Science manipulated for convenience and popularity?

[jisaiah6113]

My question is about group think, politics, and culture, and whether or not people who use science as a bludgeon against traditional concepts are really acting in the name of objectivity or perverse popular opinion.

In the 1950's doctors were saying that smoking is good for your health. I'm sure there was a time when bloodletting was thought to be a cure for mental illness. The commonality of these two scenarios would be that they fit the popular beliefs of those eras. Smoking was acceptable and hip in the 50's. The science of the time did not oppose it. Likewise, medical treatments for mental illness were often reflective of the particular beliefs and stigmas people had about people with mental illness. Since they were seen as evil and reprobate, harsh methods were seen as the way to deal with them.

I see new "discoveries" in "science" today as advertised in popular media that follow a consistent political and cultural theme. Particularly, the leftist secular humanist theme. I cannot bring myself to believe that the practice of science is a solely humanistic endeavor.

I find it very, very convenient that suddenly, "science" is discovering things like "gender is fluid, not static". Gay marriage, transgenderism, and perversion are rampant and are basically the state religion now (as enshrined by the Supreme Court of the country) and so I find it strange that science has been around so long, and only IN THIS decade have they "found out" that male and female categories of gender are not accurate. I wonder the same to a lesser extent about climate change, which happens to be used as a left wing bludgeon to fight conservatives over it seems to me.

I just wonder sometimes if "the science says" is sometimes just an appeal to authority when in actuality scientific data is being manipulated or not presented in its entirety to bludgeon an opponent, who is usually a conservative Christian or a person who stands for traditional living.

Darwin is being questioned today and we have to see Darwin as a product of his age, just like Thomas Jefferson was a product of his age. The general attitude towards religion, as the Enlightenment era came on, was one of hostility and solid skepticism.

In statistics there is a saying. "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." Is there a strong possibility that this is happening in modern science to push a politically weaponized Trojan horse designed to bludgeon those of a certain persuasion to death?

I'm not impressed by "99% of scientists agree that X". 90% of scientists probably highly doubt that Jesus could have ever walked on water or rose from a tomb. Their doubt doesn't make God's word untrue.

Thanks for opinions from any who are interested in science, whether believer or unbeliever. However, keep agenda driven rants to a minimum.

 

[Nithavela]

My question about group think, politics, and culture, and whether or not people who use science as a bludgeon against traditional concepts are really acting in the name of objectivity or perverse popular opinion.

In the 1950's doctors were saying that smoking is good for your health. I'm sure there was a time when bloodletting was thought to be a cure for mental illness. The commonality of these two scenarios is that they fit the popular beliefs of those eras. Smoking was acceptable and hip in the 50's. The science of the time did not oppose it. Likewise, medical treatments for mental illness were often reflective of the particular beliefs and stigmas people had about people with mental illness. Since they were seen as evil and reprobate, harsh methods were seen as the way to deal with them.

I see new "discoveries" in "science" today as advertised in popular media that follow a consistent political and cultural theme. Particularly, the leftist secular humanist theme. I cannot bring myself to believe that the practice of science is a solely humanistic endeavor.

I find it very, very convenient that suddenly, "science" is discovering things like "gender is fluid, not static". Gay marriage, transgenderism, and perversion are rampant and are basically the state religion now (as enshrined by the Supreme Court of the country) and so I find it strange that science has been around so long, and only IN THIS decade discovered that male and female categories of gender are not accurate. Same with climate change which happens to be a left wing bludgeon.

I just wonder sometimes if "the science says" is sometimes just an appeal to authority when in actuality scientific data is being manipulated or not presented in its entirety to bludgeon an opponent, who is usually a conservative Christian or a person who stands for traditional living.

Darwin is being questioned today and we have to see Darwin as a product of his age, just like Thomas Jefferson was a product of his age. The general attitude towards religion, as the Enlightenment era came on, was one of hostility.

In statistics there is a saying. "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." Is there a strong possibility that this is happening in modern science to push a politically weaponized Trojan horse designed to bludgeon those of a certain persuasion to death?

I'm not impressed by "99% of scientists agree that X". 90% of scientists probably highly doubt that Jesus could have ever walked on water or rose from a tomb. Their doubt doesn't make God's word untrue.

Thanks for opinions from any who are interested in science, whether believer or unbeliever. However, keep agenda driven rants to a minimum.

You first.

 

[pitabread]

However, keep agenda driven rants to a minimum.

Says OP after posting things like, "Gay marriage, transgenderism, and perversion are rampant and are basically the state religion now".

I guess this is a "do as I say, not as I do" type of request?

 

[Anguspure]

My question is about group think, politics, and culture, and whether or not people who use science as a bludgeon against traditional concepts are really acting in the name of objectivity or perverse popular opinion.

