Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Today, I march.

PirateDocBrown - 22-4-2017 at 06:22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Science

violet sin - 22-4-2017 at 08:22

Me too, and I'll be wearing an SM shirt :) it will not be anywhere big, just the tiny town of Fort Bragg the coast. But it's the thought right.

BromicAcid - 22-4-2017 at 08:27

To me a March for Science insinuates that it's something that needs to be marched for. Instead, we all need science. Soon enough they'll come crying asking us to take them back.

elementcollector1 - 22-4-2017 at 09:42

Quote: Originally posted by BromicAcid  
To me a March for Science insinuates that it's something that needs to be marched for. Instead, we all need science. Soon enough they'll come crying asking us to take them back.


Not really, if the 'ivory tower of science' is a theory to go by.

JJay - 22-4-2017 at 09:57

I thought the turnout at the March for Philosophy on President's Day was disappointing.

PirateDocBrown - 22-4-2017 at 10:17

They are rejecting climate science so they can continue polluting.
They want your tax dollars to go to schools that teach kids the Earth is only 6000 years old.
They don't want your kids to be able to think for themselves, so they can program them.
They simply don't care about exploring the mysteries of the Universe.
They reject vaccination and the tax money that supports it.

This is why I march.

BromicAcid - 22-4-2017 at 10:49

Quote: Originally posted by PirateDocBrown  
They are rejecting climate science so they can continue polluting.
They want your tax dollars to go to schools that teach kids the Earth is only 6000 years old.
They don't want your kids to be able to think for themselves, so they can program them.
They simply don't care about exploring the mysteries of the Universe.
They reject vaccination and the tax money that supports it.

This is why I march.


But do they actually care?

elementcollector1 - 22-4-2017 at 11:18

They'll pretend to if we yell at them enough, at least.

Texium - 22-4-2017 at 12:09

I marched today in Austin (and wore my Sciencemadness shirt). There was a huge turnout, with thousands of people there at the capitol building. Sure, alone it might not accomplish much, but it was a great experience, and very uplifting to see that so many people care about science, or at least recognize that the government should.

The Volatile Chemist - 22-4-2017 at 12:41

Hmm...My parents have been called 'programmers of children'. Yuck. I quite hate that phrase because it is just about as egotistical a thing to say as ever. Programmers - bah. What's the difference between a parent and a teacher and a newspaper and a blog? They all are forms of persuasion to think a certain wa, to think a certain thing.

I saw on the Wikipedia page for this march that 'scientists must also protest when "truth itself is being called into question"'. Which I think is quite sad. Scientists are those that study the natural world and attempt to reach conclusions regarding it. But from the beginning, it's been a striving *for* truth. First of all, no sane scientist should say he *has* truth. It's something constantly being attained to, to discover more and to try to figure things out. So to say 'I have the truth and you have error' would be rather hypocritical of those scientists who criticize religion for saying the same thing.

I guess all I'm saying is that the march to publicize scientific research is cool. But it is egotistical to say 'we have the truth, and you're wrong for thinking other things.' Scientists have been persuaded to think certain things based on the research they and other scientists have done. Others have not been persuaded by this research, and instead been persuaded by something else. How dare you be aloof about your opinions on what is fact, when you weren't even the one to come up with them, nor did you seek them out, but someone else did.

I know this isn't my usual post, and I aught to just talk about chemistry stuff on here. But I think some of the above posts were darkly aloof and opinionated for supposed 'scientists' and lovers of science.

Also, no personal attack meant on PirateDocBrown, but I thought his line "They simply don't care about exploring the mysteries of the Universe [...] This is why I march." was quite funny. As if everyone is an idiot for not wanting to explore the universe :) (I mean, *I* do too, but I just thought the phrasing was quite funny in the context of his post.

Cheers - And don't take this post to be harsh or something, it's my 'opinion' :) There is obviously one 'truth' out there, and those who aren't even trying to find it are foolish. But as long as they're seeking out truth, they're on the right path, and who are you to say what truth they think they've found is 'lesser' than yours.

Metacelsus - 22-4-2017 at 14:43

I marched in Minneapolis (edit: technically St. Paul). (I got up at 6:30 am so I could get my lab work done before the march started.) The march was overall a positive experience. There were some really funny signs, and everyone seemed enthusiastic. However, the speeches given at the rally at the end of the march weren't very inspirational, at least in my opinion.

I think the march was a good way to show the public cares about science and call attention to the issue, but marching will not be sufficient to change the policies of the administration. I urge everyone to vote in 2018.

[Edited on 4-23-2017 by Metacelsus]

Morgan - 22-4-2017 at 19:09

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/66ywqr/a_canine_march...

