When is it acceptable to implement policies which are contradicted by science?

fargonic said:

Hate to break it to you, but you've been lied to: Patrick Moore was not the cofounder of Greenpeace. In fact his lie was roundly refuted by Greenpeace who provided documentation of Mr. Moore's application to join Greenpeace. Greenpeace has a statement about Mr. Moore's deception. You might like to read it. OR you can do what all the other denialist/skeptics do, just repeat the misinformation.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

Click to expand...

Also, Greenpeace is anti-science and stupid. They hate GMOs and nuclear power even though science claims these things are fine.

They also hate global warming and like animals, which is nice, but they cherry-pick the science they believe in instead of basing it off of scientific consensus.

Those who believe that the temperature of the earth was warmer last year than at any time ever measured are surely delusional. They are the type of folks that fake data, based on fake ideas. I bet that most of them even think that the earth is more than 10,000 years old. Some might even believe that US has landed men on the moon. We should beware of such folks.

mark46 said:

Those who believe that the temperature of the earth was warmer last year than at any time ever measured are surely delusional. They are the type of folks that fake data, based on fake ideas. I bet that most of them even think that the earth is more than 10,000 years old. Some might even believe that US has landed men on the moon. We should beware of such folks.

Click to expand...

Oh thank god, you're being sarcastic.

For a second there I thought you were actually serious.

Audacious said:

Oh thank god, you're being sarcastic.

For a second there I thought you were actually serious.

Click to expand...

Audacious said:

Oh thank god, you're being sarcastic.

For a second there I thought you were actually serious.

Click to expand...

Haha! I was totally thrown off until the moon landing thing.

Well played, mark46. Well played.

Good point, Fargonic! All you do find on this site are continual misconceptions about how science actually operates.

mark46 said:

Those who believe that the temperature of the earth was warmer last year than at any time ever measured are surely delusional. They are the type of folks that fake data, based on fake ideas. I bet that most of them even think that the earth is more than 10,000 years old. Some might even believe that US has landed men on the moon. We should beware of such folks.

Click to expand...

Thirded. You had me going there for a bit.

Thursday said:

The left is using this crisis to increase the power of governments around the world to regulate and tax private enterprise.

Click to expand...

Do you really think that large numbers of scientists, from differing specialties, are going to conspire to help BIG WORLD GOVERNMENTS "regulate and tax private enterprise"? Really?

I guess it must be those same scientists who keep telling us that the earth is a ball so that BIG WORLD GOVERNMENTS can tax private airlines for supplying flight controllers.

You did not address...
You mean the scientists who are paid by people like the Koch Brothers who have a business agenda.

Thursday said:

Over 30,000 Scientists signed this statement:

Click to expand...

Let's put it into context by considering the source...

Now more context by looking at the numbers...
Thursday,
That you would post such nonsense proves your viewpoint is nonsense. Even you should realize that.

paul becke said:

ha ha. Go on... tell us how Tour's words were twisted.

Click to expand...

Already been done.
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.html

Smidlee said:

Of course evolutionist always tries to explain away any evidence that goes against the theory. The reason why no evolution occurred among these organisms is evolution is completely false. The Emperor is naked.

Click to expand...

Why is it that the loudest Creationists who utilize the most over the top rhetoric so rarely are able to express their objections in their own words and instead merely link to a You Tube video and expect everyone else to do their homework for them?

USincognito said:

Why is it that the loudest Creationists who utilize the most over the top rhetoric so rarely are able to express their objections in their own words and instead merely link to a You Tube video and expect everyone else to do their homework for them?

Click to expand...

So I guess you must have must Loudmouth linking Talkorigins a lot and it's obvious not in his words. Loudmouth is an evolution believer.

USincognito said:

Already been done.
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.html

Click to expand...

And here you are just linked to someone's else opinion. This writer tries to pretend that chemistry hasn't nothing to do with biology when Tours has experience in building nano-machines.

For example this is just his opinion and not fact:
"The short answer is "no." Just because you don't understand something is no reason to call yourself a "skeptic" and imply that an entire field of study is wrong."

I totally disagree since chemical is part of biology and can't simply be ignored by evolutionary biologist. Evolutionary biologist never questions if evolution did happen they just dogmatically claimed it did.
This is like claiming a rocket scientist can totally ignore chemistry and mathematics which evolution does.

/when-is-it-acceptable-to-implement-policies-which-are-contradicted-by-science

Smidlee said:

So I guess you must have must Loudmouth linking Talkorigins a lot and it's obvious not in his words.

Click to expand...

1. So's Law - Whenever a response begins with "So..." the likeliness that whatever follows will be a straw man nears 100%.
2. You must not pay close attention. Most of the evolution advocates here link to original papers, not Talk Origins. That is especially true for Loudmouth. Further, the pages on Talk Origins, for the most part, succinctly address a particular Creationist claim instead of being a 30 minute lecture with more bloviation and preaching than scientific content.

Smidlee said:

Loudmouth is an evolution believer.

Click to expand...

No @Loudmouth is not. Though the subtle implication of that response will doubtlessly be lost on your.

USincognito said:

your.

Click to expand...

What?

leftrightleftrightleft said:

I saw this article today in The Guardian which lists some really great questions about science, tech and environment which should be posed in the presidential debates. Sadly, none of these questions will likely be asked by the media at these debates because the media needs a side show circus to maintain viewership.

One of the best questions in the list was this:

"When is it acceptable to implement policies which are contradicted by science?"

My initial answer is: Never. But maybe people can think of some circumstances when it is ok to do so.

Click to expand...

Economists are used to it by now.

That's the creationist dilemma. If one really understands science, it becomes nearly impossible to remain a creationist.

I think there should be policies that goes against "science" when people tries to abuse "science" to claim anyone who doesn't agree with their worldview is anti-science. Nonsense like that someone can't be a creationist and be a sound scientist. Some people have turn science into a modern day religion.

Smidlee said:

I think there should be policies that goes against "science" when people tries to abuse "science" to claim anyone who doesn't agree with their worldview is anti-science. Nonsense like that someone can't be a creationist and be a sound scientist. Some people have turn science into a modern day religion.

Click to expand...

It depends what you mean by "creationist".

The word could mean that one believes that God (a Supreme Being) created the heavens and the earths. If that is the definition, then one can indeed be a creationist and a respected scientist.

The word could mean that God created the Earth in 6 days, and this world in no more than 10,000 years old. If that is the definition, then that person is not a sound scientist, at least that belief is not solid science.