What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

[oldbadger]

They may not have been commissioned, i.e. not appointed.
OR their comments could have been ignored or value engineered out.

True Dat.
I reckon that fire officers have been totally ignored when convenient.......... no doubt.
I'm gobsmacked over the number of corruption scandals that have surrounded planning permissions, consents and building inspections over the years. Could be worse than the Met was in the 60's.

 

[oldbadger]

I am not the one claiming that 9th graders should repeat all of the science that has been done for the last 200 years without any lectures.

I don't know how old your 9th graders are, but schoolchildren don't have lectures!
And if you expect kids to get stuffed with 200 years of science in their lessons you're having a laugh.
General science, elementary maths, basic biology, chemistry, IT and physics is probably the science basic for schoolchildren up to about 16yrs.

What do you do for a living?

Right. And that preparation should include lectures that teach children the knowledge they will need to know later in life. That's what education is.

Wrong. Lectures are delivered to undergrads. You don't lecture children, because the fallout rate in attention fail etc is too high.
What qualifications have you got? What do you do?

Modern education includes lectures. I have sat through many lectures that piqued my interest.

Where? How old were you? What was the subject matter? Who were the other schoolchildren?

How many kids grow up to be adults who want at least some understanding of the science that is reported in the news?

Can I invite you to give us some examples? Possibly from News broadcasts in the last week or so?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I don't know how old your 9th graders are, but schoolchildren don't have lectures!
And if you expect kids to get stuffed with 200 years of science in their lessons you're having a laugh.
General science, elementary maths, basic biology, chemistry, IT and physics is probably the science basic for schoolchildren up to about 16yrs.

If they are taught the basics of molecular biology and genetics then that is about 160 years worth of science, starting with Mendel, continuing on through Watson and Crick, and continuing on through the people who discovered how ribosomes, tRNA, mRNA, and gene promoters work.

What do you do for a living?

Molecular biology.

Wrong. Lectures are delivered to undergrads. You don't lecture children, because the fallout rate in attention fail etc is too high.

If you teach something orally, that is a lecture.

Can I invite you to give us some examples? Possibly from News broadcasts in the last week or so?

Sure. What are the implications of CRISPR/Cas9? What can we do with it, and what can we not do with it? How effective is it? What is cloning? What is a clone? What is epigenetics, and how can it affect us and possibly our offspring?

Those are a few that come to mind.

 

[oldbadger]

Which, truthfully, is insane. Classrooms differ. The needs of the students differ. There are unexpected opportunities all the time that can enhance education that a lesson plan cannot deal with.

Which is why most schools have streaming.
Why do you call schoolchildren 'students'? Pupils maybe, anyway, if you think that ditching lesson plans is clever, then the only teaching delivery method that works without them is home-teaching such as Montessori planning, and the problem with that is that children lose the essential benefits of human socializing, which is crucial.
You're giving yourself away here, really.........

Depends on the subject. yes, getting them to think about possibilities before telling them the truth can be effective. But sometimes they need basics before they can even start to ask questions.

And you think that they wouldn't be given those?
And, by the way, what is truth? My first lessons in the formation of the Solar System, in the school's textbook on the subject, was that (with pictures!) the Sun developed a wobble which became a bulge which became a long solar blob which broke up.... into the planets. (circa 1956. Alveston CofE school. Stratford upon Avon, England).

Not from what I have seen, no. The teaching of math and science is very poor, partly because of the 'education departments' making things more confusing. Perhaps the single best thing we could do for our educational system is to get rid of Colleges of Education. If you want to teach math, get a math degree *and* some specialization in child psychology.

I don't know about your schools.......... at what age do you expect all this to take place?

If you know about all this then you'll know what thte average IQ is for children in your area.......... Now, how are you proposing to prepare them ALL for a chance in life, with job prospects?
What plans have you got for the average IQ children....... maybe IQ 100?
How are you planning to prepare Attention deficit disorder children?
What about autistic children? Some small % of those will be quicker than you at math one day, maybe, but how initially do you prepare for them?

If you think that teaching is stuffing facts into kids then that's very very dangerous.

 

[oldbadger]

If they are taught the basics of molecular biology and genetics then that is about 160 years worth of science, starting with Mendel, continuing on through Watson and Crick, and continuing on through the people who discovered how ribosomes, tRNA, mRNA, and gene promoters work.

OMG.........!
At what age would you plan this delivery for?

Molecular biology.

