida and thousands of other applicants to become air traffic controllers their Air Traffic Selection and Training, or AT-SAT, scores were no longer valid, and they instead would have to pass a “biographical questionnaire” before being allowed to re-apply.

Traditionally, the FAA gave preference to veterans, airline pilots, and individuals who passed the AT-SAT. The Obama administration policy was meant to field more minority applicants.

The “biographical questionnaire” awarded more points to applicants less qualified than the FAA used to tap for hiring, including awarding more points to individuals with a lower aptitude in science and who’d been unemployed for the previous three years.

This is the kind of crap that gives WUWT a bad reputation.

Climate science is not about left or right. There is no discrete “Left” that is opposed to science. This is the same as calling skeptics of anthropogenic global warming “deniers.” It’s just name-calling and it obfuscates the real arguments against the IPCC global warming scare tactics.

Stick to the facts. Stick to the evidence. Stick to the data. That’s science.

[Oh, please. The left has made climate science POLITICAL. If you can’t handle that we occasionally post things like this, don’t comment. Besides, it doesn’t matter what we post here, somebody won’t like it. Feel free to be as upset as you wish. 😉 – Anthony]

Michael Lewis, PhD

Well, that says it all, then, doesn’t it. I thought WUWT was to be a place where we could find factual information about climate. I guess I was wrong.

Bye!

RockyRoad

Michael, what does the “PhD” after your name stand for?

jarthuroriginal

Parents Had Money?

Steve Keppel-Jones

I think you meant Parents had Dough 🙂

MarkW

I’d love to know what his “degree” is in.
Dollars to donuts it’s not one of the hard sciences.

Gary Ashe

Particularly hard done-by

How about factual information about the politiczation of science and scie cd denialism by the New Left faux interpretstion of metaphysical ideas?

MarkW

In other words, you are offended because people want to talk about things you have no interest in.
How totalitarian of you.

Chris

Specifically how has the left made climate science political?

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

They turned climate science into “climate change,” which is: a) a wealth redistribution scheme from Western nations to developing and underdeveloped nations; b) additionally, it promotes an anti-industrialisation, anti-capitalist and anti-western civilisation worldview.

Glad to help you with your question.

Chris

The terminology change from global warming to climate change was due to folks saying “gee, it’s not getting warmer everywhere at the exact same rate, so therefor global warming is not occurring.” And also because there are impacts of global warming, such as drought or extreme rainfall, that the words global warming does not convey. Extreme drought is affecting Australia, as you well know. But it’s all just natural variation, right, Krudd?

So by your definition, taking action on something is politicizing it. The ozone layer problem and solution? Politicization. Reducing acid rain? Politicization.

Gary Ashe

Faking it for political funding streams, is a clear ”politicisation” don’t you think numb-nutz.

RockyRoad

Just asking that question reveals a deep level of misunderstanding.

Graemethecat

The Guardian has latched onto Climate Science in a big way, and derides anyone who deviates in any way from the accepted dogma as a “Science Denier”. That should tell you all you need to know.

MarkW

By declaring that more government is the only solution to this invented problem.

Chris

There is massive innovation happening in the private sector. EVs, battery storage technology, advances in solar panels, improvements in wind turbines. All private sector.

MarkW

Do you actually believe that any of this would be happening if government hadn’t raised taxes and subsidies? Not to mention regulated certain outcomes?

Michael 2

It was science while the purview and hobby of scientists. The moment that billions of dollars were attached to it politics entered.

Roger Knights

*****

hornblower

This left right nonsense really takes away from the made theme that AGW is way overdone. Please stick to the science.

sycomputing

If the sole consideration was science, perhaps we could.

MarkW

If the left wouldn’t use so called climate science as an excuse to extend their control over the rest of us, I would have no trouble sticking to your request.

simple-touriste

“There is no discrete “Left” that is opposed to science”

Pretty much all parties are anti-science when they pick and choose and reject empirical verification, which all major parties do when they worship vaccines.

MarkW

Fascinating. Following the facts means you reject science.

honest liberty

Mark, how much time have you invested in research of:
1. the history of vaccination
2. the theory of vaccination (anti-bodies = protection)
3. 1986 Vaccine Injury Act that removed ALL liability from producers from being sued for damage
4. The money and corruption involved in the government/pharmaceutical collaboratio:
Look at CDC regarding swine flu scandal (Sharyl Atkinson exposed that one pretty well and Jon Rappaport (nomorefakenews.com) has slaughtered that narrative repeatedly for years.
CDC is the oversight center for safety and efficacy yet profits to the tune of ~4 billion annually from the flu vaccine (which this past year they admitted was 10% effective?)
Merck/CDC MMR vaccine scandal blown wide open by Dr. William Thompson, who openly admitted to fraud (once he was provided immunity), but of course nothing came of that… too much money involved.

Here is a great place to at least begin reading about all of this, and after a few thousand hours of investigation I’d be interested if you still place your faith in the system.
https://www.drjohnbergman.com/everything-youll-need-to-know-about-vaccines/

It continues to defy logic how such great insight is held by many of the commenters here, on many topics (most especially recognizes the history/patterns of collusion regarding CAGW, and properly placed distrust of the government, the science, all of it) but when it comes to something that is equally saturated in corruption, deceit, and damage to the masses- you disregard it because it doesn’t fit your narrative in the left/right paradigm. This isn’t a leftie topic BTW- Many devout christians absolutely refuse to vaccinate because they genuinely care about their children and they spend the time investigating what goes into their bodies.

Access to clean water, sanitation, healthy food, and moderate amounts of excercise is all that is necessary to combat any of these “diseases”. Babies don’t have developed immune systems, so you want to inject them with live and dead virus’ to supposedly build immunity?! over 72 injections of 14 vaccinations before teenage years?

It appears that just like the nutjob lefties and CAGW, the science is settled on this isn’t it? I suppose that is why Kalifornia had to mandate injecting this stuff into babies. Think upon that.

MarkW

Enough to know that those who reject medical science are all nut jobs.

Steve Keppel-Jones

Normally, MarkW, you are very insightful. But you might have a blind spot here. If you think climate “science” is in bad shape, you should see what they’ve done to medical “science”. There are even more billion$ at $take, and guess what that does to the facts?

That’s not to say that there isn’t a kernel of truth in vaccine theory; of course there is, just as in global warming theory. But when you add the financial and political machinations on top, you get a big mess.

Ask your doctor how many long-term safety and effectiveness studies she relies on when deciding whether to vaccinate your kids. The answer I got was “none”. That’s not science… it’s politics and money. There certainly can’t be any “informed consent” when there’s no useful information to be had.

And you should be careful to avoid lumping all medical “science” into the same bucket. You can be grateful for modern surgery and antibiotics, and still be highly skeptical of vaccine theory, for example. Or fluoridated drinking water.

You should see what happened to AIDS “science” while you’re at it. Blech…

Gary Ashe

It’s criminal, only in America does it happen,..

Truly shocking when you look at it.

Sylvia

Post Normal Science is very much an invention of the academic left

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010636822581

And postmodernism, challenging the notion of objectivity and rationality, is standard fare in universities, seeping into the STEM subjects.

TonyL

Biology currently under attack, chemistry and physics next. This attack has been long in the making.
The one thing that has always puzzled me from my undergraduate days:
Why did the Education Dept have such animus towards the science majors on campus, to the extent the Profs would encourage their students to go out and harass science majors?
The Chairman of the Education Dept. headed up the largest and most influential Dept. on campus. It was obvious across campus he hated the sciences and would abolish them if he could. It was also clear he held his greatest hatred and fear for the chemistry majors.
It was a sight to behold, the head of the most powerful Dept. on campus terrified of an undergraduate toting a chemistry book. Also extremely dangerous for the undergraduate.

The video suggests that they just hated logic and reason. Apparently, logic and reason undercut their whole ideology, and so needed to be destroyed.

Patrick Hrushowy

When I was in university (UBC) in the late 1960s the far left Marxists tended to switch to education in their final year, which enabled them to get a teaching certificate. Many of them became active in the local teachers’ union, some even rising to union leadership. These folks demanded that all teaching of values be removed from curricula, …and they largely succeeded.

