Republicans against science

BinauralJam

Godfather. wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

wise guy.

Godfather.

...
No... seriously. The part about not believing in Evolution. It's like not believing in Gravity.
If there are viable alternative Theories to Evolution... based upon testable scientific discovery, not faith (belief)... then, I'm all ears.

the missing link between man and monkey ?
Godfather.

My 3rd grade teacher Mrs. Green

Godfather.

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

If economics is a science, Krugman is a shitty scientist. I don't if it's better to be "anti"-science, or "pro" shitty science, but both of those sound like a lose-lose scenario to me-- for that reason, I do not know that he should be the guy calling out Romney and Perry.

I also fail to see why people being creationist or people believing in evolution: a) often believe that these two views are mutually exclusive of each other (when they certainly do not have to be) and b) view people with the opposing idea as some sort of threat. To me, the least of my worries is someone else's ideas on where we all came from. As long as those ideas are not forced on me, I do not care what they are, and no one else should either. If people want bad or unpopular ideas to go the way of the Dodo, they stop paying attention to them. If people want to guarantee bad ideas eternal life, the best options are to criminalize them or institutionalize them.

I understand the importance of the role of science in the climate debate, and recognize that it's a discussion worth our time. If our friend Kruggy applied his thoughts on the economy to climate change, few people in here would be singing his praises because to paraphrase his hero Keynes, "in the end, we're all dead."

In my opinion, it's just as bad to claim to know things that are best left unknown or naturally determined-- such as market interest rates, supply and demand, pricing, etc... Someone like Paul Krugman will use his impressive credentials and education to claim to know exactly what these things are, and because he has a few years of experience in a very exclusive community, working with some other great minds, people believe every word he says. Are his ideas based on tons of education and research? Supposedly. Are they correct? Not necessarily. I'm not going to say he's not a smart guy-- he definitely is, he's just not as smart as he thinks he is, and therein lies the problem with most people who attempt to understand and control things that are much greater than them. It's similar to the concept of "blowback," the CIA's term for unforseeable and often negative consequences associated with an interventionist foreign policy-- a similar phenomenon to "blowback" can also be a result of too much meddling in the economy, the environment, etc... People like Krugman either pretend to know more than they do, or really believe they are God's gift in whatever area of study they claim their expertise, or have some sort of other selfish motives for making the claims that they do.

As far as the Nobel Prize, Hayek also won a Nobel Prize for economics, and I think Friedman might have also, both of whom would have very different ideas than Krugman. But then again, I'm starting to doubt the credibility of The Nobel prize after Obama also won a Nobel prize for PEACE

That being said, I am no fan of Perry or Romney at all. I would not vote for either of them, nor would I vote for Obama. But the reasons why I would oppose all 3 of the above has everything to do with their policies, which are virtually the same, no matter their views on the importance of science and intellectualism.

wow ! what a awesome reply Vinnie.

Godfather.

JonnyPistachio

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

That being said, I am no fan of Perry or Romney at all. I would not vote for either of them, nor would I vote for Obama. But the reasons why I would oppose all 3 of the above has everything to do with their policies, which are virtually the same, no matter their views on the importance of science and intellectualism.

I always start with their policies, and thats why I agree with you there (I would not vote for either of these 3 today)

I don't know a damn thing about Krugman, other than what was on the NY Times site, but thats not what is important here. I just posted that because it was said that it sounded like propaganda.. I thought differently -- that a writer was concerned about a rash of recent strange quotes linking religion to politics. I'd like those to be separate myself. I'd really almost prefer not know about all their religious beliefs, and I don't like to think about someone like Bachman bombing a country cause God told her so.

But, to some degree, I do care about how these people think if they are running for president. It says a lot of their character to me. I know the arguments behind climate change and I also know that Perry's policies have landed Texas near the bottom in several environmental categories.

• Amount of Carbon Dioxide Emissions – 1st
• Amount of Volatile Organic Compounds Released into Air – 1st
• Amount of Toxic Chemicals Released into Water – 1st
• Amount of Recognized Cancer-Causing Carcinogens Released into Air – 1st
• Amount of Hazardous Waste Generated – 1st
• Amount of Toxic Chemicals Released into Air – 5th
• Amount of Recognized Cancer-Causing Carcinogens Released into Water – 7th
• Number of Hazardous Waste Sites on National Priority List – 7th
• Consumption of Energy per Capita – 5th

Cosmo

Godfather. wrote:

the missing link between man and monkey ?
Godfather.

