Why is the Right Wing Anti-Science?

[Polymath257]

LOL that's great, so science is now trust the expert, don't think critically, don't see for yourselves"?

Gee why would anyone question that mindset?

No, that is NOT what is being said. If you disagree, go and educate yourself to the point that you can make an informed argument and present it.

But don't think that you can read three articles by some journalist and that makes you more of an expert than someone who has been studying for decades.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Un huh. So the peddlers to force the pseudo scientist can lie all they want, but we should "trust the science" which we can't actually look at for ourselves and when we do look at it ourselves and the number don't add up at all we are told that we are wrong.

Boy, I'm sure glad that not running like a wacky religious cult or anything.

What are you talking about? You can verify almost any science. Though if you do not have the education you may have some troubles.

What sciences do you have a problem with?

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL that's great, so science is now trust the expert, don't think critically, don't see for yourselves"?

Gee why would anyone question that mindset?

It is better to trust but verify. But as @Polymath257 pointed out that can take quite a bit of learning on your part. If you want to know why scientists tend to be very reliable and honest you only need to fully understand the scientific method and how it is applied. The system is designed so that honesty is promoted and dishonesty is heavily punished. That is quite different from creationism where it is perfectly okay to be dishonest, as long as one is dishonest about the science that they hate.

It can easily be the end of a scientist's career if he is caught being dishonest. I do not know of any creationist that was ever punished for being dishonest by other creationists.

 

[Audie]

LOL that's great, so science is now trust the expert, don't think critically, don't see for yourselves"?

Gee why would anyone question that mindset?

Good stuff!
The more you point fingers, make up
more nonsense, deny the obvious,
the more you discredit yourself and
whatever "faith" you represent.

 

[Audie]

No, that is NOT what is being said. If you disagree, go and educate yourself to the point that you can make an informed argument and present it.

But don't think that you can read three articles by some journalist and that makes you more of an expert than someone who has been studying for decades.

Heck, at that he is doing more diligence than
the average creo who has not even read
the whole bible, but thinks that's enough
to know more than any scientist on earth.

 

[Audie]

It's usually a good idea not to trust politicians or journalists when it comes to science. The first usually has an agenda and the second usually doesn't understand what they are writing about.

You can certainly look for yourself *after* you have done the necessary preliminaries of understanding the overall topic and how the current situation fits into the general scheme.

For example, you don't get to criticize the Big Bang model unless you first understand general relativity since the BB model is *based* on general relativity. And, of course, to understand general relativity, you should first understand differential geometry.

You don't get to criticize evolution unless you first understand the basics of genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy. Which means you need to first understand taxonomy, some geology, and some biochemistry.

Your numbers don't add up because you use addition when you should use multiplication. You do that because you are ignorant of *why* multiplication instead of addition is used. If you correct your ignorance first, you wouldn't have that problem.

The good thing is that the necessary materials to learn from are out there and freely available. There are even people who will answer questions you have. But you do still need to do the preliminary work or you simply won't have the background to understand either the claims being made or the answers that are given.

Speaking of basic math, our fri in a universityend's laughter is like that of a child who thinks the squiggles on the board at

It's usually a good idea not to trust politicians or journalists when it comes to science. The first usually has an agenda and the second usually doesn't understand what they are writing about.

You can certainly look for yourself *after* you have done the necessary preliminaries of understanding the overall topic and how the current situation fits into the general scheme.

For example, you don't get to criticize the Big Bang model unless you first understand general relativity since the BB model is *based* on general relativity. And, of course, to understand general relativity, you should first understand differential geometry.

You don't get to criticize evolution unless you first understand the basics of genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy. Which means you need to first understand taxonomy, some geology, and some biochemistry.

Your numbers don't add up because you use addition when you should use multiplication. You do that because you are ignorant of *why* multiplication instead of addition is used. If you correct your ignorance first, you wouldn't have that problem.

The good thing is that the necessary materials to learn from are out there and freely available. There are even people who will answer questions you have. But you do still need to do the preliminary work or you simply won't have the background to understand either the claims being made or the answers that are given.

A clever child might laugh at the squiggles of an advanced math class, since he knows that math uses numbers.

 

[Revoltingest]

I heard an interesting Freakonomics podcast about
some research....
Legalized abortion and crime effect - Wikipedia
The pro & anti sides were angry, each inferring some evil agenda.
It's interesting that the pro abortion side issued even more death
threats to Levitt than the anti-abortion side.
Anti-science attitudes can afflict anyone who sees a threat to their
deeply committed agenda, eh.

 

[rational experiences]

Because humans morality as natural spiritual aware consciousness. Was held by practiced brain entrainment as religious causes. Humans minds are made aware that science by the church legal implementation had banned science.