Doug Huffman

Thanks for highlighting the clear association between Jordan Peterson and John Tierney. I was instantly struck by the similarities.

Philip Mulholland

Jordan Peterson’s YouTube videos are the go to place to study this issue.

Jordan Peterson: Why You Have To Fight Postmodernism

Philip Schaeffer

Anthony said:

“The left has made climate science POLITICAL.”

Yeah, and the right had nothing to do with that at all!

Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

RockyRoad

Since “climate science” isn’t based on the true application of science, what else would it be–astrology?

Post Normal Science is just another name for POLITICAL; Nirvana is just around the corner (one more piece of legislation should do it!)

BTW, I don’t see where “climate science” is taken seriously enough by “the right” to use it in a political context–unless opposing the inane politicization of climate science by the left is what you mean.

Gary Ashe

Climastrology, and mathamagic’s, hth.

Profit and power drive climate change. ThrLeft and the Greens are their tools. The attack on science is necessary so the objective evidence of their lies id discredited a priori

The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

Mr. Schaeffer:

Please correct me if I’m wrong here, but didn’t Jim Hansen (a scientist) set up his testimony before the U.S. Congress (a POLITICAL body, not a scientific body), on a hot June day, with the windows open (so the A/C effect would be minimal)? If Hansen wanted to have a scientific discussion, or a scientific symposium, he could have convened something OUTSIDE of a political body.

But he chose to stage a ‘dog-and-pony-show’ in front of a political body. I’d call that a bona fide act of politicizing science.

Obviously, Hansen knew that real scientists would see right through his fake CAGW claims in less than a femtosecond, so he had to present to those whose science expertise was lacking.

Vlad

Philip Schaeffer

The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler said:

“didn’t Jim Hansen”…

No. It may have been a hot day, and he was testifying in front of politicians (yah know, the ones who need to know stuff to make decisions), but the claims that it was set up deliberately to use hot weather for drama, and that the windows were open, simply don’t stand up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/30/setting-the-record-straight-the-real-story-of-a-pivotal-climate-change-hearing/?utm_term=.ba9a1df79b7b

It’s been covered here too.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/15/global-warming-today-is-now-haunted-by-an-almost-unbelievable-deceptive-beginning/

Exactly what evidence are you relying on, and how do you think it stands up after reading through that article and WUWT thread? Nick goes into some detail there about the origin of the claims, and what evidence we do actually have.

The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

But if it is a SCIENTIFIC question, then the politically-inclined do not need to be involved. You cannot solve a scientific question with politics. So, why did Hansen talk to Congress-people, and not his peers?

Links from the Washington Post are suspect; I’m not inclined to accept much, if anything, from Nick Stokes; and the previous thread asked the same question several times (w/o being answered): Which time is Tim Wirth lying? Was he lying the first time, or the second time?

Either way, Wirth is shown to be a liar. About the only thing one should believe from Wirth was this:

“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

— The Actuarial Update, March 1998, Volume 26, Number 3.

Speaks volumes on politicizing science.

Philip Schaeffer

“but didn’t Jim Hansen (a scientist) set up”

No, the timing was due to the legislative process.

“his testimony before the U.S. Congress (a POLITICAL body, not a scientific body),”

Yes, he testified before congress. And no, it isn’t a scientific body. But it’s members do need to be informed about science.

“on a hot June day, with the windows open (so the A/C effect would be minimal)?”

It may have been a hot day, but Hansen had nothing to do with the day chosen, Wirth wasn’t there (he was in the senate, not congress), and the guy responsible for infrastructure doesn’t think the windows can even be opened.

So, what you’re left with is:

“Jim Hansen testified before congress on a day that happened to be hot”

“But if it is a SCIENTIFIC question, then the politically-inclined do not need to be involved. You cannot solve a scientific question with politics. So, why did Hansen talk to Congress-people, and not his peers?”

Hansen didn’t go to congress to get scientific input from it’s members. He went to inform them of what he believes to be a problem on the basis of scientific research. Scientists don’t make laws, but they can and should inform those who do. People who make laws can and should seek information from scientists.

Should no one testify before congress about anything because that would be politicizing an issue that isn’t specifically political?

The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

So here it is: it was meant to inform, ‘ … them of what he BELIEVES (sic) to be a problem … “. Believing something to be a problem does not make it a problem. Believing that politicians should be involved does not mean that politicians should be involved. Hansen, Wirth, or whomever chose an improper venue to present something, in this case, a non-problem, without proper vetting of the issue within the scientific realm.

“Should no one testify before congress (sic) about anything because that would be politicizing an issue that isn’t specifically political?”

Where is it written that the identification of a problem/issue means that it has to be presented to some political body? Good grief! The only people capable of solving a problem (real or imagined) is some governmental entity? The very last people you should seek to involve in any issue is government-related. In the ’60’s, our favorite joke was, “I’m from the government; I’m here to help.”

Sure makes you wonder how in God’s Green Earth we ever managed to make it from the Younger Dryas to the War for Independence without Congress solving all of our problems for us … … … …

I maintain that [leftist/socialist/Marxist/what-ever-you-want-to-call-them-ists] politicized the issue INTENTIONALLY to, ” … ride the global warming issue. Even IF THE SCIENCE IS WRONG … “, which, by the way, it is, the goal was to politicize it, and weaponize it, and in that endeavor, it has been an overwhelming success.

I’m enjoying the way you keep squirming around the fact that Hansen did not present science to science forums first. Proves you have no way to counter what did happen, and why it happened. No matter how hard you try, Wirth is a proven liar, and Hansen a proven poor excuse for a ‘scientist’.

The question of which time Wirth is lying is still unanswered: which statement by Wirth is the lie?

Good guideline for posting here: when you’re in a hole, stop digging.

Philip Schaeffer

Lol, you’re hilarious. You got caught out parroting a claim that you’ve never really looked into, and now you’re on the attack and say that I’m squirming!

How about this… Why don’t you lay out what evidence you have to support the claims about Hansen. Lets hear it. Everything you’ve got. I didn’t bring it up. You did. So, have at it! What do you actually know about it?

The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

Sure, just as soon as you explain why Hansen went to a political body (and, no, it was not to seek their scientific expertise or input; your 23 July at 9:11 PM, above) instead of a scientific body, wherein it could be FIRST and FIRMLY established that a problem existed in the first place. [Q1]

And, just so you know, the claims about Hansen came from Wirth (the proven liar; so which account by Wirth is the lie? I do not see an answer from you on that question.). [Q2}

And, it looks like we’re still waiting for an answer on the question of why we have to do something about a non-problem, ” … even if the science is wrong … “. The original topic of this thread was the Left’s War on Science, which you claimed was not exclusive of one side of the political aisle. [Q3]

I’ll be happy to continue, but unless and until you come up with solid answers for these three, there’s little point to having any discussion with you. If you expect an answer, then give one (or in this case, three).

Philip Schaeffer

“explain why Hansen went to a political body (and, no, it was not to seek their scientific expertise or input; your 23 July at 9:11 PM, above) instead of a scientific body,”

Because if you believe there is a problem, and you believe that action from the government is required, you talk to the government. Whether you are right or wrong, if you believe you are right, that is what you do.

“wherein it could be FIRST and FIRMLY established that a problem existed in the first place.”

That is a matter of opinion. He believes that the evidence he has is enough to establish that a problem exists.

“And, just so you know, the claims about Hansen came from Wirth (the proven liar; so which account by Wirth is the lie? I do not see an answer from you on that question.)”

Just so I know? Did you know about the situation with Wirth before I gave you those links? Do you have anything more than the word of a liar to support your allegations against Hansen? Have you looked at the other evidence to see if the allegation is supported?

And regardless of which version is right, how would either implicate Hansen? Did he pick the dates? Did he ask for the windows to be opened (if they were indeed open, which there is no evidence of, and is thought to not be possible by the guy responsible for the infrastructure there at the time)?

Do you still stand by your initial allegation?

If not, which parts and why?

“And, it looks like we’re still waiting for an answer on the question of why we have to do something about a non-problem, ” … even if the science is wrong … “. The original topic of this thread was the Left’s War on Science, which you claimed was not exclusive of one side of the political aisle.”

That isn’t a question. That’s a statement masquerading as a question. It requires that I agree that there is no evidence and that the issue is therefore a non problem.

