Slashdot Mirror
Wisconsin Speech Bill Might Allow Students To Challenge Science Professors (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: There have been some well-publicized incidents in which student groups or other protesters have interfered with scheduled appearances by right-wing speakers at U.S. universities. In response, a number of states have considered "campus free speech" bills based on model legislation produced by the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank. Different bills introduce specific penalties for students who shout down the speech of others and prevent college administrators from disinviting speakers, to give two examples. One such bill is being debated in Wisconsin. Faculty and university officials in the state are concerned about what else might be prevented by the bill's overly vague language, according to the local Cap Times. As often happens with bills relevant to science education, the debate has also elicited some rather bizarre comments from the bill's sponsors. The trouble comes from this section of the bill: "That each institution shall strive to remain neutral, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day, and may not take action, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day in such a way as to require students or faculty to publicly express a given view of social policy." While the bills' scope is focused on public events involving invited speakers, there are a couple key questions here. University officials want to know how far this requirement "to remain neutral" extends. For example, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has spoken out against proposed bans on stem cell research on campus. Would the university run afoul of this law if it did so again?
First they come for the pedophiles.
Then they came for the rapists.
Then the racists.
Then the skeptics.
Then they come for you!
Do not question mah authoritay!
Summary reads kinda weird. What's up with that?
While I agree with the motivation for discouraging universities from disinviting invited speakers, penalizing the practice may discourage universities from inviting even potentially controversial speakers in the first place, and so the effect of the law might be the exact opposite of what is intended: allowing a diversity of opinions and ideas to be expressed.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
When you gotta pass a law to force students in a public university paid for by everybody's tax dollars to actually allow-they don't have to even listen-but allow viewpoints that might disagree with their fragile little sheltered minds. Don't like it? Apply to a religious school like Berkeley.
impinge on my right to free speech by using yours!
How can this possibly get past the SCOTUS?
As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in his famous Whitney v. California opinion in 1927, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
Oh boo hoo hoo, milo yogurt and ann coulter couldn't speak on a college campus because of protests. A republican student murdered another student for being black. If you're upset about liberals shutting down free speech but not the massive rise in right-wing hate crimes across the country, are you even fooling yourself? You hate liberals, you don't have a fucking reason other than they're not like you.
I didn't know Milo was a science teacher...
I was that kind of nerd in class that would read the whole book at the start of the semester, then just sort of enjoy asking leading questions during the year, perhaps once or twice per class period. As long as it was a fair exploration of the topic, ~90% of teachers enjoyed the light challenge - especially the history teachers. I enjoyed finding out where I was wrong, or some detail that connected the subjects we were covering in some larger way.
There were also more religiously reactive students who would play the special-pleading game, trying to weaponize their belief lest others learn to believe in any other way. The answer there is usually increasing degrees of "you might very well be correct, and if you can find an international standards body recognized completely outside of your religious organization in [insert field], I'd suggest you contact [organization who sets school policy], and get the curriculus updated. Until then, this is what's going to be on the test."
I can't see that changing much, and if students decide to raise a stink, it would be fair for a teacher to offer to let the student test out of the class immediately, giving them the remaining homework/tests in one lump, and saving everyone a bit of time, since the student is unwilling to learn directly from the teacher.
Ryan Fenton
... aren't students shelling out thousands of dollars in (science) education to be taught conventionally accepted knowledge by an expert in the scientific discipline's field? What would the bill accomplish besides having unqualified nincompoops devaluing the quality of education? There is a standard of conventional knowledge and research competence demonstrated by every PhD. Undergrads and outsiders have no business contesting facts in the science curriculum. Any legislator that votes for such a bill should be impeached. You may as well shutdown the university at that point; it will cease to be a credible, accredited undergraduate facility.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
This is what religious theocracies do to enforce orthodoxy. What else is the result of subjecting education to a litmus test of belief? Nothing. Yet another sign of the failure of the US as a modern nation. It's successor can join Turkey as heir to a failed empire.
So let's see if we can get this right. Milo and Coulter couldn't speak on college campuses because of violent left-wing protests. You attempt to use a single "republican student" which doesn't actually appear to be the case. But if you really want to try and pull that bullshit, let's look at the guy in WA state and the other in FL, who were both far-left supporters and went on shooting/stabbing sprees killing multiple people.
And people are upset at liberals shutting down free speech by the heavy use of violence and attacks against individuals, along with left-wing hate crimes. I can even look up here in Canada and find numerous examples of the political left assaulting and violating assaulting people for wrong-think. And left aligned environmentalist and feminist groups who burn things down, try to create environmental catastrophes(like blowing up pipelines), or simply disrupting talks when MRA's are speaking. And those repeated violent assaults against people on college campuses against people who are right-leaning, isn't just some fiction. The left are the violent party, much like how the left in the 1960's and 70's were the ones planting bombs and blowing them up all over the place.
Om, nomnomnom...
Or as POTUS put it, when he tried to get right wing pundit Megyn Kelly boycotted and kicked off Fox:
If crazy @megynkelly didn't cover me so much on her terrible show, her ratings would totally tank. She is so average in so many ways!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 19, 2016
Crazy @megynkelly says I don't (won't) go on her show and she still gets good ratings. But almost all of her shows are negative hits on me!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 19, 2016
Everybody should boycott the @megynkelly show. Never worth watching. Always a hit on Trump! She is sick, & the most overrated person on tv.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 18, 2016
Highly overrated & crazy @megynkelly is always complaining about Trump and yet she devotes her shows to me. Focus on others Megyn!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 17, 2016
Crazy @megynkelly is now complaining that @oreillyfactor did not defend her against me - yet her bad show is a total hit piece on me.Tough!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 17, 2016
Watching other networks and local news. Really good night! Crazy @megynkelly is unwatchable.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 16, 2016
Can't watch Crazy Megyn anymore. Talks about me at 43% but never mentions that there are four people in race. With two people, big & over!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 16, 2016
What was her crime again? Oh right, she threw a few softball questions to Trump for him to bounce his replies off, and he hadn't prepared any replies, looked stupid, and he did that to recover face.
Are religious schools exempted by this bill? What will happen if students start interrupting teachers with questions like: "But Jesus doesn't exist (and that's a fact), so why is this true?"
I would put black on white rape and murder stats against white on black rape and murder stats anyday. White people are victimized all the time, but only the random black on white gets really broadcast unless it's a little girl or something.
Even then, it's not spread like outrage by liberals:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2017/05/01/multiple-people-stabbed-ut-austin-campus
https://www.yahoo.com/news/arrest-of-black-teens-in-brutal-chicago-attack-sparks-hate-crime-debate-180845913.html
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/prosecutor-says-defendant-admits-raping-dismembering-nicole-angstadt/article_29d488d4-6557-11e6-a94c-8b7a1a6f6d21.html
If you recall Milo was sacked by right-wing Breitbart for his "little boys can consent to sex with old men" comments.
Breitbart presumably did it because it has a lot of readers who are parents. Did the student protest him because he's right-wing or because he's a pedo?
Is being a pedo suddenly a right-wing thing? I didn't see Hannity or Tucker invite him onto their shows to talk about his warm wet love of kids. They have TV shows, they don't need to talk in the abstract about censorship, they can invite him on to talk to their audience of right wing mothers and fathers.
Oh boo hoo hoo, milo yogurt and ann coulter couldn't speak on a college campus because of protests. A republican student murdered another student for being black. If you're upset about liberals shutting down free speech but not the massive rise in right-wing hate crimes across the country, are you even fooling yourself? You hate liberals, you don't have a fucking reason other than they're not like you.
