We have already decided, as a nation, between the 1st and 14th amendment, that no government gets to decide the religion of its citizens. If you don't like it, I suggest you move out of the country.
Well, I think you can observe things that you don't understand, arrive at an incorrect conclusion still based on reality, that is, itself unreal, not intrinsically dependent on belief, driven by confirmation bias.
Because the people who propose that alternative would just teach science, given the choice, and the people who do this are convinced they're doing gods work and those other myths don't count?
Well, the first part is true. The "Texas Standard" does exist, and forms the baseline pre-customized form of some textbooks. The part that's untrue is that a tiny podunct charter school is the same as the state board of standards.
See, stating the conclusion of the study without the methods is a little misleading. If it's the study I think you're referring to, the conclusion isn't quite adequately described.
They had a control group perform some basic statistical analysis with instructions on how to generate things like the mean and p value. They compared that control group to people given the same data, but told it related to a gun control measure. The experimental group did better analysis than control when the conclusion supported their beliefs regarding gun control, and generally worse when it disagreed. The effect was moderately more pronounced in conservatives, but not a lot.
This weakly held true for people who nominally did statistical analysis in their job, showing that expertise wasn't enough to overcome the biases on its own.
But the conclusions were statistical, and it's impossible to say it's a reliable effect from individual to individual, or if it only shows up in some individuals appearing to be present in a general population.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoops, you've just invented the same excuse the petty tyrants have. It'll get smashed in courts, and you can go cry some more.
I was complaining about the dead giveaways. Like "hide behind the science"
I think, "earth's history" and "100 years" shouldn't be comparible time-spans in concern over temperature change.
No, no it hasn't. That's a claim that's pretty well fabricated. oops, you believed and repeated a lie. Are you going to recant?
Which is just as scientifically invalid, and not helping. It's worth lumping you guys together because you're all making the same argument:
"I don't personally agree with the facts, so let's pretend they aren't there".
And it's also demonstrably not true through the data, it, at best, sounds more moderate.
Ice in Antarctica! What a concept!! Who's ever heard of such a thing?
God damn, who is modding this shit up? Like, really? Do you want this terrible argument to be symbolic of your position?
Is it some kind of "I don't understand the difference between measurable long-term trends, and yesterday's weather, and I moderate?"
God, damn, a simple "YHBT" will do.
We have already decided, as a nation, between the 1st and 14th amendment, that no government gets to decide the religion of its citizens. If you don't like it, I suggest you move out of the country.
I'm not sure you understand what asserting both a proposition and its opposite implies.
Well, I think you can observe things that you don't understand, arrive at an incorrect conclusion still based on reality, that is, itself unreal, not intrinsically dependent on belief, driven by confirmation bias.
Which is why you have a constitution to protect from the tyranny of the majority. Why is this hard for you?
Eh, not really the argument I'm trying to make. Just that the assertion is a bald one. I don't really think it's wrong.
Please supply your (statistically significant) data.
Hiding behind trend vs. weather is statistically significant> .
Fixed that there.
I'm sorry, but, if you don't understand basic mechanics of science, you can't be outraged when you don't understand the conclusions of science.
Because the people who propose that alternative would just teach science, given the choice, and the people who do this are convinced they're doing gods work and those other myths don't count?
No, it's just a preposition. If you don't assume it, there's no reason to conclude it true. It's not inherently self-justifying.
But your position is (now)predicted on objective reality not existing. This is silly.
Well, the first part is true. The "Texas Standard" does exist, and forms the baseline pre-customized form of some textbooks. The part that's untrue is that a tiny podunct charter school is the same as the state board of standards.
"One or more people appear to meet stereotype at first glance, therefor it's okay to judge an entire group without concern for the individual."
--The worst people
So, they're completely irrelevant, and we don't need to respect them. Okay, I'm just going to stick with objective reality then.
Stop crying when my choice is to get the government to put the tyrants down in conjunction with basic human rights.
See, stating the conclusion of the study without the methods is a little misleading. If it's the study I think you're referring to, the conclusion isn't quite adequately described.
They had a control group perform some basic statistical analysis with instructions on how to generate things like the mean and p value. They compared that control group to people given the same data, but told it related to a gun control measure. The experimental group did better analysis than control when the conclusion supported their beliefs regarding gun control, and generally worse when it disagreed. The effect was moderately more pronounced in conservatives, but not a lot.
This weakly held true for people who nominally did statistical analysis in their job, showing that expertise wasn't enough to overcome the biases on its own.
But the conclusions were statistical, and it's impossible to say it's a reliable effect from individual to individual, or if it only shows up in some individuals appearing to be present in a general population.
Oh my God! Choices have consequences!
Because no one in this country is capable of moving, or something.
Try choosing where you live carefully.
Also, charter schools are also a choice, so it's not actually ignoring the law of the land, they're purposely going around it.
As in "psychically predict where psychopaths are going to attempt to overturn the first amendment, and live somewhere else."