“I’ll be happy to continue, but unless and until you come up with solid answers for these three, there’s little point to having any discussion with you. If you expect an answer, then give one (or in this case, three).”

Lol, what are you going to run next? Declare my answers to be not solid enough, so answering isn’t worth your time? What’s next? I have to prove that all of the science behind global warming is right before you’ll deal with your unsupported allegations?

The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

Fine with me; I accept that Wirth is a liar, and his first account was false, which, by implication means that we cannot believe his ‘retraction’. So when he says it’s not about the science, we’re left with a single conclusion, that it’s about politics. Hansen and Wirth are both from the left side of the aisle, and they’re just two of many.

Again, since you won’t read my posts, if Hansen believed there was a problem, his first course of action should have been to present to the scientific community. He didn’t. He didn’t present his shoddy science to the scientific community for one simple reason: his ‘science’ was false, and would have been destroyed within a few hours. Instead, he used his position to present a non-problem to a non-scientific body, for the implicit purpose of politicizing (and weaponizing) a non-issue.

As for unsupported allegation(s), the only unsupported allegation (or opinion, if you will) is yours, that both sides of the aisle are culpable in this. Aren’t those words above, yours? The post at 23 July 1:23 AM, where you state (authoritatively): “Yeah, and the right had nothing to do with that at all!” Did you, or did you not write that post?

I asked if Hansen went before Congress, with the assistance (I never said that Wirth was on the Committee; if he was present, he was a spectator, so why you would accuse me of thinking that a Senator [from Colorado] would be sitting on a House Committee is beyond me) of Tim Wirth, who has ‘recanted’ his account of the shenanigans of the day. You asked my source of Wirth’s comments (note to P.S.: the account is from Wirth, the one where he has now said that he was lying). So Hansen politicized what should have been a scientific question, and the Left/or-whatever-today’s-meme-is, have been running with it ever since, while those of us who consider ourselves to be (US-terminology) Conservatives (or Right, if you prefer) have been fighting a false narrative since that day.

No, I have no expectation that you will attempt (or succeed) in ‘proving all the science behind global warming’ is right. It has been proven false well beyond a ‘shadow of a doubt’. Recall that Einstein had some statements concerning his own theories; some 100 scientists of the Third Reich wrote a paper refuting his claims, to which he said, “Why 100? One would have been sufficient.” He also said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

Websites such as this one continually point out the failure(s) of what is called ‘climate science’, so we’re well beyond the ‘… one experiment …’ criterion.

And I have no inclination to suspect that Anthony is ‘left-leaning’.

So, do we have an apology from you, for your initial statement against Anthony? I also have an opinion that you would benefit from the statement by ‘Honest Liberty’ (downthread) from 23 July at 11:33 AM.

I am grateful to provide some ‘hilarity’ in your day.

Lots of love back at you,

Vlad

Philip Schaeffer

“Fine with me; I accept that Wirth is a liar, and his first account was false, which, by implication means that we cannot believe his ‘retraction’. So when he says it’s not about the science, we’re left with a single conclusion, that it’s about politics.”

Maybe it was all about politics for Wirth, but the allegation you presented was about Hansen.

“Wirth are both from the left side of the aisle, and they’re just two of many.”

Guilt by association?

“Again, since you won’t read my posts,”

I’m reading. Reading is one of the things I’m better at. Notice how I actually quote all your words when I respond to them, and break them down into chunks so that what I say is directly relevant to the words I am quoting?

“]if Hansen believed there was a problem, his first course of action should have been to present to the scientific community. He didn’t.”

Do you actually have any idea what he worked on, what what papers were published?

“He didn’t present his shoddy science to the scientific community”

Are you sure about that?

“for one simple reason: his ‘science’ was false, and would have been destroyed within a few hours. Instead, he used his position to present a non-problem to a non-scientific body, for the implicit purpose of politicizing (and weaponizing) a non-issue.”

Righto. Truth by bald assertion.

“As for unsupported allegation(s), the only unsupported allegation (or opinion, if you will) is yours, that both sides of the aisle are culpable in this. Aren’t those words above, yours? The post at 23 July 1:23 AM, where you state (authoritatively): “Yeah, and the right had nothing to do with that at all!” Did you, or did you not write that post?”

Are you seriously going to argue that both sides aren’t responsible for the politicization of this issue? Really? It was just the left, simple as that?

Philip Schaeffer

“I asked if Hansen went before Congress, with the assistance (I never said that Wirth was on the Committee; if he was present, he was a spectator, so why you would accuse me of thinking that a Senator [from Colorado] would be sitting on a House Committee is beyond me) of Tim Wirth, who has ‘recanted’ his account of the shenanigans of the day.”

You didn’t say that Hansen appeared with the assistance of Wirth. You said:

“but didn’t Jim Hansen (a scientist) set up his testimony before the U.S. Congress (a POLITICAL body, not a scientific body), on a hot June day, with the windows open (so the A/C effect would be minimal)? ”

Nothing about Wirth there. The accusation was against Hansen, and that he set this up.

“You asked my source of Wirth’s comments”

No, I didn’t. We’re in agreement about what he actually said. And then what he said contradicting the first thing he said, claiming that he heard it from someone else because he wasn’t actually there, and didn’t have the ability to dictate scheduling in the senate.

“(note to P.S.: the account is from Wirth, the one where he has now said that he was lying).”

Yes, we all agree that he is a liar, and that he has made direct statements confirming this.

“So Hansen politicized what should have been a scientific question,”

I’m confused. Was it Hansen or Wirth?

“and the Left/or-whatever-today’s-meme-is, have been running with it ever since, while those of us who consider ourselves to be (US-terminology) Conservatives (or Right, if you prefer) have been fighting a false narrative since that day.”s”

ORLY? I’m getting confused here. You seem to have gone from presenting allegations to casting doubt. Exactly what allegations do you stand behind, and exactly what is the evidence for them?

The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

I stand behind the allegation that you accused Anthony of absolving the right on this. You didn’t answer the allegation.

I stand behind the allegation that human-caused climate change has been refuted; that Wirth is a confirmed liar, a Leftist, and like all Leftists, has a nefarious purpose to supporting the hoax.

The whole set-up was Hansen, with the assistance of a member of the Senate, in the hoax presentation. If the implication was that Hansen set it up himself, I have never meant to imply that. I thought the scenario was well-known; it would appear that you were out of the loop. So my apology to you is for your not knowing what was happening that June 1988 day (I remember it; my guess is that you weren’t even a twinkle in Dad’s eye yet … )

So, where (and when, prior to the Congressional testimony) did Hansen do his presentation? I do not seem to be able to find any record of APS or other associated societies, convening a symposium, where Hansen’s ideas were presented, debated, discussed, dissected, and then SUBSEQUENTLY presented to Congress.

But since Wirth is a liar, we, at this point, can basically dismiss most of what he says. I do believe him when he says that it’s not about the science; I think the left (regardless of nationality) has a singular purpose:

Yes, only leftists are obsessed with having complete control of everything and everyone at all times. Those of us on the Right are concerned with individual liberty, freedom of thought, expression, and movement, the freedom to succeed or fail on our own merits, and the freedom to be judged by the content of our character; so, YES!!!! Leftists are responsible for instituting and supporting a complete hoax. I do not need to supply any “doubts”. The ‘science’ of climate change (as you understand it) has been refuted multiple times, so continuing to support it is your problem, not mine. Maybe you should re-read the post of MarkW below, where he clarifies WHO is supporting the falsified hypothesis of human-caused climate change. I notice you’re not attempting to refute him.

Did “Honest Liberty” describe the Left accurately?

Philip Schaeffer

Well, you did say:

“didn’t Jim Hansen (a scientist) set up his testimony before the U.S. Congress (a POLITICAL body, not a scientific body), on a hot June day, with the windows open (so the A/C effect would be minimal)?”

No, he didn’t.

“So, where (and when, prior to the Congressional testimony) did Hansen do his presentation? I do not seem to be able to find any record of APS or other associated societies, convening a symposium, where Hansen’s ideas were presented, debated, discussed, dissected, and then SUBSEQUENTLY presented to Congress. ”

Jim Hansen, working with other scientists over a long period of time, published many papers on the subject, long before he testified before congress. If you want to convince other scientists you publish your work so it can be examined in detail by other scientists. And that’s exactly what he did.