PirateDocBrown - 22-4-2017 at 19:49

Quote: Originally posted by Metacelsus  
I marched in Minneapolis. (I got up at 6:30 am so I could get my lab work done before the march started.) The march was overall a positive experience. There were some really funny signs, and everyone seemed enthusiastic. However, the speeches given at the rally at the end of the march weren't very inspirational, at least in my opinion.
ent to change the policies of the administration. I urge everyone to vote in 2018.


I marched in St Paul also. I agree, the speaking part of the rally was not well done. They needed speakers who could inform and inspire, not people who lead chanting. We are people who work with our minds, and mindless chanting falls flat. I think a lot of what the problem was, was that dedicated activists, and not actual concerned scientists took the lead.

We needed to talk about interesting investigations whose funding is in peril. About teachers concerned children are not being given the tools they need. We needed public health experts talking about the problems posed by a lack of vaccinations, and weather people about climate change.

violet sin - 22-4-2017 at 19:55

About 350 attended the Fort Bragg Ca. march for science. For such a small area, it was a nice turnout( <8k pop). Had my fam there also, nice walk which ended at a local park, 3yo loved that. Regardless of how others looked at it, I saw it as a chance to stand up and say science isn't a fad that should come and go with presidents... We could always use more understanding, always.

Morgan - 23-4-2017 at 08:56

http://i.imgur.com/YMFOgOS.jpg

Texium - 23-4-2017 at 10:17

The turnout in Austin was estimated to be around 10,000! Quite a bit more than I had expected. I thought that the speakers at the Austin rally before the march were pretty good. Only one was trying to lead chants, the others were very informative and inspiring, including two professors from UT Austin.

The most memorable speech though was by a minister who spoke up to denounce the ultra conservative religious right, making the point that religion should be able to adapt, and that those who wish to use their religion as an excuse to oppress facts or people are not being true to God. She was a very powerful speaker, and though she wasn't a scientist herself, and I am not religious, I appreciated what she had to say.

brubei - 23-4-2017 at 22:33

why wasn't the march in march ?

JJay - 23-4-2017 at 23:11

The left-wingers who planned it originally it were trying to exploit a short-term order not to speak to the media that Trump issued to several organizations, including the EPA, FDA, USDA, etc. Several people at the EPA violated the order and complained, leading to an outcry and a planned protest, and the date that they chose was Earth Day. After the order was lifted, the march turned into something a little more mainstream, although I have seen more than a few snide remarks about the intelligence levels of the protesters from conservative scientists.

Rosco Bodine - 24-4-2017 at 04:41

Quote: Originally posted by PirateDocBrown  
They are rejecting climate science so they can continue polluting.
They want your tax dollars to go to schools that teach kids the Earth is only 6000 years old.
They don't want your kids to be able to think for themselves, so they can program them.
They simply don't care about exploring the mysteries of the Universe.
They reject vaccination and the tax money that supports it.

This is why I march.


You suffer from a popular confusion identifying incorrectly what is the factual nature of the "us versus them" sort of adversarial scenario and division that is the premise for your "protest march".

Examine the third "They" you mention:
Quote:
They don't want your kids to be able to think for themselves, so they can program them.

This statement ironically exposes the exact affliction which you suffer already having been accomplished by brainwashing applied to you by those "masterminds" who have estimated themselves competent to "teach" you. By good evidence your "teachers" are not really practical minded or rational "teachers" but are radical leftist extremist ideologues, probably Marxists, and their "teaching" amounts to what has been an indoctrination of their "students" in atheist / secular humanist dogma which they count for knowledge.

The object and goal of that globalist "hive mind" Marxist propaganda which has been falsely advertised as "enlightenment" is to redefine reality about what is accepted and believed by the masses to be "common sense". Through gradualism and the effect of peer pressure from those already embracing "political correctness" as taught by Marxist "philosophers" a "reeducation" of the masses is supposed to occur that brings popular acceptance of subversive ideas and principles hoped to be embraced as the "new normal" as simple "truths" that "everybody" adopts as the new and improved "facts of life" in this world.

When that acceptance of the "hive mind" propaganda has been accomplished and has sufficient numbers of "true believers" as a percentage of "society", then a "cultural hegemony" has been achieved for tyrannical imposition of the "enlightened view" and
any dissenters will be stigmatized as "defectives" or sociopathological for reason that their "free thinking" ideas are
DIVERGENT from the propaganda supported lies that have become
the new "conventional wisdom".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony






PirateDocBrown - 24-4-2017 at 06:33

I hardly think in the present, the 21st-century United States, the cultural values of Marxism are the ones the ruling classes are attempting to impose.

Social theory notwithstanding, I want real science taught in public schools, with public dollars. Real reasoning. Real critical thought, so children can grow into adult citizens capable of free and analytical thinking. Without such citizens, any free society is doomed, left-wing, right-wing, or centrist.

By what "good evidence" could you possibly have that my high-school chemistry teacher, say, was any kind of Marxist? Or is that more hive-mind thought?