Click......... which is why you want molecular biology and genetics delivered to schoolchildren, most of them eventually working in transport, retail, entertainment, delivery, IT, communications, house-husbandry, electricals, etc......

If you teach something orally, that is a lecture.

No......... not with schoolchildren.
Teaching is (very very basically, in a brief sentence) often delivered in bite-sized sections, starting with questions, then offering solutions, then repeating questions, then cementing that section in place with final questions to ensure complete delivery. Moving forward........ and finally bringing the sections together into a coordinated end-result, with a high level of comprehension throughout.
You wouldn't be able to teach children without learning how to do so........ the same goes for much adult training as well. True.

Sure. What are the implications of CRISPR/Cas9? What can we do with it, and what can we not do with it? How effective is it? What is cloning? What is a clone? What is epigenetics, and how can it affect us and possibly our offspring?

Those are a few that come to mind.

Don't talk to me about how science can affect offspring, please.
My second son was a sodium valproate (epilim) baby. 1976.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

OMG.........!
At what age would you plan this delivery for?

I was taught simple Mendelian genetics in 6th grade, and the central dogma of genetics (DNA to RNA to protein) in 9th grade. I learned about gene promoters in 11th grade. Of course, this was more than 25 years ago, but I don't see why kids today are any less intelligent.

Don't talk to me about how science can affect offspring, please.
My second son was a sodium valproate (epilim) baby. 1976.

You are aware that gene editing and epigenetics are making their way into the mainstream media, right?

 

[oldbadger]

I was taught simple Mendelian genetics in 6th grade, and the central dogma of genetics (DNA to RNA to protein) in 9th grade. I learned about gene promoters in 11th grade.

Which part of 'I don't know what a 9th grader's age is' didn't you understand? If you think about it you'll figure out that I therefore wouldn't yet know what a 6th grader's age is.
So you expect this kind of information to be on the standard basic curriculum for schoolchildren today? And you expect children to benefit from being lectured in all their classes like students?

I think I begin to see the other side of the US debate on education for children. Science could well have its extremists as well.

Of course, this was more than 25 years ago, but I don't see why kids today are any less intelligent.

So you don't know what the average IQ for children is in your area today.

What is your IQ, please?

You are aware that gene editing and epigenetics are making their way into the mainstream media, right?

So you don't have the first clue about what I was talking about....... a micro-biologist...?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

So you expect this kind of information to be on the standard basic curriculum for schoolchildren today? And you expect children to benefit from being lectured in all their classes like students?

Why wouldn't it be? It was part of the science curriculum when I was in school.

So you don't know what the average IQ for children is in your area today.

What is your IQ, please?

I would suspect that I have an average IQ, and I fail to see what that has to do with learning the basics of genetics.

So you don't have the first clue about what I was talking about....... a micro-biologist...?

What are you on about?

 

[oldbadger]

Why wouldn't it be? It was part of the science curriculum when I was in school.

Very very interesting!
..... moving forward.....

I would suspect that I have an average IQ, and I fail to see what that has to do with learning the basics of genetics.

So you reckon you have an IQ of between 85 and 100, the average IQ........
Very interesting. Moving forward.......

What are you on about?

I responded to an earlier post of yours by pointing out that my second child was a sodium Vaplorate (epilim) baby, reason for wishing no further conversation about particular points that you raised.

You response was........... zero, zilch...... and so I pointed out that you are a micro-biologist!! I find it very surprising that you wouldn't have some idea about what I wrote, even if you don't have intimate knowledge of the subject matter.


Now........ mendelian genetics is taught in some schools to fast track high stream pupils, and you were taught this same subject matter, and so you would expect this to be written into lesson plans for the average child, average stream..... average 85-100 IQ.

This is interesting, not because it seems to be a collection of contradicting factors, but because it (together with other posts from other members) could be indicative of unreasonable levels of pressure being directed at children of average intellect who need a basic education to prepare them for (mostly) more basic employments up to more complex trades.

Some members who are clearly professional people have nominated some quite complex subjects for the basic stream education plans, expecting 'students' to attend 'lectures' which 'tell' them the subject matter, with little or no personal investigation or freedom of personal expression being acceptable or reasonable.

Which is beginning to point towards possible levels of extremist intellectualism and scienscism (?) which expect average children to become fast-track intense-intake high-performance graduates as a standard of normality. I never understood why some US States would push hard against science education, it just didn't make sense, but if extreme intellectualism is trying to push extreme complication into the classrooms of average pupils, with a university style of delivery and expectation, then this might, just might answer quite a lot of unanswered questions for me.