Politicians very rarely spend time reading scientific journals, and very rarely have the skills to understand their contents. If you believe they need to pay attention to something, usually the best way is to talk to them.

Which leaves the rest of your rant which can be boiled down to “the left sucks, and global warming due to increased levels of CO2 is a hoax”

The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

More along the lines of “The Looney Left Liberal Liars”, as evidenced by the post on the National PORNographic (and polar bears) above. I guess if you want to be associated with that group, that is your choice.

But it speaks to your character.

Philip Schaeffer

Yeah, and you must be a wack job, because look at Alex Jones…. lol, whatever makes you feel better. Vent that spleen!

The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

I’ve certainly seen some incoherent statements here on WUWT, but that (your 27 July, at 0129 hours) is one of the best: I’ve no clue who “Alex Jones” is, and what the relevance is.

In your world, I’m certain that I’m a, ” … wack (sic) job, … “. I’ve seen the evidence that carbon dioxide cannot and does not control, or change, or even have a measurable influence on Earth’s average atmospheric temperature. You arrived here with the statement that Anthony absolved the “right” of involvement in the ‘war on science’.

I think your words were: “Yeah, and the right had nothing to do with that at all!” [23 July 0120 hours]

Here’s another gem: “Righto. Truth by bald assertion.” [25 July 0829 hours]

I can only wonder about someone who would willingly associate, and defend, charlatans. If the price is that someone, ‘over there’, is convinced that I’m a WHACK-job, I might just add it to my bestowed name (bestowed upon me by another member of your fraternity).

Regards,

The Deplorable Whack-job Vlad the Impaler, a crashing bore and an even bigger bully (according to C.T. at JoNova)

Philip Schaeffer

More along the lines of “The Looney Right Conservative Wack Jobs”, as evidenced by the stuff that Alex Jones says. I guess if you want to be associated with that group, that is your choice.

But it speaks to your character.

If you can’t see the holes in that logic, then I don’t know what to tell you.

What I can tell you is that I won’t judge you on the basis of someone from the right being a wack job.

I would expect that you wouldn’t judge me on the basis of someone from the left being a looney liar.

The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

Mr. Shaeffer:

I STILL have no clue who Alex Jones is, and why this individual is relevant to the discussion. Since I have no way to know what this Jones character says or does, it’s a stretch to associate me with him.

You’ve tenaciously defended Hansen from the outset, attacked Anthony with an unsubstantiated claim (ooops! Wait — — cancel that; it is a ‘truth by assertion’, or so I’ve been told), so you have linked yourself to an entire cadre of Looney Lying Lefties. I’m so glad you think that I am acolyte of this Jones person; unfortunately, I do not think I’ve ever read anything by this person (if I have, the memory is long gone), I do not think I’ve ever seen any performance (to include symposia, if that is his forte), or have any other knowledge or acceptance of any pronouncements or thoughts by this individual.

You said: “Reading is one of the things I’m better at.” [25 July at 0829 hours].

I said: ” I’ve no clue who “Alex Jones” is, and what the relevance is.” [27 July at 0430 hours] … … …

… … to which you continued: “More along the lines of “The Looney Right Conservative Wack (sic) Jobs”, as evidenced by the stuff that Alex Jones says. I guess if you want to be associated with that group, that is your choice.” [27 July at 0633 hours]

WOW! This “Alex Jones” guy must be ONE BIG KAHUNA, if he’s an ENTIRE, “… GROUP … ” all by himself!

Since you obviously have trouble with reading comprehension, I’m going to make it very simple for you:

*** I do NOT know who ‘Alex Jones’, or his “group” is. I have NO understanding or comprehension of what the relevance of ‘Alex Jones’, or his “group” is, to this discussion, and I’ll make my own decision about whether I will ‘associate’ or ‘disavow’, ONCE I HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE about who ‘Alex Jones’, or his “group” is, what ‘Alex Jones’, or his “group” says or believes. ****

Now, do try to understand, I do not know who Alex Jones is, ergo, I cannot be associated with this individual. I hope you understand now.

You can continue to throw out baseless accusations (like the one you started with, against Anthony), or you can educate me about this individual you’ve thrown into the discussion.

And we’ll go from there.

I think it’s great that Hansen published all these “papers” in the scientific media, before he went to Congress. That means that the issue is a scientific one, not a political one. One purpose of scientific societies, and reason they have their various publications, symposia, conventions, meetings, committees, etc etc etc … is to tackle scientific problems. I belong to several myself. I’ve attended any number of functions, and the only time I hear about a [representative or elected leader of the society] talking about going to a Legislative or other governmental body is to STOP some inane, Lyin’ Looney Leftist regulation or law. Usually, the proposed law or regulation would achieve the OPPOSITE effect of what might be intended, or, in far too many cases, have no effect at all. They’re not scientists, after all, so they need to hear some factual information about what is proposed. When, in the proper case, we feel there is a need to request some type of action, it is agreed upon a priori by the society, after much discussion, and not just in the literature. Hansen didn’t do that; he took it upon himself to present an imaginary problem to the US Congress, making unsubstantiated claims about future “climate”, on the basis of a complete hoax. You defend Hansen, you defend the hoax, so I am left with a singular conclusion, as I have stated above. You can associate me with Anthony, Jo Nova, Judith Curry, Tim Ball, Richard Lindzen, “Honest Liberty”, this “MarkW”, who has posted directly underneath this thread, but you CANNOT associate me with ‘Alex Jones’ and his “… group …”, since I do not know anything about ‘Alex Jones’ or his ” … group … “.

Regards,

The “Whackiest-job” and Most Deplorable Vlad the Impaler, a complete and total whack-job (according to P.S. at WUWT), and a crashing bore and an even bigger bully (according to C.T. at JoNova)

MarkW

Opposing those who try to politicize science means you are politicizing science.

MarkW

While not all leftists are climate scientists, almost all climate scientists are leftists.

Latitude

How can you have a war on something with this many inaccuracies?

saying “war on science” implies that all science is the same..and it’s settled

No it doesn’t

What a stupid statement

I can take an axe to a crooked table as easily as a perfect one.,

Just one minor quibble, in Taiwan the IT development shops I saw once when I visited on business have as many women as men, so I’m not convinced that the alleged gender bias towards men doing tech isn’t a Western cultural thing.

Or maybe some Asian women are just predisposed to be more tech oriented – one of my favourite Asian tech stars, Naomi Wu, seems to have no problem mastering tech.

Lets not forget there have been and are some seriously impressive female Western scientists

Chimp

Whether predominantly from cultural and environmental (nurture) or genetic and biological (nature) causes, East Asians are functionally smarter than “whites”:

http://www.8asians.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/8a-smart.jpg

The affirmative action issue of our time is the prejudice in college admissions against Asian-Americans and foreign Asians.

Spuds

Naomi is a perfect example of brains and beauty. Yes, she has surgically enhanced mammaries and dresses in a quite exotic manner, she still would be interesting without all that “window dressing”. Extremely smart women who appreciate men for who they are less intimidating if at all. Unfortunately, today’s “feminism” is much more adversarial towards men which makes it difficult to work with them on a personal level as opposed to professionally. Just my .02 .

donb

I see rejection of science by both the liberal and conservative side. It has become a cultural characteristic.

Chimp

The perhaps surprising feature is the degree of overlap. Both “progressives” and some conservatives are anti-GMO and anti-vaccine whackadoodles.

But conservative resistance to the fact of evolution has far less practical effect than progressive embrace of CACA, which has cost so many lives and trillions of dollars squandered. So the Left is worse.

simple-touriste

Anti-vaccine isn’t a thing

Honest liberty

Nope, I’m against forced vaccination. I won’t vaccinate my next child and I’ve spent thousands of hours looking into this idea of vaccination. No thanks, not for me not is it in the best interest of my child. I’ll let proper diet and sanitation work it’s God given wonders, and likely avoid any number of auto immune diseases. That’s me, and no, unvaccinated children don’t spread disease. Shedding, that is vaccinated kids. Thanks.
Measles (a relatively benign disease)? Mother’s getting temporary symptom covering vaccines, not lifetime immunity, breastfeeding and not naturally passing on that protection to their babies. No thanks.

