Anyone notice that many people are scientifically illiterate

[Bradskii]

I've never read anything from Tour. I've never heard of him.

But what did he do to fill in the gaps?

I don't see the point of being involved in a thread if you don't read the posts. Quite a few have been discussing him over the last few hours...

 

[dlamberth]

I regularly hear from Professor James Tour, a leader in microbiology, ...

Googling Tour, Wiki says that he is a Chemist and nanotechnologist. It looks like he's done some pretty interesting stuff in those field. But unless I'm messing something, I'm not seeing anything about Tour being a microbiologist, let alone a leader in the field.

Wiki link: James Tour - Wikipedia

 

[Divide]

I don't see the point of being involved in a thread if you don't read the posts. Quite a few have been discussing him over the last few hours...

This thread is moving pretty fast. Sorry I missed it.

 

[sjastro]

It's ironic that many of the most influential scientists in the last 1,000 years were Christian. Isaac Newton did explain gravity. Somewhere around AD 725, the Christian monk Bede described the earth as an orb. Evolution is still a theory that cannot be proven.

(1) Issac Newton was into Arianism which was declared heretical by the Church in the 4th century AD.
He therefore doesn't qualify as a model Christian in your example.
(2) By the 5th century BC, a spherical earth was largely accepted by the ancient Greeks, Bede was over a thousand years too late to be described as a trailblazer.
(3) Scientific theories are never proven only supported by evidence.

 

[Aussie Pete]

(1) Issac Newton was into Arianism which was declared heretical by the Church in the 4th century AD.
He therefore doesn't qualify as a model Christian in your example.
(2) By the 5th century BC, a spherical earth was largely accepted by the ancient Greeks, Bede was over a thousand years too late to be described as a trailblazer.
(3) Scientific theories are never proven only supported by evidence.

Whatever Newton's brand of Christianity, he called the Bible God's word. My reference to Bede was in response to the cartoon. If science consists only of theories, why is does it generate so much hatred and/or contempt for those who propose different theories? I've had many discussions with the proponents of evolution. The usual response is smug contempt. Yeah, evolution remains a theory - in theory. In practice, it is taken as read that it is as good as proven.

What gets my back up is that no one will accept the logical human consequences if evolution is true. That's not always been the case. Hitler's "racial purity" is evolution based. The same goes for the denigration of blacks, who were considered not as far down the evolutionary tree as white people. That's how many justified enslaving blacks. If we are evolved, then morality has no meaning. Fair and unfair, right and wrong are meaningless. All we have is different paths of evolution. The drug dealer is no different from those who research cancer treatments. Hamas is no different from the Red Cross and Hitler was no worse than Ghandi.

When scientists admit that they do not know for sure and that so called Creationism is equally a theory, I'll have some respect for evolution's proponents. Non-scientists are not so much to blame. They are deceived by the false claims that evolutionary scientists make. Since schools generally do not teach both sides of the story, many never hear the creationist point of view. I was extremely fortunate. I was taught both possibilities in a secular school. I was raised by an atheist father who was hostile to all things Christian. So no, I'm not from a Christian home.

 

[Astrid]

Whatever Newton's brand of Christianity, he called the Bible God's word. My reference to Bede was in response to the cartoon. If science consists only of theories, why is does it generate so much hatred and/or contempt for those who propose different theories? I've had many discussions with the proponents of evolution. The usual response is smug contempt. Yeah, evolution remains a theory - in theory. In practice, it is taken as read that it is as good as proven.

What gets my back up is that no one will accept the logical human consequences if evolution is true. That's not always been the case. Hitler's "racial purity" is evolution based. The same goes for the denigration of blacks, who were considered not as far down the evolutionary tree as white people. That's how many justified enslaving blacks. If we are evolved, then morality has no meaning. Fair and unfair, right and wrong are meaningless. All we have is different paths of evolution. The drug dealer is no different from those who research cancer treatments. Hamas is no different from the Red Cross and Hitler was no worse than Ghandi.

When scientists admit that they do not know for sure and that so called Creationism is equally a theory, I'll have some respect for evolution's proponents. Non-scientists are not so much to blame. They are deceived by the false claims that evolutionary scientists make. Since schools generally do not teach both sides of the story, many never hear the creationist point of view. I was extremely fortunate. I was taught both possibilities in a secular school. I was raised by an atheist father who was hostile to all things Christian. So no, I'm not from a Christian home.