And which would be less good for children?
I would have guessed that general science and elementary mathematics should win through........... but now I don't believe that those basics would be acceptable......... to extremist intellectuals..

 

[Polymath257]

Which part of 'I don't know what a 9th grader's age is' didn't you understand? If you think about it you'll figure out that I therefore wouldn't yet know what a 6th grader's age is.

Rule of thumb: add 5 years to the grade level. There is some variance, of course, but I was 12 when I entered 7th grade and 13 when I finished it.

So you expect this kind of information to be on the standard basic curriculum for schoolchildren today? And you expect children to benefit from being lectured in all their classes like students?

yes, it *should* be part of a standard curriculum. By the end of high school (age about 18), the curriculum *should* have taught *at least* the basics of chemistry, of genetics, of biology (i.e, evolution), world history (they should know, for example, who Charlemagne was), and early calculus, And this is for the 'ordinary' kid going through. Those with an emphasis should have more.

I think I begin to see the other side of the US debate on education for children. Science could well have its extremists as well.

So you don't know what the average IQ for children is in your area today.

What is your IQ, please?

IQ is a very poor measure of intelligence or capability. Average is between about 85 and 115 (not 100 at the top as you claimed). And I have no doubt that the average can do the curriculum I mentioned above.

So you don't have the first clue about what I was talking about....... a micro-biologist...?

I've been teaching at the university level and have seen what the effects are of the poor techniques at the lower levels. We have people coming in that can't write a coherent sentence, can do simple arithmetic, can't place Afghanistan on a map, and don't know who Julius Caesar was. That is an absolute failure of our educational system at the lower levels. And, from what I can see, it is because of the emphasis on things like 'lesson plans', which have to be followed to the letter or the teacher is reprimanded, and teaching to the standardized tests, as opposed to teaching concepts and how to think.

So, for example, it is common these days for people coming into college not to know how to do long division. Now, some would say that is an irrelevant thing to know with the advent of calculators and such. But it has direct consequences on learning later subjects in math, so that one omission puts the students (yes, students) at a disadvantage when it comes to learning later material. A decent educational system would understand that and take that into account.

But, what was *gained* by dropping long division? OK, elimination of a bit of rote memorization of an algorithm. So, why not then replace it with some basic computer programming? Make the students, in junior high (or even before), learn the basics of some easy computer language (python is a good example) and have them learn how to think through problems and write code. This would be a wonderful way to get them ready for the real world *and* would teach them critical thinking skills that would transfer to other subjects. Simply learning how to debug a program would be wonderfully helpful!

But, of course, the teachers don't want to actually have to teach that because *they* don't know how to program either. So, instead, long division was dropped and NOTHING took its place. We have kids that are supposed to figure out for themselves how to do addition and multiplication, and fail because those are things that took centuries to figure out originally.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Now........ mendelian genetics is taught in some schools to fast track high stream pupils, and you were taught this same subject matter, and so you would expect this to be written into lesson plans for the average child, average stream..... average 85-100 IQ.

We were taught about Punnet squares in 6th grade in the usual, normal science class.

I don't see why this would be beyond the intelligence of your average 9th grader. We also went through some simple human traits that have recessive and dominant alleles and used our own family history to look at the results of those genetics.

Some members who are clearly professional people have nominated some quite complex subjects for the basic stream education plans, expecting 'students' to attend 'lectures' which 'tell' them the subject matter, with little or no personal investigation or freedom of personal expression being acceptable or reasonable.

Which is beginning to point towards possible levels of extremist intellectualism and scienscism (?) which expect average children to become fast-track intense-intake high-performance graduates as a standard of normality. I never understood why some US States would push hard against science education, it just didn't make sense, but if extreme intellectualism is trying to push extreme complication into the classrooms of average pupils, with a university style of delivery and expectation, then this might, just might answer quite a lot of unanswered questions for me.

And which would be less good for children?
I would have guessed that general science and elementary mathematics should win through........... but now I don't believe that those basics would be acceptable......... to extremist intellectuals..

I am wondering what in the world you think teaching is.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I've been teaching at the university level and have seen what the effects are of the poor techniques at the lower levels. We have people coming in that can't write a coherent sentence, can do simple arithmetic, can't place Afghanistan on a map, and don't know who Julius Caesar was.