So I suppose that’s anti vaccine. I’m also against GMO food, Israel claiming any legitimacy, taxation most specifically property taxation because one never truly owns land only leases with external constraint, public mandated education funded through taxation, standing police under Peel’s model funded through taxation, military aggression, Islam, corporate personhood and welfare, this push for artificial intelligence, foreign intervention, the United Nations and this foul agenda 21/2030, this nonsense that man is the devil and co2 is evil, the NSA surveillance of citizens, fluoridation of water, Draconian building codes for private property, sales tax, permits of just about any kind, especially to do business, strong centralized government, and on and on…
Basically, coercion of any kind to bring about change in a population.

I’m pro individual and pro freedom, regardless of cost of eternal vigilance. If that makes me a whackadoo, will then I’m glad and proud to be called such by the likes of your personage. I feel confident I’m striking the correct nerves.

I’m pro individual and pro freedom, regardless of cost of eternal vigilance.
And I will drive on whichever side of the road I feel like and ignore traffic lights.

One sick child can kill a million …
Vaccination is not about YOU or YOUR child. Its about other people’s children.

Unless you choose to isolate yourself completely from society and live in the Alaskan wilderness, your actions and choices affect other people

I grew up amongst the past generation who didn’t for example receive polio vaccinations.

I wish that on you

simple-touriste

“I grew up amongst the past generation who didn’t for example receive polio vaccinations.”

Which vaccination?

Who is exposed to polio? Where?

Well what is?

Semantics won’t get you out of your hole…

Martin457

I’m against the political science of CAGW. Political science is like Psychology, not a real science and shouldn’t be considered as such.

Chimp

While some offer useful insights, none of the “social sciences” is a real science. Each one assumes what the other aims to demonstrate.

Economics assumes a model of human psychological behavior which doesn’t always apply, for instance.

R Hall

Yet, the laws of supply and demand function as theorized.

RockyRoad

Maybe that’s why most universities that offer courses in climate science put them in the geography department.

Clyde Spencer

RockyRoad,

Historically, climate was studied by geographers. It was geographers who delineated the various climate zones, which include not only temperature regimes, but also precipitation. Strangely, modern climatologists seem to have forgotten about the different zones and want to summarize everything into a single, poorly measured index derived by averaging poorly sampled temperatures — all without the benefit of a probability distribution function and associated metrics such as standard deviation and kurtosis. And, these ‘climatologists’ fancy themselves to be scientists.

markl

The AGW narrative isn’t to win the science prize, it’s to win the mind.

John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia

No one has mentioned the left’s war on climate science. For example, cherry picking (with terms like, ‘the hottest year ever recorded’), ignoring geology, history/archaeology, altering historical temperature data (homogenisation) without reference to the raw data and reliance on faulty climate models to predict future climate when their weather models mostly fail to predict even months ahead. I am always peeved off when someone says to me, dismissively, ‘ you’re only a geoscientist, not a climate scientist’.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

Not surprising, after all Lysenko was a communist.

ossqss

J Mac

I’m a Conservative. When it comes to passions about Science, I believe in making Love, not War. For those on the left making war on science, I have no desire to call them liars, cheats, Luddites, or anti-technology haters of the world wide poor. No sir, not me.

Adhering to my personal philosophy, I would rather advocate passionately (and lovingly) for the following:
Kiss a Conservative, because it feel so Right!
Anything else is just cold Left overs!

Cwon14

Articles like this cut to the point, decades of spaghetti chart make believe “it’s about science” are rooted in underlying political fraud. If the fraud isn’t discussed concurrently with the shoddy “science” the deception is rewarded.

Soft, politically passive “skeptics” stuck on appeasing the Green narrative and permitting them to frame debate basics are a big part of the problem. Plenty of weak skeptics have dominated the square at WUWT.

Climate activism was always politics first. Dinosaur “It’s a science dispute” skeptics should atone. It was reckless enablement which permitted 50 years of Greenshirt progress.

Gary Ashe

30 yrs

Hivemind

I would have appreciated a summary of the contents of that video. Some of us don’t have enough time to watch everything that comes across our desks. That said, I expect that you’re just as busy as me, so I realise that it isn’t always possible.

gbaikie

If anything conservatives are more scientific than liberals.

But this is wrong, because liberals have almost become extinct- they were murdered by Lefties.

Philip Mulholland

#Hivemind
Use the YouTube Settings > Speed option and run the video at speed 1.5. For most speakers you can still follow their talk but you get through it faster.

Percy Jackson

This seems like a very one-sided video. It completely glosses over the creationism issue and claims that studies showing no differences between sexs are invalid because of the political affiliation of the authors but never mentions the political affiliations of the studies it claims are valid. The right in the US for example also actively prevents scientific studies into the effects of gun violence (the Dickie amendment).
So both the left and right are happy to support science when they see it as providing support for their political views and are also against it when they think it might contradict previously held beliefs.

Alan Tomalty

Yes there is a pox on both houses BUT the danger of the belief in socialism (witness a poll taken of young Aussies found 70% socialists) is such a threat to the freedom of mankind that it simply must be met head on, or we are all headed down the communist path.

TonyL

The Dickie Amendment was not an attack on science at all.
Here is the relevant text:
“none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”
The Democrats and liberals had queued up the CDC to produce a constant stream of junk science supporting their political objectives. A CDC with a decidedly leftist bias was all too willing to go along.
Furthermore, federal agencies are prohibited from political lobbying. Congress had every right and reason to shut this scheme down.
Personally, I see taxpayer dollars used to produce endless streams of junk science to be a real threat to actual science. Shutting down junk science is not an attack on real science.

simple-touriste

So called “conservatives” will believe the CDC can be made to produce junk anti gun “science” on demand, and at the same time refer to CDC vaccine propaganda so dumb a 12 years old could refute it as “facts”.

Is the CDC reliable? You can only have one answer.

MarkW

That the CDC has been politicized, especially when it comes to gun violence has already been demonstrated.

Honest liberty

And you get down voted for pointing out this harsh reality of confirmation bias and selective appeal to authority. This is specifically an area where the hard right bias differs naught from the post modern leftists and they CACA narrative of CAGW.

Individual means Un-divided (no internal conflict) yet we see that is not manifesting with many here. Be consistent or be nothing. Natural moral law is consistent across space and time: don’t steal. All else flows from that axiomatic truth.

The problem continues to be ego. None of us like hearing we may be wrong.

Michael 2

My one answer: “Sometimes”! It depends…

Clyde Spencer

simple-touriste,

There are some gun control zealot academics who found the CDC to be a convenient and willing outlet for their political views.

It has been my experience that those who are of the liberal persuasion, (Or should I say bent?) are most likely to believe that vaccines are responsible for problems such as autism, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. Your grammar leaves something to be desired, so I may be misinterpreting what you said. Am I correct in assuming that you don’t believe the science regarding vaccines? If so, then I presume you are a liberal, and reject the science. Please correct me if I misunderstand.

John Endicott

There does seem to be a bit of over-lap between anti-vaccines and the anti-GMO crowd on the left. However there are some anti-vaccines nuts on the right as well. It seems to be one area of anti-science that mostly transcends party lines. Though if I had to guess, I’d say there are more anti-vaccines nuts on the left then there are on the right just from anecdotal instances.

simple-touriste

Anti GMO = GMO are making people sick (unproven)

Anti vaccine = first do no harm + the right to privacy is at least as much applicable to refusal of a drug than to abortion

The pro vaccine crowd talks like the anti GMO crowd, the climate alarmist crowd, the Apollo hoax crowd… they don’t know what they don’t know, which is pretty much everything

simple-touriste

To believe in what re:vaccines?

I don’t believe that vaccines rulez the medical world and saved billions. But then it isn’t science, it’s hype.

Also, when you ask if people “believe”, it isn’t science.

simple-touriste

“Your grammar leaves something to be desired, so I may be misinterpreting what you said. Am I correct in assuming that you don’t believe the science regarding vaccines?”

It’s ironic that you attack my grammar then write that typical climatist nonsensical garbage “you don’t believe the science” and don’t get down-voted on an alleged skeptic blog, and I get downvoted.