In the 1950's doctors were saying that smoking is good for your health. I'm sure there was a time when bloodletting was thought to be a cure for mental illness. The commonality of these two scenarios would be that they fit the popular beliefs of those eras. Smoking was acceptable and hip in the 50's. The science of the time did not oppose it. Likewise, medical treatments for mental illness were often reflective of the particular beliefs and stigmas people had about people with mental illness. Since they were seen as evil and reprobate, harsh methods were seen as the way to deal with them.

I see new "discoveries" in "science" today as advertised in popular media that follow a consistent political and cultural theme. Particularly, the leftist secular humanist theme. I cannot bring myself to believe that the practice of science is a solely humanistic endeavor.

I find it very, very convenient that suddenly, "science" is discovering things like "gender is fluid, not static". Gay marriage, transgenderism, and perversion are rampant and are basically the state religion now (as enshrined by the Supreme Court of the country) and so I find it strange that science has been around so long, and only IN THIS decade have they "found out" that male and female categories of gender are not accurate. I wonder the same to a lesser extent about climate change, which happens to be used as a left wing bludgeon to fight conservatives over it seems to me.

I just wonder sometimes if "the science says" is sometimes just an appeal to authority when in actuality scientific data is being manipulated or not presented in its entirety to bludgeon an opponent, who is usually a conservative Christian or a person who stands for traditional living.

Darwin is being questioned today and we have to see Darwin as a product of his age, just like Thomas Jefferson was a product of his age. The general attitude towards religion, as the Enlightenment era came on, was one of hostility and solid skepticism.

In statistics there is a saying. "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." Is there a strong possibility that this is happening in modern science to push a politically weaponized Trojan horse designed to bludgeon those of a certain persuasion to death?

I'm not impressed by "99% of scientists agree that X". 90% of scientists probably highly doubt that Jesus could have ever walked on water or rose from a tomb. Their doubt doesn't make God's word untrue.

Thanks for opinions from any who are interested in science, whether believer or unbeliever. However, keep agenda driven rants to a minimum.

There is the pursuit of science which is the seeking of knowledge about the natural world.
Then there is scientism that is the beleif that the naturalistic world view is the repository of all truth.
And then there is just crank, junk science, psuedoscience and propoganda.
What you are observing is the rise of the later driven by scientism, that has precious little to do with the pursuit of science.

 

[jisaiah6113]

Says OP after posting things like, "Gay marriage, transgenderism, and perversion are rampant and are basically the state religion now".

I guess this is a "do as I say, not as I do" type of request?

Am I wrong?

If I am wrong, tell me what will happen if I get on a podium here in Washington DC and forcefully declare that homosexual marriage is sinful, and transgenderism a perversion? People have been harassed just for wearing a Donald Trump hat in Virginia restaurants.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

I tend to agree with science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein that it is easy to think a conspiracy is afoot when actually all it is is collective human stupidity.

That said, most people who talk about "settled science" do so because they lack the social skills to convince other people of what they want them to do without scaring them. Unfortunately, the closer you get to mathematics on the science purity scale, the more like that it gets. I can't stand the politics of humanities people, but put strychnine in my drinking water if they don't recognize that other people have feelings.

 

[eleos1954]

My question is about group think, politics, and culture, and whether or not people who use science as a bludgeon against traditional concepts are really acting in the name of objectivity or perverse popular opinion.

In the 1950's doctors were saying that smoking is good for your health. I'm sure there was a time when bloodletting was thought to be a cure for mental illness. The commonality of these two scenarios would be that they fit the popular beliefs of those eras. Smoking was acceptable and hip in the 50's. The science of the time did not oppose it. Likewise, medical treatments for mental illness were often reflective of the particular beliefs and stigmas people had about people with mental illness. Since they were seen as evil and reprobate, harsh methods were seen as the way to deal with them.

I see new "discoveries" in "science" today as advertised in popular media that follow a consistent political and cultural theme. Particularly, the leftist secular humanist theme. I cannot bring myself to believe that the practice of science is a solely humanistic endeavor.

I find it very, very convenient that suddenly, "science" is discovering things like "gender is fluid, not static". Gay marriage, transgenderism, and perversion are rampant and are basically the state religion now (as enshrined by the Supreme Court of the country) and so I find it strange that science has been around so long, and only IN THIS decade have they "found out" that male and female categories of gender are not accurate. I wonder the same to a lesser extent about climate change, which happens to be used as a left wing bludgeon to fight conservatives over it seems to me.

I just wonder sometimes if "the science says" is sometimes just an appeal to authority when in actuality scientific data is being manipulated or not presented in its entirety to bludgeon an opponent, who is usually a conservative Christian or a person who stands for traditional living.

Darwin is being questioned today and we have to see Darwin as a product of his age, just like Thomas Jefferson was a product of his age. The general attitude towards religion, as the Enlightenment era came on, was one of hostility and solid skepticism.