Rosco Bodine - 24-4-2017 at 07:35

You simply fail to recognize what are indeed "social justice" tenets that are in fact "cultural values" of Marxism. Your failure to recognize that ideology is a matter of design. Few or none of your "teachers" would want you to recognize the psychology being applied to deceive and manipulate your thinking.

The supercilious tone of your misleading characterization of societal "division" is a signature artifact, like a "makers mark" on the analysis of "evidence" and "world view" of a mind that has been subjected to the Marxist indoctrination of "political correctness".

How much insult to your own innate intelligence would you suffer and indulge and how much loss of personal liberty and dignity would you endure in service of the altruistic motive that it "serves the greater good" (of "society") when it becomes clear that motivation is being cultivated as a deliberate socially engineered deception?




PirateDocBrown - 24-4-2017 at 08:52

Careful, you could wear out your quotation mark key.

In general, we scientists are working to make a better future for all of humanity. I know I am, I have grandkids. There are those in the world that have no interest in the long term, nor in the general good, and strive for self enrichment only, and only in the now. A social expression of an id, if you want to put a psychological label on it.

That's the division I'm talking about. Marxist economics has nothing to do with it. As for politics, I rather disdain them. It breaks my heart that I must turn to politics to try to turn these ugly trends around, if indeed they can be turned around. We had better hope they can. I for one want neither a corporatist nor a Marxist dystopia.

The betterment of our species is nothing but humanism.
The betterment of America is nothing but patriotism.

What you describe is neither.

Rosco Bodine - 24-4-2017 at 09:41

Quote: Originally posted by PirateDocBrown  
Careful, you could wear out your quotation mark key.

In general, we scientists are working to make a better future for all of humanity. I know I am, I have grandkids.


Scientists have their work to do of course, but often fail to see clearly the big picture. Science has a proper context and practical application limitations, yet both aspects are often denied or ignored by scientists who overestimate their power as well as the power of their craft.

I have grandchildren as well. A better future for all humanity is not what the Marxist model will produce, nor will the caliphate. Practical men working towards practical goals can achieve a lot of good, far beyond the tyranny imposed by those brutal sociopathological ideologies.
Quote:

There are those in the world that have no interest in the long term, nor in the general good, and strive for self enrichment only, and only in the now. A social expression of an id, if you want to put a psychological label on it.

That's the division I'm talking about. Marxist economics has nothing to do with it. As for politics, I rather disdain them. It breaks my heart that I must turn to politics to try to turn these ugly trends around, if indeed they can be turned around. We had better hope they can. I for one want neither a corporatist nor a Marxist dystopia.

But you do not see that Science has been co-opted by Marxism as a validating higher power and surrogate god, a replacement "ethic" and substitute morality which has no fitness for the task.
Quote:

The betterment of our species is nothing but humanism.

Humanitarianism always won that race.
Quote:

The betterment of America is nothing but patriotism.

What you describe is neither.


It matters what one identifies as "better" and that is a value judgment based on depth of understanding. Many changes have been advertised as "progress" that in actuality have not been helpful changes but have been mistakes refused to be identified correctly by persons who will not be honest in any analysis of what ideas don't work out in reality as may have been hoped or envisioned.

What some would identify as betterment of America is travel down a path to moral decadence and destruction, and likewise would be true for citizens of other nations and what they might incorrectly believe is progress.

What I have described is an objective observation that is good evidence and fact based consistent with history.

PirateDocBrown - 24-4-2017 at 11:07

What you aren't discerning is that there is an existential threat, not only to free republics, but also to human progress. You correctly identify regressive ideologies such as Marxism and Islamism as opposed to Western values, yet neither of them have ever been successful. The 20th century showed that Marxism fails to take into account human motivation, while I do recall that Western culture eclipsed Islam centuries ago.

The elephant in the room which you seem to be pointedly ignoring is the one that truly CAN destroy what we have built, and that is corporate fascism. 1929 was a wakeup call about its economic tactics, largely corrected in the subsequent 15 years, but systematically subverted in the last 35. Ike warned us about dangers of its combination with our free politics in his farewell speech, but we have ignored it. Neither American neocolonialism nor our domestic national security police state is sustainable, in a context consistent with the free republic our Founders set up, nor with a human goal of a better future.

If you wish to speak of moral decadence and destruction, then that is the decadence and destruction that I refer to.

As for humanism, you seem to be confused with what I mean, so I'll give you a working definition:

Humanism - An ethical system that centers on humans and their values, needs, interests, abilities, dignity and freedom; especially one which rejects superstition.

hissingnoise - 24-4-2017 at 11:42

Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
I have seen more than a few snide remarks about the intelligence levels of the protesters from conservative scientists.


The words "scientist" and "conservative" certainly make strange bedfellows, do they not?

JJay - 24-4-2017 at 12:02

It depends on how you look at it. I know a lot of biologists, and they tend to span the political spectrum, but the ones I know with PhDs are conservative christians who claim to believe in creationism and that the earth is 5000 years old. In reality, I'm pretty sure they aren't mentally retarded. I see much the same pattern with nurses and doctors or engineers and physicists.

Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but most of the people at the March for Science weren't really scientists, right?

DraconicAcid - 24-4-2017 at 12:06

PhD biologists who claim to be young earth creationists? Seriously?

JJay - 24-4-2017 at 12:14

Yeah, seriously... they have no problem teaching the theory of evolution on Tuesday afternoon and having a bible discussion on the age of the earth on Sunday morning.

I don't mean to suggest that I think these people are entirely right in the head, but those are the patterns I see. I'm not really sure why, but my guess is that religious leaders really like having those sorts of people as members of their churches and bend over backwards to keep them around.


elementcollector1 - 24-4-2017 at 12:14

Ben Carson syndrome at its finest.

The Volatile Chemist - 24-4-2017 at 12:28

Damnnn, you all went to town...

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
I have seen more than a few snide remarks about the intelligence levels of the protesters from conservative scientists.


The words "scientist" and "conservative" certainly make strange bedfellows, do they not?


Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid  
PhD biologists who claim to be young earth creationists? Seriously?


Good stuff. Good stuff. Sorry for adding fuel to the fire of not-march-related posts earlier. Perhaps a pruning would do this thread good...

Rosco Bodine - 24-4-2017 at 12:29

Quote: Originally posted by PirateDocBrown  
What you aren't discerning is that there is an existential threat, not only to free republics, but also to human progress. You correctly identify regressive ideologies such as Marxism and Islamism as opposed to Western values, yet neither of them have ever been successful. The 20th century showed that Marxism fails to take into account human motivation, while I do recall that Western culture eclipsed Islam centuries ago.

The elephant in the room which you seem to be pointedly ignoring is the one that truly CAN destroy what we have built, and that is corporate fascism. 1929 was a wakeup call about its economic tactics, largely corrected in the subsequent 15 years, but systematically subverted in the last 35. Ike warned us about dangers of its combination with our free politics in his farewell speech, but we have ignored it. Neither American neocolonialism nor our domestic national security police state is sustainable, in a context consistent with the free republic our Founders set up, nor with a human goal of a better future.

If you wish to speak of moral decadence and destruction, then that is the decadence and destruction that I refer to.

As for humanism, you seem to be confused with what I mean, so I'll give you a working definition:

Humanism - An ethical system that centers on humans and their values, needs, interests, abilities, dignity and freedom; especially one which rejects superstition.


You are incorrect about the level of success and the subversive influence on the world of those two repressive and tyrannical ideologies, to which could well be added as a lesser offender what you have termed corporate fascism. The biggest offender and player in that control freaks' authoritarian game has been medicine and the pharmaceutical and health care industry that together with the legal profession and legislators have gained far too much unchecked power over the lives of ordinary citizens.

The entire proposition of what is "reasonably" healthy and what is "reasonable" product safety being given excessive emphasis has bred three generations of paranoid / excessively risk averse hypochondriacs. There is a major pollution of the airwaves by the tasteless advertising of "big pharma" pill-for-every-ill pill pushers to the point it is like the snake oil wagon come to town. And that whole SCAM needs to be run out of town. Those who empower it need to be put out of business by the FCC so that there is no direct advertising allowed for prescription medicines, medical devices, medical procedures, or the ambulance chaser lawyer ads who offer to sue such providers for their malpractices. Help, I've fallen and I can't get up...and all its progeny needs to have a sock stuffed in its mouth and gagged ...tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. Likewise should be done with the gun control fanatics.

The military industrial complex is a necessary evil and exists in all nations which have any military capacity. Defense industries are nothing new and certainly has been around for a few thousand years.

Humanism is an invented religion / ethic / philosophy and it seems the true definition is always in flux. I'm sure a situational ethic there allows for a lot of flexibility for atheists to do whatever they think is right and have a clear conscience, since the distinction between right and wrong is often subjective and variable or thought to be inconsequential or irrelevant and amounts to a purely "cultural" whim and abstract belief ....like a superstition.

JJay - 24-4-2017 at 12:31

You guys are feds, right?

Rosco Bodine - 24-4-2017 at 12:52

Ask Darwin .....he seems to have it all figured out.

PirateDocBrown - 24-4-2017 at 14:37

Takes all kinds, I guess.

WGTR - 24-4-2017 at 15:31

Yay. Another "Let's criticize conservatives and Christians" thread. I was starting to wonder when the usual players would start up again. This kind of discussion isn't even allowed here, except that it is. This is disappointing.

I post here because I enjoy chemistry...and science, and like to feel that I'm helping others along at the same time. Every time I see this type of thread it's a distraction, and a reminder that I'm collaborating with people who in turn are at least insinuating that I'm brain damaged or "anti-science", or whatever. That's a real motivation killer, there.