So life on earth could heal. By evolving cooling returning atmospheric spirit mass body.

Knew. Had the memories to trust truth.

 

[Truth in love]

That seems to be a problem with education in the US and other countries with too many churches or mosques. The understanding of evolution in Europe, Japan, Australia, etc. isn't exactly stellar but so much better. Might be homeschooling, might be poor education of the educators.

Well whatever the source we need to stop teaching garbage.

 

[Truth in love]

It's usually a good idea not to trust politicians or journalists when it comes to science. The first usually has an agenda and the second usually doesn't understand what they are writing about.

You can certainly look for yourself *after* you have done the necessary preliminaries of understanding the overall topic and how the current situation fits into the general scheme.

For example, you don't get to criticize the Big Bang model unless you first understand general relativity since the BB model is *based* on general relativity. And, of course, to understand general relativity, you should first understand differential geometry.

You don't get to criticize evolution unless you first understand the basics of genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy. Which means you need to first understand taxonomy, some geology, and some biochemistry.

Your numbers don't add up because you use addition when you should use multiplication. You do that because you are ignorant of *why* multiplication instead of addition is used. If you correct your ignorance first, you wouldn't have that problem.

The good thing is that the necessary materials to learn from are out there and freely available. There are even people who will answer questions you have. But you do still need to do the preliminary work or you simply won't have the background to understand either the claims being made or the answers that are given.

Thanks for the very narrowed mined view on what I can do. Really just solved everything right there. LOL

 

[Truth in love]

No, that is NOT what is being said. If you disagree, go and educate yourself to the point that you can make an informed argument and present it.

But don't think that you can read three articles by some journalist and that makes you more of an expert than someone who has been studying for decades.

It was not my major, but I studied it quite a bit. Not agreeing with some so called expert does not mean I don't understand the theory.

 

[Truth in love]

What are you talking about? You can verify almost any science. Though if you do not have the education you may have some troubles.

What sciences do you have a problem with?

I love science. I reject the random changes caused all species to be as they are notion.
I reject global climate alarmist nonsense.
I'm rather skeptical about out stellar predictions given the size of space and relativity small point of view through which we see it.

Non of this is rejecting science on the contrary it is scientific to want evidence.

 

[Truth in love]

It is better to trust but verify. But as @Polymath257 pointed out that can take quite a bit of learning on your part. If you want to know why scientists tend to be very reliable and honest you only need to fully understand the scientific method and how it is applied. The system is designed so that honesty is promoted and dishonesty is heavily punished. That is quite different from creationism where it is perfectly okay to be dishonest, as long as one is dishonest about the science that they hate.

It can easily be the end of a scientist's career if he is caught being dishonest. I do not know of any creationist that was ever punished for being dishonest by other creationists.

Actually as we have seen many times lying is not a problem if you have a large enough crime family backing you. Fouci still has a job even if he gets fired he will land with 100k+ speaking gigs and book deals even though he's been caught lying like a rug.

 

[Heyo]

Well whatever the source we need to stop teaching garbage.

We agree on that much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I love science. I reject the random changes caused all species to be as they are notion.
I reject global climate alarmist nonsense.
I'm rather skeptical about out stellar predictions given the size of space and relativity small point of view through which we see it.

Non of this is rejecting science on the contrary it is scientific to want evidence.

Then you just contradicted yourself. You do not love science. You are a science denier.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually as we have seen many times lying is not a problem if you have a large enough crime family backing you. Fouci still has a job even if he gets fired he will land with 100k+ speaking gigs and book deals even though he's been caught lying like a rug.

Your only possible "lie" was a very weak one.

But I am glad that you are for the conviction of Trump.

 

[Truth in love]

Good stuff!
The more you point fingers, make up
more nonsense, deny the obvious,
the more you discredit yourself and
whatever "faith" you represent.

Well if that is not accurate to your point please clarify, that was a summary of what I got from your post.

 

[Truth in love]

Then you just contradicted yourself. You do not love science. You are a science denier.

No I question things and want evidence.

How is this denying science?

 

[Truth in love]

Your only possible "lie" was a very weak one.

But I am glad that you are for the conviction of Trump.

Works for me as long as the rest of the scum go too. I can't wrap my head around people being okay impeaching trump for a crime Bidein committed. Either we are a nation of laws or we are a mess.

So sure convict trump he violated the constitution several times, As did Biden, Schemer, Peolisi, McConnell, Obama, etc. Do you want them all convicted for their crimes or is it just Trump who is uniquely bad?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I question things and want evidence.

How is this denying science?

I doubt if you even understand the concept of evidence. Here is a simple test:

Is "Lucy" evidence for human evolution?