During the Milo riots, leftist rioters beat Milo attendees with flagpoles and fists. [MMA fighter] Jake Shields pulled a victim from a crowd of beaters and protected him from harm. When asked, the victim had no idea why he was being beaten. Some of the rioters had simply started calling him [the victim] a nazi, for apparently no reason, and the beatings began from there.
This is why the left keeps saying things about the right that aren't true. They say it because once you've established that someone is a nazi, or islamaphobe, or racist, or so on... once you've established that they are despicable then it's OK to attempt to murder them.
I suppose it's a form of virtue signalling, in the manner of "she's a witch! Burn her!" You are such a good and virtuous person that you actively stamp out evil. It starts by labelling the other person as something despicable.
I've *never* seen the right do that to the extent that the left has done, in the last several months. Apparently holding the bloody, severed head of the president is OK, knifing him to death as part of "Shakespeare in the park" is OK, and putting up disgusting nude statues of him in cities across the nation is considered OK.
The left says a lot of things about the right that simply aren't true, for a reason: it's to justify breaking laws and trampling rights. They want to get their way in any manner possible, and the ends justify any means.
The left says a lot of things about the right that simply aren't true.
Don't believe them.
I'm sick of these lefties fresh mouths.
I think the lefties' behavior tarnishes their own cause, but I am skeptical of the righties' effort to ensure free speech by restricting speech.
I tought this was the 21rst century, for fuck's sake.
There is an open war on science. This war is waged mainly by god-forsaken shitwhole countries.
And the U.S.
with your tuition is a subject-matter expert to present information and be available for in-depth exploration of a particular subject. Most of the info in a college class can be found in a textbook or on-line, so you can get most of the info elsewhere if so desired. What you're really paying for is the expert at the front of the class being available to expand on said info. What do you, or the other paying students, get out of you confronting the prof? If you're going to be a nutter, like the current trend, and just start screaming white patriarchy about the info presented, you're wasting your money (or more likely, borrowed money) and the money and time of everyone around you. If you've got a valid question or challenge, great, because odds are the faculty member has an answer for you. If you're just there to start virtue-signaling, stop wasting everyone's time.
Math professor: You didn't solve that partial differential equation.
Conservative snowflake: I did too, libtard.
Wisconsin Republicans: Teach the controversy.
You are welcome on my lawn.
every college in the state would lose accreditation if they did.
challenge a prof in class with BS - FAIL.
if it ever went to court it would be a disaster. If a school loses it's accreditation every degree it's granted is in question.
stupid laws, written by stupid people
So, in order to stop students (non-government) from 'stopping' (by that they mean speaking up so loudly the other side gives up), others from speaking, they want to prevent the schools from speaking their own mind.
All in the name of the "Free Speech". Yes, that sounds just about right for the Republican Party.
Students have the right to say anything they want and the school has the SAME right (unless it is a state school, then the state could determine what they say, as long as they don't interfere with what the students say.)
Free speech is not the right to make others listen to you, nor is it the right to hear only what you want. No one, not the students, not the schools, and not the government has the right to shut anyone (besides their employees) up, or make others listen to you.
Free speech is only the right to speak without the government interfering with your speech.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Accept funds from the US gov?
Let people invite the speakers they want, enjoy the topics covered, then ask questions.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I'm sick of these lefties fresh mouths.
Dunno what you're talking about, Anonymous Strawman. Nothing in this bill would prevent left-wingers from holding a corresponding, competing speech in response to a right-wing speaking event they don't like.
But you and I (and BeauHD) all know that we're really talking about the leftists' "fresh" fists, flagpoles, credit-card knives and bike locks. From TFS:
There have been some well-publicized incidents in which student groups or other protesters have interfered with scheduled appearances by right-wing speakers at U.S. universities.
That's a hell of a way to sugarcoat left-wing hooded mobs setting fires on campus and beating the attendees. Sam Harris did a decent job summarizing the horror of Social Justice run amok:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I am confused. So you are a... shitposter?
Restricting it how?
TFS makes it sound as though challenging science professors is a bad thing. So long as it isn't disruptive to the class, it shouldn't be discouraged. Science is often all about challenging long-held beliefs, even when those beliefs are held by tenured scientists.
Science is about challenging belief with evidence, particularly procedurally documented and experimentally generated evidence. In other cases it is observationally generated or synthesized by review of existing literature. All are valid. Disagreeing for the sake of disagreement, objecting for the sake of grandstanding, and claiming belief in the face of contrary evidence are poor imitations and must be called out as a deluded faker.
Legitimate comparisons are a special case in which history matters, no matter how much you may dislike it. I won't apologize to a nazi sympathizer either, so you can go fuck yourself in the ass with a rusty razor blade.
Yeah, I bet you see those EVERYWHERE, happens to correlate nicely with people who don't agree with your nonsense.
Not often, but I have personally knocked out several Nazi sympathizers (they were skinhead gang members wearing regalia). And I will do it again anytime. Or shoot them with a gun if they attack someone within my sight but outside of my reach.
You sound more like a "nazi sympathizer" than the people you're pointing the finger at. Go fuck yourself.
I am skeptical of the righties' effort to ensure free speech by restricting speech.
Shouting down those who disagree with you so they can't be heard, pulling fire alarms in the buildings where they're trying to speak, and threatening violence against anyone who supports them isn't "free speech." It's fascism.
A citizen should have every right to speak freely, but they should never be allowed to silence their opposition through violence and activities designed specifically to deny their opposition a venue to speak or to be heard. It's your right to speak, but it's not your right to stop me from speaking too.
It's sad that these laws are even necessary. There was a time when the left stood up for free speech. Now they oppose it. Liberals like me have been alienated by the modern SJW liberal movement, and it's why blue states are turning red.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I am sick of righties calling techs lefties because they use big words
I am sick of righties thinking they can then turn around and threaten to dox people they can barely understand
i am sick of righties getting called out and whining that they're being bullied because they failed in a power gambit but they're doubling down & need a sucker
... cause he's still talking.
I'm sure.
Republicans, conservatives, Trumplodytes all seem interested in the trappings of liberal society-education, government, etc. without actually committing to the rigor and discipline each require. Hence equating arguing against evolution without evidence with scientific discourse, telling a bunch of people to do crazy stuff as presidential without actually thinking things through and following the constitution or the body of common law, etc.
Challenging them with science, yes. But this bill isn't about science, it's about politics.
I'm just wondering..
Since you enjoy violence as a way to silence other opinions... does your brown shirt fit well? You enjoy wearing it? You feel good and POWERFUL in it?
And, as you are, as you say, German, I am sure you understand that the 'problem' with the Nazi party was their totalitarian beliefs, rather than their left/right leaning, no? Or is that too confusing for you..
Lol, no it doesn't. This "both sides are awful" bullshit needs to die in fire.
" Which of course why left-wing groups have heavily pushed normalizing pedophilia, and so did numerous same-sex organizations did the same."
You mean like Milo? The noted left winger you're defending? The guy who suggested it was normal for boys to have sex with older men? Like he said he did (as self claimed evidence why it was ok)? But he's a right-wing conservative pundit. Who did he have sex with when he was a kid? Mr Madeup Diddler??
There's a contradiction in your comments, that is really borne of partisan rhetoric. He was pushed, he didn't resign. Breitbart didn't refuse his resignation, they can hire him again, why not??
Fox and Friends are free to invite Milo on, and he can talk about his theories of the tightness of sphincters vs age, at length on their program. I'm sure their audience would absolutely love to hear his scientific theories.