Taught, but did you learn ?

You keep talking about proving theories.

 

[Astrid]

You may not of said it, but the thought is out there. I've heard it voiced occasionally be people bewilder by what they are hearing.

The point I was hoping to look at is the denial of what the Earth and Cosmos are showing us. Some, as we have even seen here, go so far as to say that what "science" is showing us about the Earth, it's long history for instance, that the scientist are sucked into and teaching a lie spawned by Satan. That's a pretty big disconnect that makes me consider the scientific ignorance argument as a valid perspective.

"MAY NOT" have said it???

Leaving open that maybe I did.

You know perfectly well I didnt.

How about some direct honesty, admit you
are wrong and take back the succurrilous claims,
instead of excusing them.

 

[dlamberth]

"MAY NOT" have said it???

Leaving open that maybe I did.

You know perfectly well I didnt.

How about some direct honesty, admit you
are wrong and take back the succurrilous claims,
instead of excusing them.

I'm not attacking you. You didn't say it. My apologies. I was wrong to write that bit.

 

[Astrid]

I'm not attacking you. You didn't say it. My apologies. I was wrong to write that bit.

Thank you. That's better.

There was another post here attacking
me for hatred and bitterness, for claiming
Chinese are " better", whatever all. Totally made up.


I see it vanished, so I wont respond.


It's just, I get enough heat for who I really
am, how i really think, what i actually say,
I dont need people making things up.

Nor does nothing for the general quality of the forum.

 

[Bradskii]

What gets my back up is that no one will accept the logical human consequences if evolution is true. That's not always been the case. Hitler's "racial purity" is evolution based. The same goes for the denigration of blacks, who were considered not as far down the evolutionary tree as white people. That's how many justified enslaving blacks. If we are evolved, then morality has no meaning. Fair and unfair, right and wrong are meaningless. All we have is different paths of evolution. The drug dealer is no different from those who research cancer treatments. Hamas is no different from the Red Cross and Hitler was no worse than Ghandi.

We didn't need proof of the proposal within the op title. But thanks anyway.

 

[sjastro]

Whatever Newton's brand of Christianity, he called the Bible God's word. My reference to Bede was in response to the cartoon. If science consists only of theories, why is does it generate so much hatred and/or contempt for those who propose different theories? I've had many discussions with the proponents of evolution. The usual response is smug contempt. Yeah, evolution remains a theory - in theory. In practice, it is taken as read that it is as good as proven.

What gets my back up is that no one will accept the logical human consequences if evolution is true. That's not always been the case. Hitler's "racial purity" is evolution based. The same goes for the denigration of blacks, who were considered not as far down the evolutionary tree as white people. That's how many justified enslaving blacks. If we are evolved, then morality has no meaning. Fair and unfair, right and wrong are meaningless. All we have is different paths of evolution. The drug dealer is no different from those who research cancer treatments. Hamas is no different from the Red Cross and Hitler was no worse than Ghandi.

When scientists admit that they do not know for sure and that so called Creationism is equally a theory, I'll have some respect for evolution's proponents. Non-scientists are not so much to blame. They are deceived by the false claims that evolutionary scientists make. Since schools generally do not teach both sides of the story, many never hear the creationist point of view. I was extremely fortunate. I was taught both possibilities in a secular school. I was raised by an atheist father who was hostile to all things Christian. So no, I'm not from a Christian home.

You missed the point of the cartoons; there are individuals participating in this very thread which the cartoons describe to a tee.

Since you have a bugbear about evolution being the root of all evil, then by your logic evolution must be true as the history of the human race is punctuated by events where morality has no meaning such as racism and genocide.
The reality is evolution like religion has been used as a justification; do you think the slaughter and enslavement of indigenous Indians during of the Spanish conquest and settlement of Central and South America was the result of the theory of evolution?
Apart from the fact colonialization began over three hundred years before the theory of evolution even existed, its justification falls on squarely on religion as the Papacy gave the green light for European expansion into the Americas as indigenous peoples were in need of “conversion”.
Another example is the Bible being used as a justification for slavery.