Luckily, the undergrads I have interacted with have had a strong educational background. Of course, they were part of summer research programs that usually attract motivated or top students, so that may have something to do with it. They seemed more than capable of grasping complex scientific principles that they had not yet learned in their undergrad courses which gives me hope for the future of science.

So, for example, it is common these days for people coming into college not to know how to do long division.

That actually makes me a bit queasy. That's criminal.

 

[Polymath257]

Luckily, the undergrads I have interacted with have had a strong educational background. Of course, they were part of summer research programs that usually attract motivated or top students, so that may have something to do with it. They seemed more than capable of grasping complex scientific principles that they had not yet learned in their undergrad courses which gives me hope for the future of science.

Yes, that is hardly a representative sample.

That actually makes me a bit queasy. That's criminal.

I agree. And I *might* be able to rationalize it if we did something like teaching computer programming instead. Instead of rote memorization of some procedure which they will seldom use in practice, we could teach actual critical thinking: working out the steps in an algorithm, learning how to problem solve, debugging, etc. But even that hasn't happened.

 

[oldbadger]

Rule of thumb: add 5 years to the grade level. There is some variance, of course, but I was 12 when I entered 7th grade and 13 when I finished it.

Thanks for the above....... I had no idea.

yes, it *should* be part of a standard curriculum. By the end of high school (age about 18), the curriculum *should* have taught *at least* the basics of chemistry, of genetics, of biology (i.e, evolution), world history (they should know, for example, who Charlemagne was), and early calculus, And this is for the 'ordinary' kid going through. Those with an emphasis should have more.

That is not streaming.
It's not for me to suggest the subject matter for average kids in your area, but 'general education' here tends to end at 16 yrs and pupils will have from 3 to about 8 Secondary school and/or Ordinary level qualifications according to their abilities and disabilities, and then move on the Advanced education in about 2-3 subjects. Some children leave school at 16yrs and go into college education for foundation training...... I spoke with a 16yr old only yesterday who attends college for health and hygene studies because that is the entry level qualification to train for Social Services work.

But apart from elementary Chemistry and Biology the other subjects that you mentioned are inappropriate. Biology could focus better on reproduction, calculus is totally unnecessary for average intellects that will be in everyday employments, world history is far too complex a subject etc etc.....

You're tending to think of the fastest, most capable pupils all the time, it seems. Education is about preparing everybody adequately for their future chances and roles in the community. Calculus?

IQ is a very poor measure of intelligence or capability. Average is between about 85 and 115 (not 100 at the top as you claimed). And I have no doubt that tbout 2he average can do the curriculum I mentioned above.

Clearly, you know you're wrong, just from your own later descriptions of university level pupils who you have known who clearly could not do such things.......... and the failure probably lies because somebody is setting the bar too high rather than aiming for achievable goals...?

I've been teaching at the university level and have seen what the effects are of the poor techniques at the lower levels. We have people coming in that can't write a coherent sentence, can do simple arithmetic, can't place Afghanistan on a map, and don't know who Julius Caesar was. That is an absolute failure of our educational system at the lower levels.

Probably because calculus and world history is being shoved at them rather than basic comprehension and elementary mathematics, etc.

And, from what I can see, it is because of the emphasis on things like 'lesson plans', which have to be followed to the letter or the teacher is reprimanded, and teaching to the standardized tests, as opposed to teaching concepts and how to think.

You or another on this thread didn't like the idea of pupils thinking and researching for themselves!
If your lesson plans are rubbish, and it looks like your schools are in trouble from your description, it's not the lesson-plan technique (which offers equal education and chance for all within the same streamed range).

So, for example, it is common these days for people coming into college not to know how to do long division. Now, some would say that is an irrelevant thing to know with the advent of calculators and such. But it has direct consequences on learning later subjects in math, so that one omission puts the students (yes, students) at a disadvantage when it comes to learning later material. A decent educational system would understand that and take that into account.

I reckon its because you call them students, lecture them rather than use 'involved and inclusive deliveries' in bite sized chunks and set the bars far too high. Fast kids will reach these bars to go on faster in higher streams, slower kids will get optimised education at slower speeds with easier subject matter.

But, what was *gained* by dropping long division? OK, elimination of a bit of rote memorization of an algorithm. So, why not then replace it with some basic computer programming? Make the students, in junior high (or even before), learn the basics of some easy computer language (python is a good example) and have them learn how to think through problems and write code. This would be a wonderful way to get them ready for the real world *and* would teach them critical thinking skills that would transfer to other subjects. Simply learning how to debug a program would be wonderfully helpful!