But you want to make a complicated narrative about how its the left wing conspiracy censoring right wing kiddy diddlers and nazis. In order to do that you have to pretend Milo is a victim and not the kids he wants to fuck.
When Jzanu says "regalia", he doesn't mean swastikas and SS Runes, he means people wearing "Make America Great Again" hats and Trump shirts.
I have no problem using lethal violence against those retards attacking people. If they want to feel strong by attacking the weak then they deserve to die painfully. You don't get to reshape the Nazi crimes to fit your revisionist pity party. You don't get pity. You just get shot when you act like a retard.
You hate liberals, you don't have a fucking reason other than they're not like you.
Actually, rioting, setting things on fire and shutting down speech via violence is a good reason to hate a group of people. That they self-identify as liberals is purely coincidental.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Will you stand up for your fellow man with equal zeal if it's a case of, say, a peaceful right wing protester being attacked by masked "antifascists"? Hypothetically speaking of course, because we all know that this never happens in real life.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Idiots acting must be punished. However, Ukraine is fighting Russia which is gearing up to invade Lithuania and the entire Baltic and Poland next. Those masked antifascists are my direct allies, and rather I will fight along side them. That is fighting against evil.
Can't we be upset about both?
You might have missed the story about Middlebury students donning ski-masks and trying to beat the hell of Charles Murray, sending another professor to the hospital and giving the body guards a seriously hard time getting Murray safely out of there. (This info is from an interview I heard with Murray, not this article.) Murray's crime was that he wrote a book that focused on societal inclusiveness of different races, attempting to reduce discrimination, which critics lied about (or at least misrepresented). Murray is the guy that publicized the fact that any differences that exist between racial groups basically don't matter, since they're dwarfed by inter-group differences. Basically, he's one of the good guys. And Middlebury students tried to kick his ass, and did hurt a professor that was protecting him. I'm unhappy about that. Aren't you?
A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
Apart from sounding like something a toddler (or a drunk chimney-sweeper) came up with and how stupid people dichotomize everything to help make sense of the world, this is a classic divide and conquer strategy. However, I don't think it's Russia or terrorism we need to worry about. Big Brother is becoming more than just allusion from a George Orwell novel. If you don't like what a person says then either provide an intelligent counter argument or leave. On the worst of days, colleges aren't like what they're portraying, so why the need for a bill? Laws don't allow, they take away. Things are always legal, all be it maybe a taboo, until a law is passed. This is an attack on free speech by people who aren't smart enough to come up with better solutions to problems; most of us just call it an education. If you don't like it, then don't go to college. Be a happy idiot in your ignorant niche and your one guide book. Whatever works for you.
So what you are saying is you side with Trump?
That is, if you think a *tweet* is blocking free speech in any way, instead of expressing an opinion which is clearly free speech all by itself...
No speech is so dangerous that it should be disallowed. That does not protect the speaker from consequences, like a person yelling fire in a crowded theater if there is none...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Handing tickets out for God!
I think you might have the Gerstmann syndrome
The flagship left "social sciences" have been shamed over and again over accepting total BS for science and being unable to comprehend the scientific methods. And when a lander was reaching the surface of a comet, all the feminists could think about was what shirt the head of astrodynamics team wore.
Doxing... too many examples to list.
And as for 'power gambit', you mean the gambit of cheating Sanders out of the nomination in the primaries, only to lose the general elections?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
This is just another lame attempt to allow people to squeeze "creation science" into courses at universities that receive public funds by saying that certain instructors can spout their personal "beliefs" as fact. To these people "evolution" and having your kids vaccinated are "controversial". I agree that people shouldn't be able to shut people like Milo down but this bill is utter bullshit.
They're as much the "flagship left social sciences" as the religious nutjobs acting as if creationism had any scientific merit being the "flagship right" scientists. BOTH of them make the normal and sane people on either side of the political spectrum cringe and wish that those idiots wouldn't tarnish the name "conservative" and "liberal".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Because evolution "is just a theory", and the Bible offers alternative facts worth discussing in a biology class.
You don't get pity. You just get shot when you act like a retard.
Did your German education inform you as to the last group of people that showed no pity and shot the mentally disabled?
Let that sink in.
I am not German but English. Old enough to that rationing didn't end until I was 18 years old. However my mother was a 'war bride' so I have relative from both sides. You learn a lot from that. You can keep your 'dumb Germans' racism. He is not only correct where you are mistaken but he is also a better class of human being.
Nope. Fraud. Liberals do not do such things. This isn't a 'true scotsman' fallacy. It is an actual matter of definition.
setting things on fire
I was with you until there.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"No speech is so dangerous that it should be disallowed."
We're in full agreement. Obviously except Megyn Kelly right? She should be removed from TV. Fox should have removed her earlier, Trump should NOT have had to threaten to boycott their debate unless they sacked her.
I think Trump is the real victim here. Fox should apologize to Trump, perhaps some sort of loyalty pledge by Hannity?
She should never have brought up Trump's tweets calling women "dogs" and "fat pigs", that speech should have been censored. How could they let her say such a thing? That was locker room banter.
Poor Trump.
Thank god he has us to protect him. Well me, you Superkendall and Russia Today and Fox and Friends. True patriots, not like that Megyn.
Anyone should be able to challenge a Science professor. Since they are taking science the challenge should be dismissed straight away if it isn't in scientific terms. If someone want's to ask "how do we know that carbon dating is accurate?", or "could the rate of radio-active decay change with time" then that's fine?. It's the repeated disruptive claiming of disproven facts that should be prevented.
As opposed to the crowd grabbing others and throwing them out? As opposed to making it an offence to demonstrate in public? As opposed to spraying pepper spray in people's faces while wearing a police vest, hoping someone will hit back and therefore the protest will be a "violent riot" and everyone beaten and arrested? As opposed to shooting them dead in public?
Because these are the things rightwingers have done. Not really heard ANY cries against it happening (if it happens to lefties). Yet there's an entire fucking MOVEMENT of lefties that bitch and moan and complain endlessly about those actions of "lefties" you mention there. Take a look at Thunderf00t on YT. He's a leftie. He's not the only one.
When are you rightwingers going to start as a group complaining about the RWNJ like the lefties complain about the SJWs you so freely complain about and pretend are all the lefties?
I think it's already been pointed out that right-wingers in masks infiltrate left-wing protests and incite violence to make it look like the left is doing the deed.
Are these laws necessary? Seems like triggering a fire alarm or refusing to leave/be quiet on private property is already in violation of several laws. This proposal seems to go way, way beyond that into removing people's right to speak.
In fact it sounds very much like what the anti-SJWs claim to be fighting against - silencing people by claiming that their speech is somehow "bad" and must be restricted.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Those masked antifascists are my direct allies, and rather I will fight along side them.
Thanks for letting everyone know exactly where you stand. You're not anti fascist, you are a fascist. You're wearing the mask, polishing your boots, stomping on someone's face for their political ideology violently doing so and seeing *nothing* wrong with that.
You are the extremist.
Om, nomnomnom...
God damn you are an idiot, learn to read paragraphs. Russia under Putin is evil and everywhere it is fought deserves reinforcement. Russia must be reformed and Putin must be killed.
Maths should actually be safe from this because pure maths is abstract and has absolute proof on its side. Science is where the problems will be: Big Bang vs. Creationism, climate change, evolution etc. Even something as simple as special relativity seems to attract controversy of a kind from those with their own crazy theories to peddle.
bills based on model legislation produced by the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank. Different bills introduce specific penalties for students who shout down the speech of others
Is there anyone who thinks bad manners is something that should be allowed?