So, is this what we're all about at SM? I'm ill-inclined to discuss these topics here. Some people are willing to engage in long, detailed, replies (cough); as for me, I just feel motivated to avoid the forum. If it's not too much to ask, can we get back to our regular Mad Science programming?



DraconicAcid - 24-4-2017 at 17:23

One can criticize creationists without criticizing Christians as a whole. One can criticize science-denying GOP members without criticizing conservatives as a whole.

WGTR - 24-4-2017 at 17:30

Enough, already...

Texium - 24-4-2017 at 18:38

Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid  
One can criticize creationists without criticizing Christians as a whole. One can criticize science-denying GOP members without criticizing conservatives as a whole.
True, and I don't personally see a problem with that, with this being a science forum and all. Therefore I'm leaving this thread open, at least for the time being.

Metacelsus - 24-4-2017 at 19:15

Regardless of one's political views, an 18% cut to the NIH budget would be disastrous. If a liberal president were to have proposed that (not to mention the cuts to other organizations such as the EPA), I would have protested just as much.

It's important to remember that neither the red tribe nor the blue tribe has a monopoly on misinformed ideology. Climate change is important, but genetically modified organisms and nuclear power are key to fighting it. There is also a disturbing tendency among liberals to ignore the effects of genetics on human abilities and behavior. However, as it is today, the gravest threat to science comes from the right.

hissingnoise - 25-4-2017 at 03:46

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine  
Ask Darwin .....he seems to have it all figured out.


At least there's no shortage of half-educated morons out there to tell us just how wrong Darwin was!


Rosco Bodine - 25-4-2017 at 05:07

Berkley style speech "Liberty" and its symbolism historical nexus

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-JiNIMXsAEuk99.jpg

People who are a mile wide and an inch deep see so much about which they have no real understanding. There is a profound difference between sight and discerning. And about this world are many things that factually do exist ....yet cannot be seen nor quantified ...although for some who are able, are things that may be discerned. In such matters, those who rely on sight alone ....have all the confidence of the blind who lead the blind. They are cocksure fools.... every single damn one.

[Edited on 4/25/2017 by Rosco Bodine]

PirateDocBrown - 26-4-2017 at 00:54

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine  

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-JiNIMXsAEuk99.jpg


[Edited on 4/25/2017 by Rosco Bodine]


I'm still quite confused about the points you are trying to make, Rosco.

Is this jpg to imply that 1930's German Communists should NOT have opposed Hitler, and simply allowed him to slaughter them? I myself have been to Plotzensee Prison, and have seen where many of them were beheaded(!) at Hitler's orders.

Or are you saying that the outcome for the world had German Communists defeated Hitler would have been somehow worse than WWII in Europe?

As to my OP:

What, exactly, do you have an argument with? You seem opposed to my views, but all I have expressed are the following:

Opposition to false science paid for by public dollars.
Support for universal vaccination.
Opposition to poor instruction of children in reasoned discourse.
Support of scientific inquiry.
Opposition to the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Which of these are you contending with? Why?

You then criticize my "tone". I'd like to think I offered no tone at all, but a rather detached accounting of my views. Yet I see in you a tone of considerable defensiveness. Where does this stem from? I'm not denying the validity of your perspective, such as I have come to understand it, I'm simply trying to analyze its origins.

JJay - 26-4-2017 at 01:21

All I'm saying is that if you've never heard a couple of people debate over whether the earth is 5000 years old or 6000 years old, you're missing out.


Rosco Bodine - 26-4-2017 at 06:31

Quote: Originally posted by PirateDocBrown  
Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine  

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-JiNIMXsAEuk99.jpg


[Edited on 4/25/2017 by Rosco Bodine]


I'm still quite confused about the points you are trying to make, Rosco.


Earlier I made the observation that science has been co-opted by Marxism. So it is mysterious how you don't understand the nexus with communism and the muzzling of free speech that is part of that tyrannical and biased incorporation, which has been a fact of history.

Quote:

Is this jpg to imply that 1930's German Communists should NOT have opposed Hitler, and simply allowed him to slaughter them? I myself have been to Plotzensee Prison, and have seen where many of them were beheaded(!) at Hitler's orders.

Or are you saying that the outcome for the world had German Communists defeated Hitler would have been somehow worse than WWII in Europe?

The nexus and the propaganda bias and agenda is the same for early Marxists as it is today for the "antifa" leftist communist radicals / anarchist / mob rule thugs who have as one of their credentials an agenda to "control the narrative" and censor free speech. At this discussion board are precisely that same radical extremist and tyrannical MARXIST / Communist "hive mind" who would muzzle any opposing view to what is not science at all but could be called "scientism" which looks to science as the ultimate provider of all "truth". It is a trampling of liberty and a perversion of science that is an agenda for hive mind Marxists who strive to achieve cultural hegemony for whatever tyranny can be imposed under the banner of science.....and of course...the pretext as always would be claiming justification is "the greater good" when that is a subjective opinion that is often not true.