Basic computer programming?
That's why they can't 'long-divide'!!
You set the bars high up and many not-only don't make it, but they never got taught the basics! This is all elitism in education.

But, of course, the teachers don't want to actually have to teach that because *they* don't know how to program either. So, instead, long division was dropped and NOTHING took its place. We have kids that are supposed to figure out for themselves how to do addition and multiplication, and fail because those are things that took centuries to figure out originally.

Of course teachers cannot program.......... but many of them are jolly good teachers!

Kids that can't add and multiply probably got stuffed with complex and totally unnecessary 'stuff'. I don't know how your schools teach, but if children are interested then they learn very very fast, but to sit 'em down and lecture them is educational death.

 

[tas8831]

In the US, one political party has made anti-intellectualism and anti-science a core tenet of their ideology. Since I became of age to pay attention to politics, this party has been on the wrong side of the AIDS epidemic, acid rain, evolution, climate change, environmental contaminants, and other issues. And just in the past 5 years or so I'm seeing the same folks taking a strong turn against higher education (e.g., talk radio admonitions of "don't send your kids to college; they'll come back liberals, environmental activists, and/or atheists").

This mindset has become so entrenched that's it's become an essential component of their identity.

"I love the uneducated."
Taken as an endearing quip, but most likely an open insult demonstrating that even insulting them will not make them change their minds.
Sadly, I am seeing more and more anti-education memes and shares on social media, and these get 'likes' and supporting comments from people that I would not have expected to do so. It is all well and good to acknowledge that trade schools are great, but to do so while denigrating "worthless" degrees is unnecessary.**

Not to ,mention the many lies being spread about higher education - a few that annoy me:


1. 'Universities' require students to learn about transgender/gay issues, etc.
Maybe some do, but not all. I think mine has an anti-intolerance workshop at freshman orientation, but that is about it,. And even if all did so - we would be talking about what - maybe a 3-credit class? 3 out of 120+ credits? Oh, the fascism of it all!

2. Professors are millionaires - and all from tax money!
Whatever... The only millionaire professors I know of are those who pimp themselves out to Big Tobacco or Big Oil to testify or write essays claiming nicotine is not addictive and that burning fossil fuels does not pollute. Or the rare handful that make the transition to successful writer or TV guest (e.g., Sagan, Tyson, Gould). These are few and far between. The overwhelming majority make less than 100k (and those that make more than that are generally business or engineering professors, who do no more work than anyone else but get paid more because of the "market"... such BS... do I sound bitter? YES.)...

3. Universities push liberal propaganda and are biased against conservatives.
Lots of information about this "bias" - my personal take, in my field, anyway, are that conservatives are generally not interested in teaching and doing research (unless they can make a lot of money) and thus do not apply for such positions.
And as with the transgender thing, the liberal bias thing is probably only an issue in certain classes taught by certain instructors. The only classes that I can ever remember taking that had a bias were, in fact, those with a conservative bias (an American government class, and a World History class).
In my classes, for example, I literally do not even mention politics or religion or anything that could be considered a 'liberal bias' - unless, of course, one considers science to b e a liberal thing. Which is sort of is these days, thanks to the anti-intellectualism of a certain party.
In my 20 years, I have only ever mentioned politics or religion in response to specific questions (1 student asked me if I 'believed in God or evolution' back in about 2000, and another asked me what I thought about Trump getting elected... and that is pretty much it...Oh, well, I did point out how stupid Michelle Bachmann is in my immunology class after she said that the HPV vaccine caused the child of someone at one of her rallies to become "retarded"...).

There are more, but these are a few that grind my gears..

Now what is this thread about?


** added in edit - after re-reading this, I liken this attitude to what we see with many creationists - in their attempts to denigrate and diminish evolution, they call it a religion..

 

[tas8831]

But apart from elementary Chemistry and Biology the other subjects that you mentioned are inappropriate. Biology could focus better on reproduction,

????

world history is far too complex a subject etc etc.....

Right... Wouldn't want American students knowing that we aren't the only country in the world... I live in a rural area, where probably 80% of the people here have never left the state, much less the country. A few years ago, when my kid was in maybe 7th grade, an exchange student from the Netherlands came and one of my kid's friends asked him which state Netherlands was in...
But sure, no need to know about the world or its history...

Education is about preparing everybody adequately for their future chances and roles in the community.

It is?