Conclusion: this is no skeptic blog. This is a brainwashed blog for “the right”. (You can be brainwashed with the truth.)

John Endicott

“Is the CDC reliable? You can only have one answer”

Not really. A brain surgeon is reliable when the topic is brain surgery, not so reliable when the topic is the nuances of the US legal system. So are brain surgeons reliable? according to you there is only one answer, but the reality is it depends on if the thing you want reliable information on is within their area of expertise (AoE).

The CDCs area of expertise is diseases. Vaccines would be well within their AoE whereas guns and gun control has nothing whatsoever to do with disease so would not fall within that AoE.

So logically one could be more likely to trust them on the former (within their AoE), but not necessarily on the later (outside their AoE).

(Note that just because something is in their AoE doesn’t automatically make it true, even experts can be mistaken, have biases that blind them, etc. It just means that they presumably know a bit more about a topic than would be the case for topics outside their AoE)

simple-touriste

“So are brain surgeons reliable? according to you there is only one answer”

Yes. How can you trust a surgeon on anything re: medicine if he is willing to spout complete BS re: anything else with absolute assurance?

Why do you believe that your trust in medical professional is in any way a shared trait? It isn’t. In fact, any climate or medicine 97% people think that his is an argument. It isn’t.

There is no professional world more inept than the medical world. It is the section of society that essentially did not evolve since the times of Molière and keeps looking down on us.

“The CDCs area of expertise is diseases”

I don’t understand. Is that another group of experts like climate experts? What do they understand about vaccines? Do you know the four operations? (They don’t.)

Percy Jackson

TonyL
What the Dickie amendment says and how it has been interperated are two very different things. It has been widely interperated as preventing the CDC from studying the causes of gun violence and ways to reduce deaths from guns in the US.

TonyL

how it was “interpreted”? By the Left you mean.
“studying the causes of gun violence” They just want to study “root causes”, really.
“reduce deaths” They just want to find “solutions”, really.
“Trust us”, they said. “Really”.

Try this one on:
“causes of gun violence”: Gun Ownership.
“reduce deaths from guns”: Ban the private ownership of firearms.
Results already determined, they they just needed some junk science “studies” to “prove” their conclusions.
Raw, naked politics through and through. No wonder the Left had a hissy fit and claimed an “attack on science” when their scheme was shut down.

As an aside:
The American Medical Association (AMA) has been pushing the Gun Control issue as a Public Health issue for ~ 2 decades. These things do not just happen in a vacuum.

JERRY HENSON

I just ask the Doc. how many are killed by medical error.

|A lot less than are killed by lack of access to it at all.

MarkW

The CDC has no mandate, nor any expertise in studying the causes of gun violence.
That’s a political and social science question, it has nothing to do with medicine.

How typical of the left to try and declare any behavior they don’t like as being a “medicial problem”.

simple-touriste

Many diseases are the result of social conditions. Worldwide travel can accelerate the spread of a virus. It’s social issue.

MarkW

The fact that the left lies about the Dickie ammd is not in question.

simple-touriste

Do they have a “Dickie amendment” for the FBI?

The FBI should not try to evaluate whether people around Donald Trump are in bed with Russia (it’s purely a political guess, not a criminal investigation).

Do they have a “Dickie amendment” for the CIA?

The CIA should not… I’m not sure what kind of evaluation the CIA should be doing.

Seriously, you should consider removing all three (CDC, FBI, CIA). They don’t know what they don’t know, and when they suck.

MarkW

Gun violence is not something that can be solved by more health care.
Even a leftist should have enough functioning brain cells to figure that out.
What the Dickie ammd was about, was limiting propaganda, which is why the left hated it.

simple-touriste

…because the CDC, which is cited like the Bible by vaccine worshipers, is prone to making “studies” that are not objective and scientific.

Clyde Spencer

Percy Jackson,

Conservatives are not monolithic. They are a conglomerate of, among other things, fiscal conservatives, cultural conservatives, and religious fundamentalists. Some even believer in a strict, verbatim interpretation of the Constitution. The fundamentalists are likely to support creationism. I think much less so amongst the others that consider themselves conservatives, or at least registered republicans.

The reason that the Dickie Amendment was passed was because of a history of obviously biased, poor-quality research that did not stand up to criticism. That is, it was little more than propaganda supporting the political position of gun control, pretty much all cranked out by the same individuals with an axe to grind. Unfortunately, the publications got wide spread exposure because it was from the CDC. Not unlike the prestige that NASA still enjoys in some circles. The CDC ‘research’ was of even poorer quality than what passes for climatology today, if that is possible. Calling the CDC publications on gun control “science” is being more than generous! However, it is a common liberal meme that goes unchallenged by those unfamiliar with the topic.

John Endicott

Percy, it’s very telling that because your side produces studies based on your political bias you automatically assume that any study that contradicts your biased study must do so because of a political bias.

Alan Tomalty

Don’t forget. Anybody that says they are against capitalism ; is really a communist. There is no such thing as socialism. Socialism doesnt exist and never has existed (except for extremely short periods of time in reality or only in the fantasy dream world minds of leftists. )

gbaikie

There is no such thing as communism or capitalism. There is the stupid pseudo science of Marxism which argues against what it defines as capitialism- which the right to have property. And Marxists aren’t giving away their property.
Basically you have the Left, which is the left side of the French government- the one who brought the Terror, worship that madness, and wish to repeat it, over, and over again.
The mob should rule.
And worship that which is primitive- they are uncivilized.

bonbon

Ask Obama and Bush about their socialism of $trillions for bank bailouts – Obama far exceeding Bush’s generosity with out tax dollars. Of course there is socialism.
The Problem with von Hayek fanatics is they will not tolerate the only way to deal with this – Glass-Steagall – calling FDR’s success socialism. Espousing the “markets” magic is exactly what it says – magic.

MarkW

FDR had no successes, just failures that took longer to collapse.

Banks failed because the government passed a law that required them to make bad loans.

bonbon

Failing is not the problem, bailing the junk out is. FDR took the USA out of a depression and defeated fascism. For every kilo the enemy had a GI had 10. Without the New Deal and Glass-Steagall the nazi’s would have won.
Now as the banks go belly up as in 2008 without Glass-Steagall , Trump (and even Sanders) campaigned on Glass-Steagall, a proven stroke of genius.
The Hayek acolytes can have all the conniptions they want, but declaring FDR , 4 times voted, a failure gives their game away.

MarkW

FDR created the depression. His programs took a run of the mill recession and turned it into the great depression.
He didn’t defeat fascism, the US troops did that.

The only reason why the US won, was because FDR was smart enough to rescind almost all of the New Deal regulations so that industry could gear up to produce the products that enabled the US soldiers to help win the war.

Getting re-elected proves that FDR was an economic genius? Really?
People have always voted for the person who promises the most free stuff, and FDR was a master at convincing people that they were entitled to steal from those who had more.

As to your desire to deify anything and everything done by FDR, that’s your mental problem, not mine.

John Endicott

The great depression started under his predecessor and had been going on for a few years and was a full blown depression before he took office, so it’s not accurate to say he created it. His policies however, helped prolong it, (so in that sense he made the depression “great” as in greater than it would have been otherwise) which I take was the intent of your “he created it” comment.

Tom Abbott

“but declaring FDR , 4 times voted, a failure gives their game away.”

After FDR was elected to four terms, the U.S. passed the Twenty second Amendment which limited a president to two terms.

Apparently a lot of Americans did not think it was a good idea to continue to give a president four terms in the future.