As a European, I've always thought myself more of a leftist-libertarian on this spectrum, but seems we are ultra conservative, the bunch of us?
You're right. Because in those leftist circles "liberals get the bullet too." The group you're talking about are progressives, social justice bullies, social justice warriors, and so on. They *do* those things. Antifa, BAMN, ELF, ALF, Sea Shepard Society, etc, etc, etc, are all violent left-wing groups.
Om, nomnomnom...
That's cute. Yeah, well, I spent enough time in Germany myself and I like the people there.
It wasn't 'racism' since I'm attacking a mentality that only a subset of Germans have, but a loud subset who reside in English speaking forums. They think because they learn about it second hand 70 years after the War happened, they're automatically experts because they're in the same country and so their opinion is super important and informed.
And let me tell you; I'm an expert on the Revolution, Enlightenment, Civil War, Custer, and more importantly Indian death marches and ghettos, oh wait reservations, and Japanese Internment simply because I grew up in America and seen a documentary or two. So my opinion should carry extra weight because of my passport and my textbooks were super focused on these subjects (not).
That's the mentality I'm dealing with. With people who listen to the nightly self-flogging propraganda on TV and in school and think they know all about everything on the topic... and that makes their dumbass comparisons valid.
Just like Dumb Americans or Stupid Brits isn't automatically 'racist' - as if there was one race of them anyway. Nationalist if anything. Let go of your PC bullshit, if I was trying to be racist and an edgelord I woulda said "Dumb Krauts", ya half limey bastard kraut.
Now slur me something and we can be even.
...can vote to declare that gravity does not exist ?
It's okay until you start pointing at random people, who may or may not have different point of view than you do, and label them nazi.
I'm definitely of a centrist view, considering both extremes very bad. Nevertheless, I've been labeled nazi, sexist, racist, and all despicable things, simply because I disagreed with one of the extremes.
I was labeled "SJW" at one occasion by the far-right too, but they were actually willing to listen when I explained my position.
Yeah, just personal experiences, not a general population study, but the far left I see is very numerous - and its views are extreme enough that it labels enough moderates / centrists as "nazi" that the sides seem proportional by size to them.
Nope, not everyone who voted Trump is a nazi. Really.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Normally in the 100 level classes you get students from other majors who need to fill out their required course. They don't think like scientist they think they can BS their way by impassioned speach.
Normally I would say you can just kick the student out of class for being disruptive.
But there has been a large growth of discourse towards heckling and egging people to become violent (on both sides) that is preventing the execution of expressing the ideas in an environment to do so.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"Lol, no it doesn't" as in the lefties' behavior does not tarnish their own cause? If you count antifa as "leftist" (which is admittedly a stretch, but a stretch that a huge number of people have already bought into) then I respectfully disagree. The alt-left/antifa movement is to the left what the alt-right movement is to the right: an embarrassment. As a professor, the fact that this bill might make it illegal for me to hold this opinion publicly is, well, a bit troubling to say the least.
The sponsors can and will dress it up to try and make it seem like a reasonable thing, that they're just reacting to the terrible behavior of some students at some universities, but the simple reality is they've got one goal with this kind of bill, getting creationism in the classroom.
Because their faith is so weak that the only way it can continue is if they deny all evidence to the contrary.
The problem is that faith means believing exactly when there is no reason to believe. If there were evidence in its favor, it wouldn't be faith, it would be just common sense.
True faith would be recognizing that evolutionary theory has good solid evidence in its favor AND that the bible is true.
Also it could be challenging the lack of evidence, such as. Do we have evidence that our stem cell research won't release the zombie apocalypse, a question that most students will consider but not all professors.
It is the politically correct shunning that they are trying to stop, the bill in itself shows how bad things are, weather it becomes law or not.
Nice goosestepping. Make sure your boots are polished because you are everything you claim that you're fighting against.
Om, nomnomnom...
Boo hoo hoo!
Science is about challenging belief with evidence, particularly procedurally documented and experimentally generated evidence. In other cases it is observationally generated or synthesized by review of existing literature. All are valid. Disagreeing for the sake of disagreement, objecting for the sake of grandstanding, and claiming belief in the face of contrary evidence are poor imitations and must be called out as a deluded faker.
And while most science should be based on observed behavior, or at least proven formulas, everything has human interpretation involved. Given a hundred scientists, there should at least be two (usually more) interpretations of a set of data and the minority should never be rejected just because it is the minority. All opinions should be accepted or rejected based on careful consideration.
Boo hoo hoo!
This has nothing to do with challenging science. You would actually have to know something about science to challenge it. This is about trying for force false equivalence. "Scientists claim the earth is spherical, but some non-scientists disagree". That kind of crap comes from the right wing every day. It is called the doubt machine. Sow doubt that cigarettes cause cancer, doubt that humans are altering the biosphere or climate, Sow doubt that evolution is a well documented fact. It is all about preventing positive action that might hurt a political agenda or corporate bottom line.
When you can't win the argument, just pass a law. Bullshit.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
That you would need a bill to allow anyone to challenge science is fucking ridiculous.
I tend to rant.
Different bills introduce specific penalties for students who shout down the speech of others and prevent college administrators from disinviting speakers, to give two examples
So we are protecting free speech by eliminating free speech? Something about that doesn't sound quite right.
That kind of crap comes from the right wing every day.
Seems about on the level of, "Doctors claim vaccines don't cause autism, but Jenny McCarthy doesn't agree," which started from and is largely maintained by the left.
All opinions should be accepted or rejected based on careful consideration.
The problem we have now is that after the science community has carefully considered a particular "interpretation" and has rejected it, a large portion of our populace ignores this.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
It is the politically correct shunning that they are trying to stop, the bill in itself shows how bad things are, weather it becomes law or not.
No, it only shows how bad politicians want to make things seem so they can rile up their base and win elections. It's no different than us spending so much time worrying about terrorism and immigration. Without these bogeymen the US political right has no platform capable of winning elections.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Here's how that might look.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You are a sad stupid inept and powerless little boy who can not accomplish anything. Go away and hide in your stained pillow fort or something.
You can't contradict facts that are produced by the scientific method, but any sort of social policy informed by these facts is politics, and as such should be as freely debatable as policy based on the usual made-up axioms ("college girls should remain chaste") that come from non-scientific sources.
What we need to know about the Wisconsin bill is whether it actually permits students to contradict scientific facts, or whether this headline is more Slashbolshevik scaremongering.
There's always a first, but thought it ironic that someone is using the term *conservative* to modify snowflake. Heh.
And here I was thinking snowflake was a derisive term applied to millennials.
Do we have evidence that our stem cell research won't release the zombie apocalypse, a question that most students will consider but not all professors.
I would hope that most students would not consider that question. At least not seriously enough to voice the concern in class.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
You're wrong, because the groups you're not talking about are conservatives, bullies, warriors for Christ, "freedom fighters" and so on. They *do* those things. ACT-America, Christian Action Network, John Birch Society, Oath Keepers, Justice Foundation, Christian Exodus, Agenda21Today, AFN, GOOOH, NCAUNT, WTP, TURF, AOF...are all violent right-wing groups.
But you'll never speak of them, will you? You'll claim that it's a "purely" left-wing thing, you'll wave your hands over the KKK, but wait a second, they're not the only group, now are they? (The Right-wing isn't stupid, they know the KKK brand is tainted, so they stick on a new label.)
In fact, you'll go into hysterics when their conduct is documented and reported.
And it isn't even limited to the US.
Yet you are entirely and utterly silent.
No word at all from you.
Oh, and one of your video was a fake.