As far as mainstream science generating so much hatred and/or contempt for those who propose different theories does this include the threat of physical violence or in the case of females being threatened with rape and murder?
This is what mainstream scientists particularly in the field of climate science have had to contend with and it is the scientists that are the victims of not the perpetrators of hatred.
This behaviour is based on anti-intellectualism which was discussed in this thread.

 

[Valletta]

Why did so many people die during Hurricane Katrina. It was not the Hurricane, it as the levies breaking. It was bad Engendering. The Romans build bridges across rivers that exist today and we have bridges built across much smaller bodies of water that collapse. Climate Change...over 90% of scientist believe it to be real but many people say the 90% are all liars. A member of the U.S. senate held a snow ball in his hand as proof of Global Warming being fake. Or its real but were not making it speed up. When a disaster is coming people run, a scientist looks for a solution. Global warming is real, Storms are increasing number and in strength, famine and drought are at a all time high, were speeding up the process, the polar Ice is melting, at the speed its melting all costal cities will be under water in 100 years. What are all the people who say its fake gonna say then...oh wait nothing they will be dead and the mess will be left for our grandkids and there kids to fix. I am not a scientist, I got a C in biology but I can read and listen to the words of many of the most intelligent men and woman today and I supposed to ignore them and listen to senator who holds snowball in his hand.

The "climate change" movement has become more of a religion and/or political movement than science. The "global warming" alarmists' predictions were so far off that they had to change the name to "climate change." Of course, the climate changes, so all scientists should believe in climate change. But the truth is that no one knows what percent man might contribute to warming. Is it one percent or a tenth of a percent? If you believe a disaster is imminent, I urge you to hold your leaders on the left accountable. Tell John Kerry to take the bus. Tell Kamala to quit cooking on her gas stove. Tell Al Gore to quit buying up ocean front property and to turn his lights off. These people need to lead by example. Tell Joe to demand that China matches the pollution standards here in the United States.

Green madness: You’d have to burn a pizza stove 849 years to equal one year of John Kerry’s private jet

New Yorkers are once again suffering at the hands of the unelected food police in the name of public health and climate change.

nypost.com

 

[Bradskii]

But the truth is that no one knows what percent man might contribute to warming.

We don't? I think we do.

'Calculations using climate models have been used to simulate what would have happened to global temperatures if only natural factors were influencing the climate system. These simulations yield little surface warming, or even a slight cooling, over the 20th century and into the 21st. Only when models include human influences on the composition of the atmosphere are the resulting temperature changes consistent with observed changes.' 2. How do scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities? | Royal Society.

You could have looked that up yourself.

If you believe a disaster is imminent, I urge you to hold your leaders on the left accountable. Tell John Kerry to take the bus. Tell Kamala to quit cooking on her gas stove. Tell Al Gore to quit buying up ocean front property and to turn his lights off.

Take the bus, John. Kamala, go electric. Al, turn those lights off! I mean gee, I'm doing my bit. I want you guys to do yours.

There ya go.

 

[Blaise N]

Yes it’s shameful,so many younger people today have never taken the time to study and learn all sorts of wonders sciences bring. It’s sad,very sad.I from a young age was fascinated with nature.more specifically botany, entomology, marine biology, etc, I never was into children’s books,in 3rd grade when everyone was reading Harry Potter and fantasy books, I was reading about Easter island and African animals and watching the crocodile Hunter and Big Cat diaries.

 

[sjastro]

As far as mainstream science generating so much hatred and/or contempt for those who propose different theories does this include the threat of physical violence or in the case of females being threatened with rape and murder?
This is what mainstream scientists particularly in the field of climate science have had to contend with and it is the scientists that are the victims of not the perpetrators of hatred.
This behaviour is based on anti-intellectualism which was discussed in this thread.

Here are three examples from mainstream scientists I have had contact with over the years where one can have a respectful conversation and do not fit the stereotype of perpetrating much hatred and/or contempt for those who propose different theories.
While not subjected to extreme cases such as death threats each gave an account of their own experiences.

The astrophysicist Dr Brian Koberlein.

Brian Koberlein,

Steven,

Yeah, anti-intellectualism is high here in the states as well. Climate change, vaccines, evolution, etc. I’ve even gotten threatening emails just for saying the Earth is round. There’s a long way we need to go to change things.