John Endicott

About the only thing bonbon got right is FDR helped defeat fascism (in the Form of Nazi Germany). He didn’t do it on his own however. And while, as MarkW points out, the troops did the hard work, you can’t discount the fact that leadership can either enable or prevent the troops from doing their jobs. The troops don’t win wars completely on their own, they need support from all levels of the command chain. Poor direction from the top can result in wars being lost. It takes both good leadership and good troops to win wars (among many other factors)

FDR’s policies, far from getting us out of the great depression, actually prolonged it. It took the start of WWII to finally get us out of the great depression – a decade on from the start of the great depression and unemployment under FDR was 19%, it wasn’t until the war put the country to work on the war effort that the great depression was finally over.

pat

this is unbelievable, even if it involves a NeverTrumper Curbelo:

22 Jul: Hotair: House Republican proposing carbon tax this week
by Taylor Millard
Florida Congressman Carlos Curbelo is getting ready to introduce a bill repealing the gas tax in exchange for a carbon tax. It seems rather odd the Miami Republican wants to chart this path, especially after the House GOP overwhelmingly denounced (LINK) the notion of a carbon tax last week, but Curbelo isn’t backing down from his proposal. He told (LINK) Miami Herald his proposal is just a “first step” in the discussion…

Curbelo vows he’s got GOP co-sponsors, so it will be quite interesting to see exactly who is signed onto the proposal. My guess is it probably includes five of the Republicans who voted against the no carbon tax resolution last week…
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/07/22/house-republican-proposing-carbon-tax-week/

simple-touriste

So they want to favor diesel over unleaded?

Tom in Florida

The gas tax is targeted money, a carbon tax would be spent on whatever, a politicians delight.

simple-touriste

Roads are in good shape?

Tom Abbott

“Curbelo vows he’s got GOP co-sponsors, so it will be quite interesting to see exactly who is signed onto the proposal.”

Yes, it will be interesting to see who those people are.

Curbelo is a True Believer. His motives are pure, but unfortunately he is as wrong as he can be when it comes to the Earth’s climate.

Ktm

I was working in a stem cell biology lab when Bush announced his ban on hESC research. The ban had no impact whatsoever on our research, and in fact IPS cells made the hESC stuff scientifically obsolete soon after, which most people don’t realize even now.

But at the time you can probably imagine that numerous people i worked with were bent out of shape, and someone printed out a news story about Bush’s ban, scrawled the word “SHAMEFUL!” on it and taped it on the main whiteboard in the lab. I printed out my own article from several years before when Bill Clinton enacted a very similar ban on human embryonic research, wrote “SHAMEFUL?” on it and taped it beside the first paper when nobody was around.

Within an hour someone came by and wrote “OLD NEWS” over my article. Then by the next morning it was gone. The first article stayed up for many months, uncensored like my article was.

MarkW

There never was a ban on hESC research. What Bush’s law did was eliminate federal government spending on new new strains.
1) Work on already existing strains could continue.
2) State and private money was completely unaffected.

michel

Its an American malaise, its roots are in progressivism, and its etiology was well covered by the post on google.gov.

We start out with the apparently harmless, even highly reasonable, view that policy should be evidence based. As indeed it should. This then moves the controversy back from policy into being about what the evidence actually is. As more and more policy justifications are based on science, this leads to more and more public controversies about scientific theory.

In the end this contaminates the peer reviewed, tenure focused, practice of science. So for instance we find that on topics like climate, gender, inherited abilities and a host more, the public domain judgment on policy comes to determine what its acceptable to study or argue for.

There is a ready feedback loop in that getting published is the key to tenure, and holding tenure depends on public value, so we have a mechanism which is going to enforce conformity.

The result is that the wrong kind of ideas stop being mentioned or studied, which in turn allows the claim that on a given policy ‘the science is settled’.

There is an interesting additional factor, the extraordinary influence of Parisian Post Modernism in US academic life. One can only suppose this is a result of the notorious absence of irony in American culture. In England, Malcom Bradbury’s wonderful book ‘Mensonge’ was published, admired, and laughed over. It would probably have been thought unpublishable by a US publisher, and certainly would have done the author no good at all professionally.

At any rate, the effect of the post modernism mania has been to argue that all science, all value judgements indeed, are totally subjective and merely express the speaker’s role in society, class, gender etc. This gives further support to the tendency of the system to suppress dissent. It makes it easy to argue that a given point of view is evil, because it is a reflection of the interests of the wrong class, ethnic group or gender.

Mainstream American society has always had a very strong conformist drive, and this is its manifestation in the intersection of science and public policy.

It is very important to see that it is primarily an American issue. There are elements of it in the UK, but its much less marked and there is much more tolerance. In France, intellectuals are trying so hard to appal each other and the public, and enjoying being outrageous and arguing with each other, that you do not have it at all.

Its wrong to see this as a left or right war on science. That isn’t an illuminating account, and its a wrong diagnosis. What is going on is the contamination of science by policy, which has resulted from attempts to base policy on science, when one knows what the right policy is, and is using the science to justify it. That in turn determines what can be said and studied in the sciences.

The solution is to abandon the general view that evidence based policies must be ‘progressive’, and therefore that the practice of scientific inquiry may be considered biased if it does not support ‘the right’ policies. This is what it will take to depoliticize universities. Somewhow, and I have no idea how this can be done, the US has to stop having political controversies about science when these are simply proxies for disagreement about values and policy.

I have no idea how this can be done. From here it doesn’t even look possible. But this is the root of the problem.

bonbon

The root of the problem is you have no idea. Simple.
Now have a look at some ideas – Bertrand Russells’ writings like Impact of Science on Society to start. Then the Frankfurt School’s Arendt, Adorno, Marcuse. The elimination of the subjunctive from speech. The elimination of Renaissance Classical culture in their march through the institutions. It has almost destroyed intelligent dialog in the Uni’s.
Do not be distracted by “left-right”, “deep-state” MSM memes.
Britain’s Lord Bertrand Russell declared war on science, his ghost rattles in hallowed academic halls all over the place.
THE ESSENTIAL TRUTH OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
How Bertrand Russell Made Us Stupid, Fearful, and Evil

I so agree that postmoderm ‘magic’ thinking is at the heart of this. Just because we can never be sure that we have arrived at the truth does not mean there is none.

There is a truth beyond what we believe is the case. Perhaps not in politics, but certainly in STEM..

Geoff Sherrington

A large part of the problem arises certainly from the poor standards of most of climate ‘science’. There has been occasional good science, but the loud mouths of the poor scientists pimping their wares have queered the pitch. The negligence of proper error and uncertainty analysis in most climate work is a credible indicator of poor science.
The association of political bents with problems of science seems strongest in USA. However, everywhere, left leaning politics runs with other people’s money and left leaning science runs with other people’s research. You just have to frame both borrowings to be progressive.
Politics and religion must be kept apart from science, especially bad science. Science plays its part when its results are good and clear enough for acceptance without much dispute by policy makers. But here, the science has to drive the policy, not vice versa. That is the reason for failure of the global governance/IPCC effort, in which the quality of science required was not understood by the players.
(There are several historic templates to support these assertions. I find the best match to be the man-made scare of the 1980s USA when we were to have an epidemic of cancers from chemicals. The similarities with the global warming scare are stunning. Essential reading, Edith Efron’s book ‘The Apocalyptics’). Geoff.

RyanS

I don’t think there is a political division – creationists tend to be on the right, it could be argued they are anti-science.

beng135

Creationists are just like the KKK, white supremacists & bible-toting fundamentalists — vastly exaggerated and inflated in their numbers and effect (here’s what all conservatives/republicans are like). One of the old leftists’ scare-mongering propaganda tools, just like their latest denigrations of “Walmart people” and “deplorables”.

Michael 2

“vastly exaggerated and inflated in their numbers”

But it got your attention and persuaded you to write about them.

Michael 2

Interesting word use. To not think something is not the same as thinking not-something. At any rate, your example of creationists is not efficient because creationists are not automatically anti-science; they are strongly bound to a specific belief about the history of life. They may well embrace all forms of science except ONE.

As it happens, many leftwingers also embrace science where it does not compete with their own world-view. As the typical and obligatory world-view of the left is “equality” (but some people are more equal), science that challenges this view of equality must be denounced.

An example is Chimps exploration (above) of male/female differences in IQ, or of race or culture differences. The responses tend to be predictable and relatively devoid of “science”.

joelobryan

I have a copy of The Bell Curve from 1993 somewhere in my books. I need to find it and read it again.
Remembering some it, I can imagine how that text would be hated on today’s campuses.

Doug Huffman

I don’t believe that you will find it from 1993. My copy is copyright 1994 published by The Free Press.

Charles Murray, surviving co-author, is a lightning rod to the sophomoric.

Olavi

Left and Right is line out of date. Greedy “green liberal globalists and common sense people is line today. Liberal globalists use what ever reasons and manipulations to make their agenda. That’s it.