But hey, I'm sure you can rant over a cake.
You are somewhat right about the denial of science being an across-the-spectrum of politics phenomena, however I have not as of yet, seen a mob of conservatives get in a shouting match with a professor in class, or surround them in the hallway and threatening with violence because they didn't think the consensus about global warming was right.
Whereas, I have seen some of this in person and there is considerable evidence available on Youtube showing that such behavior is quite common for leftists.
[ Citations needed]
If this is so common you should be able to provide a few links demonstrating it as such, no?
If a student shouts down pretty much ANYONE speaking on campus, they should be kicked out for the term or permanently, depending on how tolerant the institution is feeling.
The point of such places is to expose you to ideas, not to make sure you only hear things you agree with. Kids who don't understand that are already too far behind in their education to help... if they ever figure it out, they can continue their education elsewhere.
The trouble comes from this section of the bill: “That each institution shall strive to remain neutral, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day, and may not take action, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day in such a way as to require students or faculty to publicly express a given view of social policy.”
The way I read this, it says the institution can't force students or faculty to publicly express a particular view on controversial topics. In other words, students and faculty can publicly express any views they like without being pressured by the university. How is this "trouble" or in any way a bad thing?
"which started from"
No it didn't. It was started by a con man in England.
Play Command HQ online
You are somewhat right about the denial of science being an across-the-spectrum of politics phenomena, however I have not as of yet, seen a mob of conservatives get in a shouting match with a professor in class, or surround them in the hallway and threatening with violence because they didn't think the consensus about global warming was right.
Whereas, I have seen some of this in person and there is considerable evidence available on Youtube showing that such behavior is quite common for leftists.
Left or right doesn't really matter. To me, this type of agenda comes from both sides. One may be more forward than the other.
Also, using Youtube where anyone can push their agenda to public audiences is a bit too much. Who do you think would post the video to tarnish the other side's reputation? You attempt to quantify their behavior by assuming that people from both sides behave the same way and use the same method to push their agenda to public. I'm not sure that is really correct.
You can keep your 'dumb Germans' racism.
Germany isn't a race.
Cliven Bundy, Ammon Bundy, and that wild'n'crazy leftist Timothy McVeigh.
Yep. It's only the left-wingers who get violent.
AC
It is a good thing there has never been a single staged video posted to Youtube, so we can take everything there at face value.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
The pyramids were built by Aliens, I saw a whole documentary about it on the history channel. THE HISTORY CHANNEL MR KELVIN, I THINK IT IS A LITTLE MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE THAN A HISTORY TEACHER SLASH FOOTBALL COACH IN PARAMUS, NJ
This whole so-called "holocaust" thing is still being debated by Historians, I read a rousing debate on the topic the other night in /pol
2 x 1 = 2? I call bullshit.
Defending the right to free speech means defending that right even for people you despise and disagree with in every way. Because it is the only way to guarantee your right to speak to oppose them. Also remember, that your right to free speech can't be used to take away theirs. You can't go to some else's speech and scream at them to drown them out and call it your right to free speech. That is what is happening lately. Instead of using their right to speak to promote their opposing view, they use it as a weapon to shut down those they disagree with. Instead of letting them speak, they protest or riot with the intent of preventing the speech. This is not the way free speech works.
With a sitting Republican president who's an anti-vax wacko you are gonna call it a position of t he left?
A majority of economists believe that raising the minimum wage has disemploent effects, but politicians disagree...
Which opens the door to infinite evil. Do we have evidence that behaving sinfully won't end up with us cast posthumously into a pit of eternal fire? Well, no, partly because we have no evidence of life after death, pits of eternal fire, and no objective definition of sin. So this means that ANY presentation can be interrupted simply by asserting that thus and such are sinful, etc. Can you prove that it is NOT? Of course not. There simply in no evidence that it is.
Your example of a zombie apocalypse is well taken. Do we have the slightest shred of evidence that zombies or anything zombie-like is really possible? Not just heavily drugged or brain-damaged individuals deliberately harmed by slavers or practicers of voudoin, but actual living dead brain-eating zombies? Well, no, although rabies as a disease does have related effects and might have been part of the origin of zombie legend. So what the heck! Sure, the zombie apocalypse could be unleashed by mutant rabies, GMO foods, stem cells, a disease transported to Earth by meteors or space aliens, biowarfare gone awry, the deliberate act of a vengeful deity, the deliberate act of an evil supernatural demon, prions (a mutant mad cow disease), a new "safe" designer recreational drug anybody can make at home out of clorox and pepto-bismol that has a zombie side effect one year after it is ingested, pods from outer space, slugs that attach to your spinal column from outer space, nanites intended to cure brain cancer, or a mutation of the common cold. Maybe half of these possibilities have formed the basis in whole or in part of science fiction novels over the decades (mutant rabies, alien diseases, pods, and slugs, biowarfare gone awry...)
So, should we allow scientific talks on how stem cells are being used to cure nerve deafness in humans and parkinson's disease to be interrupted at will by whack jobs that want to claim, without evidence, that the individuals cured MIGHT turn into zombies, so all research into stem cells must instantly cease? Seriously? Or, because stem cells are making an end run around the "intelligent design" of the human body by a supernatural deity they are therefore sinful (no need for evidence or a firm definition of sin, remember, it is whatever you want it to be or allege that it is and nobody can prove you wrong) and will cause not the zombie apocalypse but the biblical apocalypse unless we gather up all of the researchers and burn them alive at the stake as a manner of atonement and banish all of their works and threaten all human with torture and death if they ever use the words "stem cells" again? Can you prove that this won't happen (well, except by ignoring the idiots and curing nerve deafness and Parkinson's anyway with no breaking of the seals or unleashing of the four horsemen etc)?
Lack of evidence is not positive evidence of lack. It is, however, something that can legitimately be used to state that lack is more likely the longer evidence is looked for and not found. We cannot positively assert that there are no pink unicorns living somewhere on Earth simply because one has never been seen, captured, found (with or without color) in the fossil record), but we can say that -- given the existing observational evidence -- it is pretty unlikely that any exist and are just lurking somewhere in deepest darkest Africa or Tibet or in a special volcanic cave in the middle of Antarctica. If you assert invisible pink unicorns (whatever color "invisible pink" ends up being) you make it even harder to disprove, as now you can literally look everywhere on Earth and just because you can't see them doesn't mean that they aren't there, because they are invisible! Does this mean that we have to now allow La La Loopsie/My Little Pony followers to disrupt scientific presentations of evolutionary biology?
Note well that I'm not certain legislation is the answer to stuff like this, but providing the idiots with an escort off campus and leaving them there with instructions not to come back (students or not) seems pretty reasonable.
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
want to lie, shipwrecked and comatose, drinking fresh mango juice. Goldfish shoals nibbling at my toes. Fun, fun, fun.
Add a bit of pineapple and coconut and throw in a dash of rum and I'm there. I can take or leave the straw and little umbrella, although playing with the umbrella is fun when the goldfish get boring...
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
As usual the Politicians are making it harder than it needs to be.
Simply outlaw ALL speech codes. Period.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
That's bullshit. The anti-vax crap is on both sides of the political spectrum. The current President (a far right-winger) has spouted anti-vax BS, and there's been a bunch of it among religious groups who've then had outbreaks.
https://www.omicsonline.org/op...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
http://scienceblogs.com/insole...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/e...
But it's not just religious idiots who've latched onto the anti-vax hysteria, it's also some elements on the left, namely the loony ones who are also into various other "alternative medicine" hokum.