Quote:

As to my OP:

What, exactly, do you have an argument with? You seem opposed to my views, but all I have expressed are the following:

Opposition to false science paid for by public dollars.
Support for universal vaccination.
Opposition to poor instruction of children in reasoned discourse.
Support of scientific inquiry.
Opposition to the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Which of these are you contending with? Why?


The way in which you describe a false dichotomy by libeling others who may disagree and "typing" those as some "science deniers"
when that is a profound over reaching and false generalization.

Go back and examine how you champion "why" you march as if any who might have a different idea are merely inferior intellects, and superstitious "science deniers" something akin to unevolved and illiterate cannibals compared to enlightened masterminds like yourself.

It is classic "us versus them" ....look at your own words

Quote: Originally posted by PirateDocBrown  
They are rejecting climate science so they can continue polluting.
They want your tax dollars to go to schools that teach kids the Earth is only 6000 years old.
They don't want your kids to be able to think for themselves, so they can program them.
They simply don't care about exploring the mysteries of the Universe.
They reject vaccination and the tax money that supports it.

This is why I march.


You completely mischaracterize others by taking pot shots at people who believe in God as being imbeciles for not being a Darwinist Atheist Mastermind as all "authentic" science endorsers you would suppose are on the shining path to real truth and enlightenment. It is the same asinine attitude as applies to not everyone a member of the church of Al Gore somehow being a "science denier" when no, they may simply not have a hysterical and alarmist reaction to the big news that the earth has warmed a fraction of a degree over the last hundred years and that pollution by man has played some role in that warming. Many people simply do not have an alarmist view of that science nor do they see any need for extraordinary efforts to intervene when the cost versus benefit analysis is rationally done. Such persons are not idiots.
Many are very intelligent scientists and engineers who have highly practical views and are not biased by any sort of hysteria or political or ideological obsession.

Quote:

You then criticize my "tone". I'd like to think I offered no tone at all, but a rather detached accounting of my views. Yet I see in you a tone of considerable defensiveness. Where does this stem from? I'm not denying the validity of your perspective, such as I have come to understand it, I'm simply trying to analyze its origins.


Science was preserved through the dark ages by the church and many of its advanced theories are the work of the intellects of men who were priests. It is asinine stupidity of the highest and most insultingly offensive order for Darwinist / Atheist / Communists to even begin to imagine that science is somehow the exclusive dominion of those like themselves who have a one dimensional crippled discerning that too easily distinguishes what is natural or supernatural while never even entertaining the possibility that it is beyond the capability of a human to comprehend all that is "truth"
and that such truth likewise may be beyond the capacity of any human invented science to describe.

PirateDocBrown - 26-4-2017 at 07:23

Well, I never once mentioned Darwin, atheism or Communism, until you did, first. At no time did I speak of religion. Stop projecting your arguments onto me.

Are you going to answer ANY oft the 6 specific questions I posed? Or are you just wasting time here?

And "church of Al Gore?" I have no idea what church he goes to. I've never been to church with him. I'm an Episcopalian.

[Edited on 4/26/17 by PirateDocBrown]

DraconicAcid - 26-4-2017 at 07:25

Tell me, Roscoe, what would you think of a chemist who insisted that the phlogisten theory of combustion was correct, and that the oxidation theory was not?

Rosco Bodine - 26-4-2017 at 07:33

not-only-a-member-al-gore-and-the-church-of-climatology-political-poster-1261583223.jpg - 41kB


The intellectual dishonesty at this board is incredible and it always comes from exactly the same atheists.

[Edited on 4/26/2017 by Rosco Bodine]

Rosco Bodine - 26-4-2017 at 07:52

Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid  
Tell me, Roscoe, what would you think of a chemist who insisted that the phlogisten theory of combustion was correct, and that the oxidation theory was not?


I think it got sorted out in time, and that time is an abstract relative quantity and a dimension that is completely a function of relative velocity, a purely local phenomenon the Lorentz transformation describes.

What would you think of an ancient alchemist who would describe transmutation of elements centuries before breeder reactors would allow for that same alchemist to say "I told you so" ?

mayko - 26-4-2017 at 08:55

It's true: preatomic chemistry got a lot wrong, but nonetheless motivated a productive research program.

This is in stark contrast to the pseudointellectual wallowing of creation "science" and climatological "skepticism".


JJay - 26-4-2017 at 10:46

What do climate scientists do all day, anyway?

Twospoons - 26-4-2017 at 13:05

I met one once. She'd been down in Antarctica taking ice core samples, and analysing the isotopic composition of the trapped air bubbles.

Rosco Bodine - 26-4-2017 at 17:29

Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
What do climate scientists do all day, anyway?