 

[sooda]

Let me say at once I do not mean here people who reject just one particular scientific theory or set of facts. The motives of the man or woman who objects only to evolutionary theory or to vaccines can often enough be easily guessed at.

But I'm curious about what I take as both a relatively recent phenomena and a somewhat more difficult one to figure out the causes of. That's what I call in this thread "Anti-science", the rejection not just of one or two scientific theories and sets of facts, but more broadly "anything science".

About the phenomena being recent. I readily grant there have always been people who rejected the sciences, but I think that up until relatively recent times their number and influence was less significant than it is today. For instance, a half century ago, the notion they might influence government policies or how well the sciences were funded and taught in the public schools was easily dismissed. Beyond that, the sciences were on an order of magnitude more respected than they are today. I think that is a fact.

So what causes or motivates the anti-scientists?

I would point first and foremost to the long history in America of deeply rooted anti-intellectualism. But surely, there's more to it than that. That anti-intellectualism is so much stronger today. Why?

Many people point to the cultural changes of the 1960s and 70s that seem so closely associated with the rise of the Baby Boomers. Among other things, they dramatically boosted the popularity of the notion that "truth is relative", sometimes expressed as, "truth is personal" As I understand it, that notion was once more or less confined to fringe intellectuals, but the Baby Boomers mainstreamed it, made it -- if not actually respectable -- then fashionable.

A third often mentioned cause is religious based antagonism to the sciences. But that strikes me as superficial. When you look more closely, you first discover it's not all Christian denominations at fault. The old mainstream denominations have mostly remained pro-science. The antagonism is coming overwhelmingly from only factions of Christianity, such as the Southern Baptists, and the non-denominational churches. Groups that usually identify themselves as Evangelicals.

But I would not stop there. No matter how deeply ingrained is the reflex to "blame the Christians", I think the truth is deeper than "the Christians". Again, looking closely, it becomes undeniable that those Christian groups most opposed to the sciences originate in the culture of the South, which has been the longest and most virulently anti-intellectual section of the country.

And if you really wanted to understand it, you could trace Southern anti-intellectualism back to the South's earliest English settlers, who predominantly came from the Cavalier class of England, a class that favored only educating elites, and then only minimally. So, the notion "it's a Christian thing" strikes me as superficial and poorly informed. It would be more accurate to say Southern Christianity only gave Southern anti-intellectualism its main focus: Evolution.

One last point about the South: Even if what I said is true, the question remains, "Why did Southern anti-intellectualism pick only recently to become so virulent? Any answer to that should mention air conditioning. After WWII, air conditioning made the South more attractive to migrants from other parts of the country such that today four in ten Americans live there. Such a large chunk of people will inevitably have an influence.

However! Least you think it's all nicely decided now, consider this: Is Southern Culture broadly anti-scientific, or only narrowly anti-evolution? I myself think the former, but I believe the latter is still arguable.

Is that enough to explain it? American anti-intellectualism (especially Southern anti-intellectualism) combined with the mainstreaming of thoughtless trash like "truth is relative" by the Baby Boomers?

What do you think?

And beyond that, is there any good chance anti-science will wane in the future? Last puzzle of the day: What caused the Baby Boomers to embrace such a hollow, gutless notion as, "Truth is relative"?

Did the Boomers do that? I don't remember.. We were engineers and such .. Lots of MIT and GA Tech graduates in my family. I do remember way back that conspiracy theorists thought the flu vaccine was a government experiment to see if the American public was lock-step passive enough to comply.

 

[tas8831]

I have no problem with science — my own background is scientific — but I have considerable problems with scientism. So long as there have been scientists like Dawkins, Hawking, Sagan, etc who set themselves up as prophets of atheism and dishonestly (or at best ignorantly) claim that their scientific background confers some sort of authority on them, they are bound to bring unjustified discredit on science.

Really?

Hmmm.... Examples of their doing this?

 

[tas8831]

OED

That sounds like a description of the men I mentioned.

But of course you weren't really asking a question, were you? Like so many atheists, you were just trying to sound clever. And , like so many atheists, failing.

Cool projection.

 

[tas8831]

How many examples do you require, and will you remember my answers?
Just tell me how many examples, exactly, you want to read.

10.

Hello again.......... I thought I would dig out some examples of quasi-science which you have probably believed in in the past, or maybe still do.

And you provided not examples there, unless we count that side note on diesel engines, but I was never taught that.


You really shouldn't offer to do things that you have no intention of doing.