Remember, the "left" isn't a coherent, homogeneous group of people by any stretch, in fact it's a coalition of basically everyone who isn't right-wing. The right-wingers are generally conservative, which means they like the status quo, "traditional values", etc., so anyone who departs from this mindset is automatically left-wing, even though that can mean completely different philosophies ranging from simple "progressivism" (basically what Nordic countries have--democratic republics with a bunch of welfare state services and heavier regulation) all the way to actual communism. So the "left" includes irreligious people who want science and evidence-based thinking to determine public policy, and also fruity people who believe in garbage like "metaphysics" and the "ascended masters".
I have not as of yet, seen a mob of conservatives get in a shouting match with a professor in class
That's because climate-denialist conservatives do not attend college in sufficient numbers for this kind of thing to happen. When they do attend college in high concentrations, it's at some bullshit "school" like Liberty University where they explicitly deny science in the curriculum.
The fact is, you're not going to find a bunch of conservative nutcases at a school like Evergreen; places like that attract leftist nutcases instead.
However, conservatives are disposed to violence just like anyone; just look at the various protests going on lately. There have been a bunch of documented cases of them attacking counter-protesters, and it's been documented that the local police look the other way.
Go find your own citation, you moron. Those activities were all well-documented during the Occupy protests, particularly the pepper-spraying part.
The alt-left/antifa movement is to the left what the alt-right movement is to the right: an embarrassment.
I disagree. The alt-right now represents the entirety of the right. If it didn't, they wouldn't have elected Trump, who was the standard-bearer for the alt-right and still has Steve Bannon (who's a self-proclaimed alt-righter) as one of his main advisors. The old-fashioned conservatives you're thinking of are basically extinct now; the mainstream IS the alt-right now, as the mainstream conservatives have mostly converted.
Use their own weapons against them: Start teaching Satanism and Pastafarianism in science, history, etc. and watch their feathers ruffle.
Table-ized A.I.
Ignorant student challenging established professor is about the stupidest fucking thing on the planet
"yeah, here's how global warming is a lie"
this shit passes I'm getting my gun and enforcing it my way
Seems about on the level of, "Doctors claim vaccines don't cause autism, but Jenny McCarthy doesn't agree," which started from and is largely maintained by the left.
Started by "the left"? Say what? "Left" and "Right" have nothing to do with this. "Doctors" are at least as likely to be members of "the left" if by that you mean social liberals as opposed to conservatives. Oh, wait, they are more likely:
https://www.psychologytoday.co...
http://www.reuters.com/article...
http://jamanetwork.com/journal...
The last article is very thoughtful and analyzes trends in political contributions specifically, fractionated by gender, race, and subspeciality. It indicates that left/right even for physicians is more likely to be a question of income, gender, race, speciality, and age than it is of "intelligence" per se, but it is a simple matter of fact that on average liberals are smarter than conservatives.
Now, if you want to get into pseudoscience, we can talk about the "conservatives" in Texas and Kansas and Missouri who are passing legislation to make masturbation a misdemeanor crime (Texas), teach intelligent design on a par with evolution in the schools, rewrite history so that the founding fathers are Good Christians as opposed to deists or atheists and suppress evidence to the contrary to prevent it from being mentioned in school, let alone taught.
Personally, I tend to think of science as mostly being social value neutral, but the glaring exception to this is when science collides (as it so often does!) with religion. This is beautifully reflected in surveys like this:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
although it is perhaps better summarized by this piece:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
To quote:
The more religious a person is, the more conservative he is, and this relationship is strongly mediated by the value placed on tradition — respect for customs and institutions. But even though religiousness and spirituality are highly correlated, the more spiritual a person is, the more liberal he is. This relationship is mediated by the value placed on universalism — social tolerance and concern for everyone’s welfare.
As with previous studies, conservatives were more conscientious (organized and self-disciplined), while liberals were more agreeable and more open to new ideas and experiences. The trend of conservatives being more religious and liberals being more spiritual held even when controlling for these personality factors, and when controlling for age, gender and socioeconomic status.
As a scientist, I interpret this as the more orthodox religious a person is, the more likely they are to accept absolute nonsense as truth just because it is written down in a scriptural text somewhere and hence exempted somehow from the ordinary rules and methods of reason. The more spiritually religious they are, the more likely they are to accept absolute nonsense as truth just because they "feel" like it must be true and their feelings are again exempt from the ordinary rules and methods of reason. You can see the problem -- liberals and conservatives are almost equally likely to accept at least some nonsense as truth if they are religious, and liberals and conservatives who are intelligent enough not to do this are, almost by definition, less likely to accept nonsense as truth whether or not it is religious simply because they apply the rules
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
Hi. I'm an atheist Republican who believes in evolution, human-caused global warming, stem cell research, and strawman arguments made by fucking morons.
Clearly you are indisputable proof of one of these.
That cuts both ways.
If you cannot sufficiently defend your position in a way which is convincing, and without appealing to emotion, then chances are you're wrong about something.
Liberals unfortunately scream racist and believe that is enough to prove any scientific argument. It isn't.
Bullshit.
It's a sad irony that far right extremists are now patriotic heroes on the front lines defending your ability to freely express your stupid fucking thoughts, even when you use that freedom to try to destroy open expression. They aren't the violent nut jobs anymore. That's your team now, jackass. Own it.
I'm Jewish, and I find myself siding more and more with these right-wing groups because I can see the seeds of true Nazism and fascism in the modern left. If you can punch them in broad daylight without cause, you could punch me too. I'm not scared of white supremacists anymore... I'm terrified of people like you.
The current President (a far right-winger)
Thanks for the laugh. You clearly either don't know the far right, or Trump.
Just another day in Paradise
There have been a bunch of documented cases of them attacking counter-protesters, and it's been documented that the local police look the other way.
Documented? Where? By who?
Just another day in Paradise
They wanted 'more government', they got it.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Same. I'm a pretty strong liberal, but the identity politics and fascism of the left has turned me away from them almost entirely.
I voted straight Democrat my entire life, up until I voted for Trump last year... Not because I believe in anything he says, but because I actually find him less offensive... Which is saying A LOT.
Bravo, from across the aisle.
Just another day in Paradise
'alt' came from usenet.
There is never just one 'alt', there is 'mainstream' and a bunch of 'alt's. The right want to paint the entire alt-left as antifa, just as the left want to paint the entire alt-right as the KKK.
Mainstream cons voted Trump once he won the nomination. Having no place else to go and wisely hating Hillary.
The majority of cons will still vote for whoever the Rs nominate next, just as the majority of libs will vote for the D.
The /b/tards will continue to troll whoever provides the most luls. I'm betting on that being unhinged liberals for the foreseeable future.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I am sick of righties calling techs lefties because they use big words
I am sick of righties thinking they can then turn around and threaten to dox people they can barely understand
i am sick of righties getting called out and whining that they're being bullied because they failed in a power gambit but they're doubling down & need a sucker
Then go to one of your safe spaces, and look up some "big words"...you managed to get one with three syllables. Keep up the good work. Oh, but while you're there, you might want to have a look see at which side controls all three branches of the federal government, while the loser of the presidential election is making the rounds, and using every imaginable excuse for her failed "power gambit".
Just another day in Paradise
Except the real problem here seems to have nothing to so with science classrooms. Anthropology profs have been ripping into fundies for decades. This headline is a red herring. The real problem is in the liberal arts where what is taught is driven by politics and contrary politics will get you in trouble with a professor.
This is the kind of liberal media distortion that makes it difficult to take the other story about election hacks seriously. It's so blatant.