I give up ....
So tell me what do they do all day, maybe mental exercises trying to warm up cognitively to the idea there is a profound difference between proper authentic science and blatant and excessive and plainly illusory "scientism"? Or maybe they are scientism deniers?

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_scientism.html

JJay - 26-4-2017 at 17:52

Quote: Originally posted by Twospoons  
I met one once. She'd been down in Antarctica taking ice core samples, and analysing the isotopic composition of the trapped air bubbles.


That sounds like geology if you ask me.

Corrosive Joeseph - 26-4-2017 at 18:38

Most peoples lives are usually dressed up to be something they are not................


/CJ

mayko - 26-4-2017 at 18:39

Ah yes, scientific disciplines, those static, strictly bounded, mutually exclusive ontological categories...

JJay - 26-4-2017 at 19:26

*shrug* You wouldn't typically cut grant funds for a meteorologist to go dig up dinosaur bones. An archeologist does that. A biologist doesn't get paid to make an inventory of the stars in a new galaxy; they count fish, capture insects, etc. A physicist doesn't discover new drugs. So this person, who I guess studied weather patterns or something, was digging in the ice? For money? Is this completely unreasonable, or am I to understand that "climate scientist" might include such categories as desert scientist, jungle scientist, and arctic scientist?

mayko - 26-4-2017 at 20:42



Paleoclimatology might be thought of as a subset of historical geology; this doesn't preclude it being a field in its own right. It investigates questions like, "How and why do ice ages occur?". Such questions are directly relevant to understanding patterns observed in the geological present. One such tool for doing so is ice cores, from which past weather patterns may be inferred from isotopic fractionation or entrapped dust and gas.

Other paleoclimatological records include lake varves, marsh mud, and dendrochronology, so if it makes you feel more comfortable, sure, think of ice science, lake science, marsh science, and tree science as practices which feed into the study of past climates, which inform the study of Earth's climate in general. If I sat in a crop field year after year and observed changes in the timing of insect pest (phenology) attributable to changing temperature... am I doing entomology, or am I doing agricultural science, or am I doing climatology? All of the above; they aren't distinct topics, because some are broadly interdisciplinary.

These might clear some things up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdisciplinarity
antedisciplinary science
A physicist, hired for drug design
Climatologist: What they Do
Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core

JJay - 26-4-2017 at 22:58

The very first statement just grates on my retinas. Paleo-anything is historical-nothing; I'm not trying to be rude about this, but I don't think you are qualified to answer the question.

Also, you're clearly doing entomology in the above example. Agriculture would be measuring the impact on crops.

Texium - 27-4-2017 at 06:13

Wait, woah there, are you saying that any science with the "paleo" prefix is not really science?

I agree with mayko, the sciences can all be viewed as interdisciplinary, and that's really the only good way to go about it. No branch of science could exist in a vacuum, and if you treat it that way, your worldview is clearly going to remain quite narrow.

JJay - 27-4-2017 at 08:18

No, I'm saying that any art with the "paleo" prefix is not "historical." History refers to the study of that which was recorded by humans; what happened before that is "prehistorical."

mayko - 27-4-2017 at 08:28

Historical geology is contrasted with structural (sometimes called physical) geology, not with prehistorical geology. You'd be hard pressed to find a historical geology text which doesn't cover, for example, paleontology.

JJay - 27-4-2017 at 09:20

Here's one: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140519909...

Texium - 27-4-2017 at 09:27

Really, you don't think it ever references the fossil record when discussing the age of the earth?

JJay - 27-4-2017 at 09:30

"Referencing" vs "covering" is not really a fair way of looking at things, with all due respect, zts16. My calculus book references Roman culture, but I would hardly say it covers it.

[Edited on 27-4-2017 by JJay]

mayko - 27-4-2017 at 09:52

the index appears to disagree with your assesment

(And contains entries for paleogeography to boot)

IMG_20170427_134900.jpg - 362kB

JJay - 27-4-2017 at 10:20

This book has over 12 references to Archimedes alone: https://books.google.com/books?id=QNfZls4urMoC (Who was technically Greek, but Greek culture... is Roman culture.)

You have failed to show even one proper entry for paleontology.

[Edited on 27-4-2017 by JJay]

mayko - 27-4-2017 at 10:59


I have no idea what you mean by "proper entry" here, other than providing yourself with a goalpost-loosening wrench; can you be more specific about how proper entries are differentiated from improper ones?

In any event, this book is very clearly not limited to the geology of the past 10,000 years, so it ultimately undercuts your semantic complaint that paleogeology is strictly contained by "prehistoric geology".

I really have no idea why you are arguing this. I didn't invent this terminology; it's how geologists use language. I'm sorry you don't like it.



[Edited on 27-4-2017 by mayko]

JJay - 27-4-2017 at 12:19

It does have a chapter on prehistoric time periods, true, but that is hardly the focus of the book...

I think it is perfectly reasonable to contain paleogeology to prehistoric geology, but I didn't mention that. For the most part, better data is available for recorded history than for prehistoric times.

