Slashdot Mirror
Santorum Calls Democrats 'Anti-Science'
ndogg writes with news that Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has counterattacked those critical of conservative views on science, saying that they're 'anti-science' themselves. From a CBS report:
"In his remarks Monday, Santorum went beyond his usual discussion of the importance of increasing domestic energy production to deliver a blistering attack on environmental activists. He said global warming claims are based on 'phony studies,' and that climate change science is little more than 'political science.' His views are not 'anti-science' as Democrats claim, Santorum said. 'When it comes to the management of the Earth, they are the anti-science ones. We are the ones who stand for science, and technology, and using the resources we have to be able to make sure that we have a quality of life in this country and (that we) maintain a good and stable environment,' he said to applause, and cited local ordinances to reduce coal dust pollution in Pittsburgh during the heyday of coal mining."
... how stupid America really is ...
Santorum claiming that environmentalists are "anti-science" is like saying anti-rape activists are against sex. What a fucking lunatic, I can't believe this is the best the GOP can come up with. Are they sitting this one out or something?
Both political parties are willing to throw science under the bus when it suits their agendas. The more ideological the wing of the party, the more busses they find driving by.
By the same token, both parties are willing to embrace the infallibility of science, and the certainty of the consensus, when it validates what they already believe.
Science is in good company though; politicians will do the same with the Supreme Court, the Constitution, Religion, or anything else that they can get their hands on.
...considering it's coming from someone whose view of science is something that you believe on faith, ignore inconvenient research, and consider even the slightest doubt or margin of error that an opposing viewpoint has to completely debunk it. It's not science to believe that since you have 100% confidence in your faith-based theory that has no evidence, but you can imagine a miniscule source of error in an opposing theory, that the person with the fewest doubts "wins". But just try telling a "Creation Scientist" that...or someone who believes on faith that there is not any possibility that there is human-caused global climate changed. They hold their views on faith, their minds will not be changed no matter how much evidence they're presented with.
The Bible says...
evolution doesn't explain what happened before the beginning of time, or where all the mass in the universe came from in the first place.
Your point being what? The theory of evolution concerns the diversity of and relationship between life forms on this planet, nothing else.
Palm trees and 8
Calling someone "anti-science" because they advise restraint when using up natural resources and changing the environment, is like calling someone "anti-capitalist" if they refuse to spend all their money and go into debt.
Huh...I think I just figured out Republican fiscal policy.
They foolishly think that opinions can change reality.
No, they correctly think that if you can change opinions in your favor, then reality doesn't matter (or at least is someone else's problem).
The reality of AGW is irrelevant as long as they can sow enough doubt that they never have to take substantive action. Which has pretty much already worked. Reality loses.
The enemies of Democracy are
That about sums it up: emotion and aggression. Rush "Limbo" and similars often mention something along the lines of "trust your common sense". But this is a code-phrase for "you are as smart as subject-experts in their respective fields".
If "common sense" says the world is flat, then it's flat! This is how it worked in the cave-man era (unless the guy with the bigger club says it's a cube, then it's a cube.)
Table-ized A.I.
The faith in a creator is not diametrically opposed to accepting science.
You are free to believe anything you want about the universe, and you are free to squeeze your beliefs into the space where science has not yet demonstrated those beliefs to be false. However, faith is irrelevant to discussions about science. Science is a process for determining what is or is not true in a very organized way, which allows people to verify claims; faith is belief regardless of and sometimes in spite of the available evidence.
One of the major problems we have in America is the confusion about science. Science is the product of a particular philosophy, and that philosophy stands in opposition to most of the world's religions. Discussions about science are discussions that are restricted to the philosophy upon which science is built, and there is no room for faith in that philosophy (except, perhaps, faith that we live in a logical, consistent universe). This is the point that is generally lost on Americans: religious faith represents an entirely different way of thinking about the world than science.
Palm trees and 8
Actually, science does say everything you believe should be backed up by evidence. Science allows you to say "I don't know." It also allows you to say the evidence is weak, but the best theory is X. Science never says all you need is faith and/or an old book.
Anarchists never rule
So what are you saying: that republicans and creationists are still at the intellectual level of cavemen ?
Please stop insulting cavemen.
Indeed. Cavemen couldn't know better. We've had millenia of progress, and we have no excuse to dwell still on magical thinking.
Because funding comes from Congress that is usually the opposite party of the president?
Nobody on the left has a bold scientific vision
The left? I thought you were talking about Democrats?
Dilbert RSS feed
In science you accept postulates which can neither be proven nor disproven.
Only one: that we live in a logical and consistent universe. In other words, that if we reproduce the conditions under which a phenomenon was observed, then the phenomenon itself will be reproduced. This is not something that can be definitively proved (the next attempt to reproduce any experiment could always be the one that shows that the universe is not consistent), but if we lived in an inconsistent universe there would be no "truth" to speak of -- things would be true and false at the same time, and any claim that could be made would be true.
Beyond that, however, there is not much in science that goes without proof or evidence. That postulate is all that is needed for scientific experiments to be meaningful, because it allows us to draw conclusions from the phenomena we can observe, and it allows experiments to be reproduced by others.
it is a cardinal violation of science to believe in anything that can't be tested, then why is it acceptable to believe definitive in the inverse?
Except that there is more evidence to suggest that the Christianity's deity is the invention of human beings than that such a deity exists in the real world. The characterization of the Christian deity is dependent on the age of the particular story characterizing that deity, with the new testament painting a very different picture from the old testament, and with elements of the Jesus story being apparent in the mythology of those cultures that Jews had contact with in the early days of Christianity. Not quite enough evidence to say exactly what happened or to build a well-developed theory, but more than has ever been collected to suggest that such a deity actually exists (which is, "none at all").
Palm trees and 8
Yea, republicans are definitly the dumbest.
They're not dumb, they're just following an agenda that requires a bit of science denial now and then.
For global warming, it's because the rich assholes they toady to don't want to change the way they do business, even if it means destroying the nest we live in.[*]
For creationism, it's because there aren't enough rich people to win elections, so they have to con various flavors of fools into voting against their own best interests.
They will eventually deny the basic facts of chemistry, or that grass is green, if they think it will help the rich get richer.
[*] Related note, the junk food industry is fighting efforts to remove vending machines from gradeschools, because their profits are more important than the kids' health. It's "tobacco is harmless" all over again. We've evolved into a society where the haves only care about having more, fuck the consequences.
Never assume that a corporation, or their political pawns, will tell the truth if that would shave a few pennies off their profits.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I was perplexed for the longest time how the republican party worked since all of their policies seem to be in favor of the rich. where did they get their votes? It finally clicked for me: they get their money from the rich (by favoring that segment in policies, taxes etc.) and the votes from the religious zealots (by appealing to the creationism, every-sperm-is-sacred etc. crowds).
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. - Seneca
Both "sides" often overdo things or make mistakes. The presences of mistakes does not necessarily mean everything resulting from an idea is wrong. But at least the left respects subject experts for the most part rather than think their gut feeling or "God's hand" is good enough by itself.
As far "permanent poor", you do realize that capitalism requires inequality? Inequality is the primary fuel of the motivational mechanism of capitalism. Also, other nations have reduced the percentage of poor better than we have without cranking up capitalism higher. Thus, "more capitalism" as the solution to poverty does not hold water to observation.
Table-ized A.I.
As would Orwell.
Attack your opponent with what your opponent should be attacking you on.
Turn the truth and the meanings of words completely around.
It goes so far beyond lying that I'm not sure that there's a word for it outside of a Newspeak dictioary.
Check your premises.