In the past professional trolls were less transparent and set the bar higher so it was less obvious.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The anti-vax crap is on both sides of the political spectrum.
Sure. But there is a difference. The leftists believe vaccines are a corporate conspiracy, while the rightists believe vaccines are a government conspiracy.
The current President (a far right-winger)
Trump's views may be stupid and incoherent, but they are not "far-right", and many of them are not "right" at all. For instance, his views on trade are leftist.
STEM profs aren't fragile snowflakes. They don't have to be protected by morons like you. They will eviscerate the student in question in short order. The disruption will be trivial. Total non issue here.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Not quite, they haven't invested in identity politics like the democrats have. And they haven't started pushing outright bigotry and racism like democrats have. Or have you missed all those times when democrats attacked whites, or pushed pro-segregation stances. Keeping in mind that all of this started because of a bunch of leftists in Berkeley decided to attack a right-wing gay who said stuff they didn't like, and it's been popping up more and more with the left. That the current case in like with Evergreen exists because of black racists.
Om, nomnomnom...
Don't worry, I'm sure you also believe a cartoon frog is a hate symbol. This is why the democrats keep losing. The only people who believe that the "alt-right" is something more then a fringe are the same ones who believe that the riot in Berkeley was caused by people on the right. Both are false hoods.
Om, nomnomnom...
I am one of the STEM scientists you claim to be defending. We don't need to be protected by assholes like you. I would have left the last part out if you had been civil.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
Sounds like some hard projection there, must be hard living such a bitter life.
Om, nomnomnom...
How can something dwarf itself?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Boo hoo hoo!
Isn't that the sound that Democrats made when Republicans took over the White House and Congress because so many states are turning from blue to red now?
Here's some free advice to my Democrat friends: When you're in a hole, stop digging.
Yeah, Trump was the first Republican I've ever voted for too. It's surreal that the left has become so toxic that I would even consider voting for a guy who I would have laughed at if he had run 15 years ago. But, then again, I never would have thought that I would live to see the day when the left was actively opposing free speech and advocating racism while the right fought for free speech and equality. It's a truly upside-down world these days.
Go find your own citation, you moron.
Couldn't find any, huh?
Close, but I see it slightly differently.
The problem scientists have is a lack of a public voice over their own research. How many times have we watched two pundits on the television 'debate' anthropogenic global warming? I don't know about you, but I quite frankly don't trust Tucker Carlson NOR Rachel Maddow to really present the science in any kind of accurate way. That goes for any 'political' issue, not just AGW. By the time it gets to the mass public airwaves, any study is long separated from those who wrote it, and it is subject to the biased interpretations of partisan hacks who aren't trained to know what they are talking about, or even recognize what the study's purpose might have been.
Example: Suppose I test out a new numerical algorithm for oceanic climate modeling. I want to look at diffusion rates across ocean strata, and explore the effect this has on the overall result o the simulation, namely atmospheric transport, temperature, carbon content and the like. Suppose I run a bunch of cases, each with a somewhat different approach to this problem, and publish the results compared to historical data and with projections from each. Suppose one of those simulations shows dramatic and irreversible warming at the surface within the next ten years, and another shows a more or less stable surface environment for the next 50 years. Does it matter which one, I the author, think is correct? Or if I think both of these are extreme cases that are unlikely to be true, but are merely demonstrating the bounds of potential outcomes by varying a single parameter? Does it matter that my primary point may have simply been that some unknown factor could have dramatic effects on the path of global climate, and that we need to further study and understand this effect? Or does it only matter that I produced some computer simulations that people can argue about out of context on the TV? And nobody will bother to invite me on to explain these results because, well, that doesn't benefit any of the talking heads that make those decisions.
TL;DR: Scientists need to better interface with the public. Easier said than done, but I believe that is the crux of the problem.
The "pepper-spraying incident", as described by one of the pepper-sprayed in an interview by Amy Goodman on the "Democracy Now!" web page, was when the protesters who got sprayed were blocking the police from retreating from a situation they had become alarmed by. The person being interviewed outright gloated about how they were blocking the police from retreating.
Amy Goodman/Democracy Now! is not a right-wing conspiracy site. Conspiracy site, yeah, but definitely not right-wing.
Needs a redo.
The problem scientists have is a lack of a public voice over their own research.
Public discussion is not the best or even appropriate context for the debates you are discussing. That is best done between scientists, not between scientists and the public. The public only needs to know the result of these discussions. Laymen do not need an explanation for why one model is thrown out while the other is used; they just need to know the vast majority of scientists in the field agree with this decision.
Too many people get confused about the role of consensus in science. Scientific consensus should not be a factor in any single experiment, but consensus is the cornerstone of how scientific progress is made. Eventually consensus becomes strong enough that engineers can start developing products and politicians can start developing policy. Things only break down when laymen start ignoring this consensus. Scientists should always continue to expand upon and revise their consensus, but there is no place for that in the public arena.
The only thing breaking down the interface between scientists and the public is political partisanship. It happens on both sides, whether you are talking about climate change or organic foods. But certainly climate change denial is a much worse situation than people wasting money on organic fruit.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
well the problem right now is you've got a left that sees anyone right of them as a nazi. and they believe that dialogue is 'problematic' because it plays into the power-games of the 'patriarchy'.
Milo and Coulter couldn't speak on college campuses because of violent left-wing protests.
Not only that I read in the university paper an editorial praising this behavior. After Milo was denied access to campus after the administration got concerned over the potential for violence (at least that was the claim, I think it was just an excuse for them to ban Milo out of personal preference of the admins) the editorial board had a couple pieces on this. The one that most outraged me was some idiot calling this a win for speaking freely on college campuses. The argument was some nonsense about how people can't feel free to speak if we allow such hateful speakers on campus.
This newspaper editor actually thought that denying people the ability to speak was a win for speaking freely.
Then he thought it might be a good idea to write it down.
Then the editorial board for the newspaper approved it for printing.
The blindness to their own nonsense and hypocrisy must have spread far and wide on colleges across the nation.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
No discussion about anything related to politics (or often even not related to politics) can get far on Slashdot without degenerating into insults and name calling and arguments about whether it's the left or the right that's totally evil and wants to suppress free speech.
This is a complicated issue. If you think it can be reduced to a simple liberals vs. conservatives, that means you don't understand it. There are real concerns about people who've had their free speech blocked, and there's a legitimate desire to do something about that. There also are real concerns that this bill could be abused to prevent universities from taking stands on climate change, evolution, or anything else someone doesn't want them to talk about. Free speech is both really important and really hard to get right, especially when protecting one person's freedom of speech has the effect of restricting someone else's freedom of speech.
Insults do nothing to promote thoughtful discussion. But if anyone cares to offer their own proposal for how to protect everyone's right to speak out, that would be valuable.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Speaking out on political issues is something that publically funded universities don't need to get involved in.
So here is how stem cell advocacy should go.
While there is great debate about the moral issues involved in stem cell research the university has a policy of remaining neutral on moral and political issues.
For the purpose of informing the public about the science involved we issue the following statement.
1) >
2)>
Wouldn't it be nice if 'scientist' actually restricted themselves to scientific statements when speaking as scientists and then offered their opinions on how to interpret the science as private citizens like everyone else?
Or another example: ( Global warming).
1) The data indicates the earths temperature from time a to b has risen x degrees.
2) If this trend continues there is an expected rise in sea level of X.
3) It is likely with 85% certainty according to model xyz that this will display NN portions of the population
Notice what is missing: No unproven speculation as to what effect this will have on the displaced population, no call for anyone to do anything about it, no judgment on weather or not destroying the planet is a good or a bad thing. Why, because although it may be commonly agreed that killing everyone on earth is a bad thing, that isn't science, it is morality.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Faggot
Because ignorance and dogma are as good as knowledge and education.