I'm not sure why you're arguing over the example I provided rather than coming up with one of your own.

mayko - 27-4-2017 at 13:05

I am not sure how you reconcile statements like
"I think it is perfectly reasonable to contain paleogeology to prehistoric geology, but I didn't mention that."
with
'Paleo-anything is historical-nothing;' and 'any art with the "paleo" prefix is not "historical."'

(unless you are using 'any' in a way I'm unfamiliar with)

Historical geology is the study of earth's past; it's not the anthropological study of how geology was practiced in prior episodes of human existence. Does that clear things up?

Are you asking me to provide an example of a historical geology textbook which covers paleontology? I can do that if you'd like, but I'd still need to know ahead of time how you distinguish coverage from reference and how you discern a "proper entry".

JJay - 27-4-2017 at 13:37

Not really; I'm just saying, it seems like the obvious move.

mayko - 27-4-2017 at 14:10

It seems to me like the obvious move is to first pin down what standard of evidence would satisfy you.

Maybe we can work through an example. Based upon the linked course syllabus, would you say this class in Historical Geology covers "the major techniques used by geologists to assess the paleoenvironments and sequence of events found in the rock record"? Or merely references it? More importantly, how did you come to that conclusion?

https://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G102/102Syl.html

Again, I'm sorry to hear that you don't like how geologists use the phrase. Your proposed definition isn't wrong, exactly (it's rationally motivated and internally consistent), but it's idiosyncratic, and it certainly doesn't reflect badly upon my qualifications that I use the phrase in the standard manner.


phlogiston - 27-4-2017 at 14:30

Quote:


What do climate scientists do all day, anyway?

Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
Quote: Originally posted by Twospoons  
I met one once. She'd been down in Antarctica taking ice core samples, and analysing the isotopic composition of the trapped air bubbles.


That sounds like geology if you ask me.


I strongly suspect it is futile to comment, but I could not resist. This comment is telling.
This question, on this forum... I don't understand. What are you even doing here?

It is odd how this forum has several members that are absolutely amazingly knowledgeable and experimentally skilfull people, to the point that they would be regarded as respected colleagues by professional scientists that are able to dedicate nearly 100% of their time to research and studying. Hats off. And then there are people like this...

The climatologist in question will be able to derive relations between temperature, CO2, oxygen levels etc by measuring certain isotopes in the trapped air bubbles in ancient snow.
She followed a risky carreer path, went to antarctica collecting samples, managed to forge an alliance with people that can measure the isotopic composition and did complex calculations to make sure all this effort yielded another tiny piece of useful information. She makes little money and all her friends mock her for her carreer choice. These people are my heroes. People asking ‘what do climatoligsts even do?’, and when an example is presented to them comment as above… well, I’m sorry but please go back to stoneage living conditions and die at the age of 30.

Is it not mind bogglingly fantastic how she'll be able to tell us what the atmosphere was composed of a 100,000 years ago? Just the fact that we can even find out such things is amazing to me. I can tell my kids with confidence what the sun is composed of, that the Higgs boson exists and that the gold in my wedding ring was forged when two neutron stars collided.
Just pause and truly consider that.

Don’t bother replying. I just needed to get this off my chest.

Quote:
orrect me if I'm wrong about this, but most of the people at the March for Science weren't really scientists, right?


Maybe it suffices that they just ackowledge the importance and usefulness of science?

[Edited on 27-4-2017 by phlogiston]

[Edited on 27-4-2017 by phlogiston]

Twospoons - 27-4-2017 at 15:24

Bravo, sir! Bravo!

JJay - 27-4-2017 at 16:42

Quote: Originally posted by mayko  
It seems to me like the obvious move is to first pin down what standard of evidence would satisfy you.

Maybe we can work through an example. Based upon the linked course syllabus, would you say this class in Historical Geology covers "the major techniques used by geologists to assess the paleoenvironments and sequence of events found in the rock record"? Or merely references it? More importantly, how did you come to that conclusion?

https://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G102/102Syl.html

Again, I'm sorry to hear that you don't like how geologists use the phrase. Your proposed definition isn't wrong, exactly (it's rationally motivated and internally consistent), but it's idiosyncratic, and it certainly doesn't reflect badly upon my qualifications that I use the phrase in the standard manner.



It's not really idiosyncratic... but it does appear that a lot of geologists use a broader definition of "history" than historians do. I'm guessing that the scope of historical geography has changed over time.

You do seem to know what you're talking about (unlike, for example, one of the posters above).

I do think that inferences about the past should be treated with skepticism. The phrase "historical geography" is misleading rhetoric and likely to fool the naive, but that phrase is actually pretty mild by comparison to the rhetoric used in some fields.

I'm very curious (and skeptical) about the models that would seem to predict climate changes. I know very little about them in particular, but I do know a lot about models.