Quote from stu:
"the cause is real education, and not polarizing the public."
Are you saying you retract that? Then I suggest you would be doing little else but polarizing. Doing something yourself but accusing others of doing it.
you are not reading me correctly. I'm saying I never claimed to be here to defend science, unlike FT. I'm not here to take up that mantle. What I do hold up as my own values is to carefully observe the world before forming opinion, and then holding the option of changing my mind. Very unlike most who create a set of internal values then make the world fit.
Politics by its very nature is polarizing since politics is all about one's point of view, no avoiding that. Many people develope and hold political beliefs in the very same way religious people do as I have pointed out many times.
I'd say more appropriate to state it was flourishing in secular liberal (small 'L') western democracies. That would be more cojent a point. But either way you are politicizing science with religion. You said science is apolitical. Do you retract that too?
I'm pointing out history. Quantum mechanics flourished in Europe from 1900-1935, then in the united states. We were democracies, but still religious. The point is that the majority Christians support secular government and scence when they could have quashed it. It has been a very fruitful coexistance, one you will not find with muslims or communists.
Of course I can take your word, but it's your point which is unreasonable to accept. A Creationist holds useful patents is meant to mean what exactly? That someone can believe in supernatural non-scientific, strange ideas, whilst holding potentially valuable or profitable privileges discovered through science?
Well, disagreeing with some crazy religious notions is not really the crusade. Creationists who actively pursue aggressive campaigns against science in the community at large, is more reminiscent of holy warfare.
I do disagree Mav. Not compatible because they are not comparable.
Of course not comparable, the question is can science flourish with young earthers around. With the exception of geology and evolution, the answer is yes since they even join in.
Glib maybe but, in the end it makes no difference. Non of that extremism IS science. Because people try to politicize science from whatever ends of the spectrum or even from somewhere inbetween, it is still not going to be the thing you mentioned - real science.
You'll have to explain how one intended hoax from which eccentric conclusions were whipped up by media in general is an attack on science or scientific reasoning.
You'll have to do some reading. Postmodern cultural studies was an entire movement of academics that tried to establish science as just another belief system no more special than any other. They went so far as to call it racist and sexist since many scientists were white men, funny they didn't notice all those asians. Sokal was trying to expose them for the anti-itellectual losers they were. I think liberal arts professors were envious of the prestige and power of science, so they invented some crap to tear it down. Very dangerous stuff, if you are not trained then you can't see the difference. Just as 'paranormal' folks prey on the instincts of the public.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Mav88:
What's the greater threat to science, universities turning out these anti-intellectual ideological students who will go on to populate more anti-science liberal arts departments, or young earth creationists? To me the picture is quite clear, the former is a far greater danger. Those liberal arts folks turn out the Obama's of the world would in turn have no problem at all putting political pressure on scientists to make science serve their political interests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another attack on the political left. Again, you said, science is apolitical. Bottom line, there is nothing more that scientists relish than to knock down anti-intellectual ideological pseudo science, with real science. That some get away with things from a political aspect is of no surprise, but it isn't real science and it gets shown up and called out
I was simply saying one was a greater threat than the other by pointing out that it had been institutionalized by the left. You are putting scientists on too high a pedestal. If the political environment is strong enough, then certain scientific 'results' will not be questioned with enough force to change them in the near future.
I respectfully suggest you retune your antenna. The reason why yours and my own freedom is in tact is because of secular democratic law which defies resolutely, extreme islamics, Sharia theocracy, and extreme christian groups or any other form of religious domination.
Christians helped write those laws, why do you keep ignoring that? Laws are malleable ideas that can be rewritten or reinterpreted, it happens all the time. The are only as good as the people creating and enforcing them. Muslims are demanding Norway and Sweden create Sharia enclaves for them, they will soon get their wish.
we are currently in two wars because of Islamic extremism... creationism is more a problem???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Mav88:
2. Scientists themselves who turn science into a political weapon. Any area such as climate science is always contolled by a dozen or so top scientists. Call them agenda setters. They influence where all the funding goes and what gets published. If the agenda setters have a nonscientific agenda, then corruption is guarenteed. It's not just climate science, medical journals are crap. A good half of all results are overturned in 10 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then there you are! Science, real science, is self correcting. People of all kinds will try to corrupt anything for all sorts of reasons. That gets overturned, shown up and called out.
sure, long after they get their agenda established and we all pay a huge price, someone might say 'oops'. I'm not willing to wait that long, I have witness too many scientific endeavors where a lot of time and money could have been saved if better people would have stod up earlier but were too intimidated to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Mav88:
3. Young earth creationists. Let's say they get what they want, say a couple of pages in a high school text. I see no great impact there, I have worked right next to them. The fact is most of science can function just fine with a corruption of earths geological and biological history. I certainly do not want that to happen, but I asses the level of threat to be low. It would not bring down science, civilization, or reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it would bring down reason! You are advocating something which you've been railing against through out. Corruption of science. How can you possibly teach non-scientific, un-scientific Young Earth Creationism as the real science you talk of. One minute you're outraged at the corruption of science by a political left, next you are supporting it by a bunch of anti-science extremists often formed by the political right who want everything put down to make believe by the supernatural.
You keep reading a biased filter on. Never did I say I supported the YEC, never. My entire point is that I am weighing the relative dangers. Creationsism bring down reason? C'mon man, in a world where we have astrology, bigfoot hunters, psychics, communists, muslims, etc you are claiming this small group of creationists would turn reason itself on its head? No way. Don't stop opposing them, but no way.
With respect you're all one sided here. And you can't have anti-science not ok, anti-science is ok!
I have pointed out, as are you. Never once did I support creationism.
In addition to that, to accept only via the secondhand route of christianity or other religious frameworks that people are able to follow certain sets of moral or ethical codes, I suggest in every respect, is defunct as any sort of an intellectual argument and has been for many years.
Feynman was pointing out that western civiliazation was built on these two 'pillars', not that it will always be, but that is my point.