The physicist Professor Christopher Berry.

Christopher Berry,

Hello,

I would say no particular anti-intellectualism in response to my professional activities. There is some hostility around gravitational waves from various flat-earth-related groups, but I have mostly avoided that. Talking about discrimination in science or society (say sexism or racism) typically draws more of a negative response on social. Even just posting for International Women In Science Day with no comment about sexism will draw criticism.

What is perhaps more common, is people with pet theories expecting large amounts of time. Say read long text, select a course of reading material, explain misconceptions, etc. All these are part of an academic's job, but can take many, many hours, which isn't feasible when we have students and our own projects to look after. Some people have nice FAQs on this topic (Katie Mack and Emily Lakdawalla I think may be good examples if I remember correctly). People are generally OK if you explain that you don't have time, but sometimes they just think you're being rude, which does cause aggravation.

Regards,

Christopher

The Egyptologist Dr Chris Naunton.

Chris Naunton,

Hi Steven,

In short, no I haven’t had any issues specifically from conservative Christians. It seems inevitable in the age of social media and ready access to academics that there will be people who take issue with the expression of established interpretations. I try to answer all such criticisms but have come to learn that reasoned debate is not often what such correspondents are interested in! Like Prof Berry below, I often get asked to read things, answer questions etc and, like him, am happy to do what I can but I can’t give endless time to it. I feel able to manage it all effectively enough, and I should say that the vast majority of messages, comments etc that I get are very reasonable and often very interesting - all part of a healthy debate!

Best wishes,

Chris

 

[USincognito]

That's why they are willing to lie. If they fall in line, they get funded. If they wot fall in line then they wont get funded. They have families too and want to feed them so they prolly think, so what if its lies. As long as me and my family has what they need who cares what they say, I just want my job without waves.

What a bizarre, conspiratorial world some of us live in. The fantasy of lying scientists driving to work in champagne powered Ferraris is particularly humorous.

Lies don't produce results and scientists don't get paid unless they produce results.

 

[USincognito]

It's obviously a money and control scam. When you ask a question of "scientists" like ..... If we spend 1 trillion dollars to combat "climate change" .... how will we know how much we have extended the expected life of the planet? They have no answers .... because they don't know.

Probably because climate change and the life of the planet have nothing to do with each other. The earth is going to chug along around the sun for another 5 billion years regardless of what we do about climate change.

Fun fact - whether a practical solution to global warming costs a penny or a gazillion bucks has no bearing on whether it's happening or not.

 

[USincognito]

So true, The big lie.

Big tin foil.

It's amazing how science had forgotten about natural immunity, especially during covid.

What an ironic way to demonstrate the gist of the OP. There was no natural immunity to Covid. It was a new disease. the only way you get natural immunity is by getting and surviving the disease*. Given that it was killing a 9/11 worth of people every single day for a while, it's a good thing the vaccine became available as fast as it did.

* The problem being the numerous symptoms associated with long Covid.

I told my kid's when anyone tries to fear you into doing something look into it because they have an agenda.

More irony since that applies to the the opposite (telling people not to do something) as well.

I'm glad they listened because young people are dying at a higher rate after covid.

Do you mean after Covid or after the vaccine because I don't believe either is true.

 

[USincognito]

It is not that people are scientifically illiterate... we just don't believe them.

More often than not, it's both.

They and people like them have been predicting the world's end for several decades.

The only people predicting an immanent end to the world are Christians an Muslims who focus on eschatology. The dire climate predictions have been about life as we know it, not the earth itself.

We were all supposed to be under the water 20 years ago due to melting ice caps.

Literally no one ever predicted that the earth would be completely covered by water. No one predicted coastal areas would have been inundated by 2003.

Many people think this is just a political ploy. A power thing. Fear-mongering for profit. Some think it is all about money. Now, people are saying men can be women and even have babies. 57 pronouns. People's jobs are being threatened over it. Where is science in this? Why are they being relatively silent on this subject? They are acting untrustworthy, so don't be surprised if people do not trust them. The reality of scientific fact should not be altered for political correctness. Get back to the facts of science. Until then, they are just hacks.

Conspiracy mongering and political grievance that has nothing to do with the science supporting global warming.

 

[USincognito]

The science advocates being data. The other folks bring memes and cartoons.