...
Ummmm... I **hope** you do understand that the Theroy of Evolution goes way beyongd the evolution of Man... don't you? That by the process of natural selection, living creatures evolve to be best suited for their environment... right? And that not all living creatures (including those that have become extinct) weren't all created in their current (or last) living state... right?
Please... tell me you understand this. Please.

Godfather.

Cosmo wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

the missing link between man and monkey ?
Godfather.

...
Ummmm... I **hope** you do understand that the Theroy of Evolution goes way beyongd the evolution of Man... don't you? That by the process of natural selection, living creatures evolve to be best suited for their environment... right? And that not all living creatures (including those that have become extinct) weren't all created in their current (or last) living state... right?
Please... tell me you understand this. Please.

yes I do but every time it's broughtup on the train it turns into "man and ape" "God or not" but if you want to talk about evolving creatures I am nery willing to listen and learn and talk about what is evolution and what is adaptation to different life settings and needs.

Godfather.

MotoDC

Cosmo wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

wise guy.

Godfather.

...
No... seriously. The part about not believing in Evolution. It's like not believing in Gravity.
If there are viable alternative Theories to Evolution... based upon testable scientific discovery, not faith (belief)... then, I'm all ears.

A somewhat ironic choice of examples, considering physicists do not truly understand gravity either.

Godfather.

MotoDC wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

wise guy.

Godfather.

...
No... seriously. The part about not believing in Evolution. It's like not believing in Gravity.
If there are viable alternative Theories to Evolution... based upon testable scientific discovery, not faith (belief)... then, I'm all ears.

A somewhat ironic choice of examples, considering physicists do not truly understand gravity either.

I think gravity has something to do with anti-matter and matter.......right ?...crap I don't know !


Godfather.

Cosmo

MotoDC wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

wise guy.

Godfather.

...
No... seriously. The part about not believing in Evolution. It's like not believing in Gravity.
If there are viable alternative Theories to Evolution... based upon testable scientific discovery, not faith (belief)... then, I'm all ears.

A somewhat ironic choice of examples, considering physicists do not truly understand gravity either.

...
Ironic? How? Being that Evolution and Gravity are BOTH scientific theories. Rejecting one theory without rejecting the other... how is that 'ironic'?
I could have used plate tectonics or Einstein's Theory of Relativity (related to gravity)... but I decided to go with simple.

Cosmo

Godfather. wrote:

yes I do but every time it's broughtup on the train it turns into "man and ape" "God or not" but if you want to talk about evolving creatures I am nery willing to listen and learn and talk about what is evolution and what is adaptation to different life settings and needs.

Godfather.

...
Every time it is brought up... by people who believe Creationism is a science, using Genesis as its only proof. They do this in order to disprove the Theory of Evolution. Which is a scientific theory, by definition, tentative and open to testable methodology to prove or disprove.
Evolutionary theory suggest that if you look at the fossil record, between two similar creatures, you will find a transitional fossil that links the two... such as the one between fish and amphibian... amphibian or fish to reptile. These transitional fossils have been found.
Now... about the 'missing link'... think about the dinosaurs. They were huge creatures that roamed the Earth for over 150,000,000 years. How many fossils have we found so far? Definately not 150 million years worth of thousands of species.
Man has been around since when... 1,800,000 years ago? And those were the cavemen Neandethal types with the modern man coming about around 50,000 years ago. That transitional fossil is not easy to find... considering we have only been looking for how long... 200... years... if that?
...
The difference between science and religion... regarding evolution/creation... is that science KNOWS evolution is not 100% correct and is continually looking for the truth... and religion BELIEVES creation is 100% truth. The difference between Knowledge and Belief.

Cosmo

My viewpoint is this... Science and Religion can both exist. Science in the realm of knowledge, Religion within that of Faith with the simple basis being that I know I will probably never know... in this level of my consciousness and that I may know in the next level... if it even exists.
I can study science and it quest to answer questions... and have faith that there is something beyond the here and now.
It's not so much religion itself... it is all about the man-made and man controled part of religion I have absolutely no faith or trust in. I see the church as just another form of government and I do not trust that the church tells me the truth about its holy text and only allows me to see what the church wants me to see.