Honest liberty

I’ve been working on fleshing out why folks gravitate towards collectivism and group think, and I’m confident I’m on the correct path.

Collectivism is appealing to those who haven’t the drive to compete, and therefore suffer the inevitable losses and roadblocks necessary to build self-esteem and personal growth. It is a stagnation of mind, body, and spirit. This stagnation breeds jealousy of doers/ actors/creators/competitors, aka those willing to risk playing the game of Life. It creates strong resentment for success, and likewise, much comfort in conformity where they can shelter their inadequacies from criticism. There is no hard work to be done with fitting in, and the fear of isolation that is envisioned as the consequence of leaving the fold is paralyzing.

Therefore, equality of outcome, enforced through arbitrary man’s law not rooted in reality, enforced by grunts on the dole of stolen money, just “upholding the law”. No morality in order following. So all parties are responsible, not just the collectivist parasites. Their lazy, foul worldview is impossible to manifest without coercion. Who has the guns and the supposed authority to throw you in a cage? Not the collectivists, that’s for damn sure. They never actually do anything, most especially the dirty work. They leave that to police and military.

History is saturated with the suffering inflicted by order followers obeying the edicts of psychopaths, masquerading around as high-priests, governors of the people, claiming to be above the law because the individuals abdicated personal responsibility in the form of a magical box checking ritual.

Meanwhile, the makers were too busy making things to waste time on fanciful notions of external authority, and all the while the takers vote to use coercion to take from the Maker’s that which they themselves lack the Constitution to manifest.

The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

Spot on!

Doug Huffman

There may be some here encountering The Science Wars for their first time. The Flight from Science and Reason conference (sponsored by the NY Academy of Sciences, May June 1995) proceedings, of the same title, contributor authors and bibliographies will be a fine introduction.

The Sokal Affair may have been the match to the fuse. Reading the subsequent article on “tabloid science,” I was inspired to name Alan Sokal’s seminal hoax essay, ‘Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity’. Towards, the progressives keyword caught my eye.

I recall particularly pleasant, avowed leftist Norman Levitt’s Prometheus Bedeviled: Science and the Contradictions of Contemporary Culture (Rutgers, 1999).

As I listened to Jordan Peterson’s video clip linked below, I heard familiar names. The battle lines were drawn long ago. Karl Popper did a good job dismissing Marxism in his masterwork, The Open Society and Its Enemies.

Internal warfare in the USA is tearing your great country apart. The left cannot stand that Hillary lost and Trump won, and they are willing to destroy democracy to reverse that decision.

I have done business on six continents and have been to Castro’s Cuba and Honecker’s East Germany, entering East Berlin via Checkpoint Charlie. Both countries had no viable economy and no human rights, and yet this is what the ”Progressives” want for America. Simply put, they want to destroy the economy and the country – that is their objective.

Do Progressives have any idea how well-off they are? Do Progressives have any idea how most of the world lives?

There are about 220 countries in the world, and about 200 of them are failed or failing, with poor economies, no human rights and no Rule of Law. Do you think this is an accident? This is the Marxist agenda – tear countries down so they can ride in to the rescue and take command. Witness Zimbabwe in Africa and Venezuela in South America – and there are many other countries falling into the same cesspool.

These self-styled Progressives, the US Democrats, the Canadian Liberals and NDP, and the Socialist and Green Parties worldwide are pawns of the extreme left.

Many of these imbeciles don’t even know it, but they are following a covert Marxist agenda which is deliberately intended to damage our economies and destroy democracy.
_____________________________

I published my above comment at
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/my-views-us-immigration-policy-satya-nadella/
and received a response that apparently is the new theme for the extremists.

Here is my reply:
[excerpt]
So Kwasi Darko, you appear to be saying that Trump is the new Hitler. Unlike yours, my family fought and bled in WW2 – we know Hitler all too well – and DONALD TRUMP IS NO HITLER. When the extreme left spouts this nonsense, no sensible person will listen. They have lost all credibility.

Conservative:
“It doesn’t appear that the change in CO2 level has affected the sea-level trend at all.”
http://sealevel.info/1612340_Honolulu_vs_CO2_annot2.png
comment image
 

Liberal:
“Intersectional feminist post-dialectical assemblage criticism of science as a racist, colonialist social construct.”
http://sealevel.info/intersectional_feminist_post-dialectical_assemblage_criticism_of_science_as_a_racist_colonialist_social_construct.png
comment image

That deaf dumb and blind idiot sure playz a mean pinball…

DJ Meredith

Why is it that the left is always trying to shout down speakers they disagree with while simultaneously being staunch supporters of free speech? I cannot remember seeing a talk given by a left wing speaker being drowned out by a right wing crowd….

MarkW

The left’s support of all rights has always been limited to themselves.
They support free speech, which means that when they shout down those they disagree with, they are engaging in free speech. After all shouting is a form of speech.
The left supports doing your own thing, but only so long as your thing is not something that they object to.

Clyde Spencer

DJ Meredith,
Can you say “HYPOCRISY?”

John Endicott

When the left says they support free speech, what they really mean is they support their own speech being free. Any speech that they disagree with is to be immediately silenced.

I just wanted to drop in casually here and say:

There are no sexual differences.
There are no racial differences.
There are no cultural or ethnic differences.
There are no differences in talent, no differences in intelligence, .. no differences EVER. Period.

We are all equal.

To enforce any belief to the contrary is racist, sexist, or prejudice. We, therefore, should have no expectations of anyone to be anything but sexless, mindless blobs of flesh, wandering among one another with no standards, no goals, no ethics, no commitments, no biases.

I wonder whether the prevalence of obesity today is somehow related to this blob mentality.

I also wonder whether the popularity of zombie movies today is somehow related to this.

Bottom line: it’s a bigger war than a war on science. I don’t even know what to call it.

bonbon

It’s a war on the Renaissance that gave us nation states, the USA being the first, aligned to progress. Progress has come to a screeching halt, and voters notice the USA has changed. Lord Bertrand Russell spelt it out. See his Impact of Science on Society.
It is huge, global, but Russia and China are not taking it. India hopefully neither. Trump (despite damaging trade wars) sees that shift from Russell’ British transatlantic. Trump is right in the middle of this shift – look at the swamp going insane!

Honest liberty

A war on consciousness and humanity itself.

I was about to respond sarcastically when I realized the sarcasm dripping from your post,.

Oh, Ok then 😉

Its a war on common sense, of which science is the most highly developed example.

Johann Wundersamer

War on science. War on sense. Sensless worriers.

Dr. Strangelove

First among women in science:
Hypatia (395) – first astronomer and mathematician
Hildegard (1158) – first botanist
Rebecca Guarna (1200) – first physician and surgeon
Dorotea Bucca (1390) – first university professor. Professor of medicine at University of Bologna
Maria Cunitz (1650) – first astronomer since the Dark Ages
Maria Merian (1679) – first entomologist and scientific illustrator
Emilie Du Chatelet (1740) – first physicist to publish physics textbook
Maria Agnesi (1748) – first professor of mathematics (University of Bologna), first to publish calculus textbook

Clyde Spencer

Dr. Strangelove,
Are you trying to make the case that the claimed suppression of women scientists is a fabrication of feminists? It would seem that you are demonstrating that women could be successful in science even in less enlightened times. The question would then be why not more of them then and now?

Dr. Strangelove

There was a case for the feminist movement in the 19th century. There was discrimination of women in the past. Cambridge University did not accept women until 1869. The Royal Society did not elect women until 1945. The question would then be why not more male nurses then and now? Do men lack ability?

Dr. Strangelove

Best women scientists:
Marie Curie (chemistry) – Nobel Prize in physics and chemistry. Co-discoverer of radioactivity and nuclear energy
Emmy Noether (mathematics) – Formulated Noether’s theorem in mathematical physics. Founder of abstract algebra
Lise Meitner (physics) – Co-discoverer of nuclear fission that led to the atomic bomb and nuclear power
Marie Tharp (geology) – Co-discoverer of seafloor spreading that led to plate tectonics
Vera Rubin (astronomy) – Established the presence of dark matter in galaxies
Judith Curry (climatology) – the voice of reason and “heretic” of global warming religion