In statistics there is a saying. "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." Is there a strong possibility that this is happening in modern science to push a politically weaponized Trojan horse designed to bludgeon those of a certain persuasion to death?

I'm not impressed by "99% of scientists agree that X". 90% of scientists probably highly doubt that Jesus could have ever walked on water or rose from a tomb. Their doubt doesn't make God's word untrue.

Thanks for opinions from any who are interested in science, whether believer or unbeliever. However, keep agenda driven rants to a minimum.

How about we all just live and let live.

 

[Speedwell]

Am I wrong?

If I am wrong, tell me what will happen if I get on a podium here in Washington DC and forcefully declare that homosexual marriage is sinful, and transgenderism a perversion? People have been harassed just for wearing a Donald Trump hat in Virginia restaurants.

It depends on what you think the government should do about it.

 

[jisaiah6113]

I just wonder where the scientists were when Matthew Shepard was being tied to a tree and being beaten to death for being gay, or when Freddy Mercury was diagnosed with AIDS. Why weren't "pioneering researchers" proving the fluid nature of gender 40 years ago? That all of this is "coming to light" after SCOTUS is highly suspect to me.

 

[jisaiah6113]

It depends on what you think the government should do about it.

I am going to answer truthfully. I think the government's job is to protect the peace. So if any person is causing a disturbance of society, then the government should step in to ensure there is no needless bloodshed.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I find it very, very convenient that suddenly, "science" is discovering things like "gender is fluid, not static". ... only IN THIS decade have they "found out" that male and female categories of gender are not accurate.

Cultures thousands of years ago had nonbinary genders.

"terms such as "third gender" trace back to the 1860s"

 

[dqhall]

During the 60’s I had ear infections and x-ray treatment to the tubes leading to my ears. Later 60 Minutes did a report about this increasing my risk of thyroid cancer.

After this I learned I had mercury in my dental fillings that put me at greater risk of some disorders. Some European nations banned or restricted use of mercury-silver fillings.

Studies revealed a certain class of antidepressants increased risk of dementia by 50%.

The World Health Organization declared processed meats are a Group 1 carcinogen like tobacco. Sodium nitrate was used to preserve hot dogs, ham, bacon and lunch meats. Red meat is a Group 2 carcinogen.

High intake of fats, especially saturated fat, is linked to increased risk of cardiovascular heart disease, type 2 diabetes and dementia.

 

[pitabread]

Am I wrong?

Insofar as referring to things like gay marriage as a "state religion"? Yes, yes you are.

If I am wrong, tell me what will happen if I get on a podium here in Washington DC and forcefully declare that homosexual marriage is sinful, and transgenderism a perversion?

Some people would consider you a bigot and some people would agree with you.

People have been harassed just for wearing a Donald Trump hat in Virginia restaurants.

People have been murdered for being homosexual/transgender.

 

[Speedwell]

I am going to answer truthfully. I think the government's job is to protect the peace. So if any person is causing a disturbance of society, then the government should step in to ensure there is no needless bloodshed.

Thus the government should act to insure that all citizens be treated equally, regardless of their sexual orientation or their opinions about it.

 

[Nithavela]

Thus the government should act to insure that all citizens be treated equally, regardless of their sexual orientation or their opinions about it.

The government could also kill everyone that steps out of line.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I just wonder where the scientists were when Matthew Shepard was being tied to a tree and being beaten to death for being gay, or when Freddy Mercury was diagnosed with AIDS.

Hmm, perhaps they were busy working on effective treatments for AIDS - which are now widely available and saving lives.

Why weren't "pioneering researchers" proving the fluid nature of gender 40 years ago? That all of this is "coming to light" after SCOTUS is highly suspect to me.

If everything had already been discovered and explained, there'd be no science left to do; and perhaps the increasing interest and concern over gender issues in broader society encouraged the funding of research into those areas.

 

[jisaiah6113]

...

 

[jisaiah6113]

Cultures thousands of years ago had nonbinary genders.

"terms such as "third gender" trace back to the 1860s"

Cultures hundreds of years ago also had child sacrifice and the Aztecs loved ripping hearts out of people's chests. Ancient pagan culture also featured pederasty, which was widespread enough for St Paul to condemn it as worthy of excluding a person from God's realm along with homosexuality (particularly in Greek for a man acting as a woman in bed).

 

[pitabread]

Cultures hundreds of years ago also had child sacrifice and the Aztecs used to rip human hearts out of live women to offer them to their false gods.

What does this have to do with the fact that your original claim about gender fluidity being a "new discover" when non-binary genders have been recognized in past cultures hundreds and thousands of years ago?

 

[jisaiah6113]

What does this have to do with the fact that your original claim about gender fluidity being a "new discover" when non-binary genders have been recognized in past cultures hundreds and thousands of years ago?

Homosexual and transgender lifestyles practiced and lifestyles validated by biology are two separate categories. Pederasty was widespread in the Greco Roman world, but science never weighed in on it.