Still, do many universities award degrees in creationism?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
How can something dwarf itself?
Grrrrr, my brain wasn't working properly. I even thought about the inter/intra difference before I wrote that! I'll give myself a 3-day cooling off period before the next time I try to write one of those words.
A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
Fuck right-wingers
Science is about challenging belief with evidence, particularly procedurally documented and experimentally generated evidence.
No, it's not. Quite wrong, in fact. A hypothesis can challenge an existing belief without evidence; that's what a hypothesis is for. Evidence is established experimentally. It's not until evidence is established and new conclusions are reached that the new belief becomes a theory, or if it describes what is happening in a very specific (i.e. formulaic) manner then it becomes a law.
A good example of challenging a science professor would be to ask something like "well how do we know this doesn't happen because of x?" and a good response would be "well, can X be tested?" If not (i.e. saying it's because of god) then the answer should be something to the effect of "That's a question for your philosophy professor; we only deal with what can be tested here." If it's something that can be tested, a good answer would be either "well know, we know it doesn't because of Y" or if the answer is not known then a good response is "I honestly don't know, but I'll give you extra credit if you do your own research to find out why or why not, and if I determine that it's informative."
That is a great way to run a science class. Dismissing stuff outright because no immediate evidence is available is not only bad practice, but it's counterproductive to a learning environment because it discourages what can very well be very good questions.
claiming belief in the face of contrary evidence are poor imitations and must be called out as a deluded faker.
No. Going this direction is quite counterproductive to science because it discourages people who may very well be on to something, even if it sounds very unlikely.
As a network engineer, I deal with the scientific method all the time while troubleshooting, and I get paid big bucks because I'm damn good at it. If I rule out extremely unlikely things, then I may never get to a proper resolution. An example of this is I was having problems with a device deployment getting bad packet loss after we just installed new cabling for these devices. The group hypothesis was that the people who installed the cabling did a bad job. As a result of my troubleshooting, I discovered that the manufacturer had failed to perform quality control on the device NICs, and as a result, virtually all of them were defective. The later situation was extremely unlikely, but if I had ruled out that hypothesis without testing it, we would have been fighting these cable installs (wasting time and money) for much longer than we should have.
The scientific method is applicable to much more than science. Learn it and love it, and most importantly, DO NOT DISMISS THE UNLIKELY WITHOUT TESTING IT FIRST!
Not a republican here, but I am an atheist with a strong belief in freedom of speech. That said, you are likely more unbiased here than the GGP Jzanu. Ironically, he doesn't quite understand the scientific method, and was given a +5 insightful, while I was modded troll and overrated for having a better understanding of it. Here's a more detailed explanation of where he has it wrong:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Ignorant student challenging established professor is about the stupidest fucking thing on the planet
No, and that is completely the wrong attitude to have about this.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Honestly, this is a total red herring, and therefore a bogus argument. I really doubt students are going to shout down the professor and argue that the earth is flat. This is as dumb as saying that we should ban gay marriage because people will marry animals. Could that happen? Maybe, and in some super rare cases it probably does, but it's extremely extremely unlikely, and even if it did, it wouldn't happen because of a change in the law.
Will this happen on the internet? You bet your ass it will, but nobody really gives a shit about Alex Jones except for some fringe groups that you only ever notice when they attack slashdot or other internet forums, just like vegetarians, #BLM, Apple fans, and APK.
Besides, your post is almost an argument against the scientific method. See my post for more detail about why GGP is wrong:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
You have the understanding of a child just learning by theory. Useless for application, and you don't even understand why.
I use the scientific method every day at work because I am a scientist. It takes a very acrobatic thought process to come to the conclusion that my post was an argument against the scientific method. My post was about making laws about what happens in college courses. This is a quote from one of the bills
“That each institution shall strive to remain neutral, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day, and may not take action, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day in such a way as to require students or faculty to publicly express a given view of social policy.”
That is saying the school can't take sides even when the science says one argument is accurate, and the other isn't (evolution is fact, or it is false).
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
And by the way, with regard to your other post that you directed me to - scientists and engineers do not use the same methods. Engineering is not working at discovering facts of nature, like how a particular transcription factor works in conjunction with other proteins to enhance transcription of a particular gene, or how a protein complex at synapses regulates neurotransmission by altering dopamine uptake. You build and test things. That is quite different.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/...
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
That we even need a bill for this
I completely fail to get the whole zombie thing. I mean, in general I like my SF films. But zombies - they're dead to me.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I hope to the God of the Cats that you get the reference.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
You didn't do acceptance testing of the wiring before hooking up the MTGPing? Come on - surely you did? And your cabling contractor bloody well should have done so too, before handing it over.
I knew a Sysadmin years ago who had a Power Over Ethernet cable which she used to threaten cabling contractors (and friends) with. A 240V plug at one end, and an RJ-45 plug and socket at the other end. Alternating wires connected to live and neutral. One wave, and the cabling contractor would hand over their signed check sheets.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
At 30 paces (15 each).
Winner becomes the new (or remains the old) professor. This would make it a real challenge. And also solve the Tenure problem.
Recently obtained Term Life Insurance should be waived. No attempt should be made to purposely lose to "cash in" and pay off student debt, fund charities or alma maters.
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
No, quite wrong, it's all empirical in my case. I illustrated the scientific method quite well, meanwhile you have all of about zero understanding of how empirical science actually works. Not only that, but I provided a very good example of how I apply it pretty much every working day.
What I am pointing out that many of these (at least the older ones) didn't learn from history books but current affairs. They lived through the war and the aftermath trying to sort fact from fiction. Dismissing those experiences entirely leaves you with biased information and attitudes.
Why would I cast a slur at you? I do not think you are looking at the full picture but there are no doubt facts that I am not seeing either. The point of discussion groups used to be that all participants would gain more knowledge not a competition for primacy. I do not know you, you do not even provide a handle for continuity. What you do or have done outside of this thread is unknown to me. I am not in a position to judge and even were I otherwise situated I would be reluctant to do so.
Fare well anonymous sir
Nor is being muslim. The term race has no real meaning as you and I both know. Nevertheless, the term is used. Frequently and fluidly so. Where I live and where many people live discrimination on the basis of nationality is considered racism.
Well for a supposed professional you ignored all aspects of the design of experiments. Instead you focused on what is taught in primary school, ignoring the actual work required for an experimenter in any real setting. We are expected to exclude those things that waste money, based on the existing knowledge base. You know, the parts that funding sources are most interested in due to the fact that it determines thee cost of research and experiments? Look I know this is a pissing match for you but I don't give a fuck. You're just a god damn idiot like the rest, trying to wave a fake flag around. Advice is just this: fix your defects and don't be such an idiot.
retarded liar
Well for a supposed professional you ignored all aspects of the design of experiments. Instead you focused on what is taught in primary school, ignoring the actual work required for an experimenter in any real setting. We are expected to exclude those things that waste money, based on the existing knowledge base.
You're going off on a tangential matter to the point I made. I never said anything about this, my comment was entirely about discourse between students and their science professors.
BTW:
You're just a god damn idiot like the rest, trying to wave a fake flag around. Advice is just this: fix your defects and don't be such an idiot.
Speak of defects, you made a total straw-man argument without even realizing it.
No, but why would you want to add a right wing "you want fries with that" degree, doesn't the left wing social bullshit degrees produce enough future burger flippers?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Fuck off kid