Anti intellectualism directed against science.

Diamond7 said:

Then why do you keep asking me questions if you do not want answers?

Click to expand...

If you quoted the whole of my post (just a few more words) it would be obvious why I responded to you.

Hans Blaster said:

If you quoted the whole of my post (just a few more words) it would be obvious why I responded to you.

Click to expand...

You said: "Rejecting the scientific research on gender to maintain an ideological position is an anti-intellectual attack on science." Nonsense, first science has to make an intellectual comment on gender. They have failed to do that. Other than to say we reproduce in this way to recombine the genes and create a natural selection. I think the answer goes beyond this. In general, we are not good at examining ourselves and trying to figure out what goes on in the brain. Science does not even know where memory is stored. It could be stored in our atoms to where you could cremate someone and their memory could still be preserved. Of course, as we get older our memory becomes more difficult to access. But it is still there. My dad could remember what he ate for lunch when he was 12 years old, but he forgot what he did for lunch today.

If you want to get started about the atrocities of Science there are people who would love to jump on that.

Hans Blaster said:

Science doesn't investigate gods.

Click to expand...

Never said they did. I said the scientific method can be used to show that the Bible is true. A hundred million times I could show you the Bible is true and you cannot show even ONCE where the Bible is not accurate or true. I can put all the grains of beach sand on my side of the scale and you cannot even put one grain on your side. I can put all the grains of rice in the world on my side of the scale. You cannot even put one grain on your side.

Let us begin with the first word in the Hebrew Bible: Beginning. Is there or is there not a beginning? Did your life have a beginning? Did today have a beginning?

Diamond7 said:

Never said they did. I said the scientific method can be used to show that the Bible is true. A hundred million times I could show you the Bible is true and you cannot show even ONCE where the Bible is not accurate or true. I can put all the grains of beach sand on my side of the scale and you cannot even put one grain on your side. I can put all the grains of rice in the world on my side of the scale. You cannot even put one grain on your side.

Click to expand...

Most of the bible doesn't have anything to do with science, for or against. Science is not a tool that can prove the order of the patriarchs or tell us how many times the Peter heard the rooster crow. (Or if he even denied Jesus).

The one place where you've really tried is the story of Noah's flood, but you've been all over for that. First it's a global flood, then it's just in Mesopotemia, but there are 7 actual global floods that occur earlier, which their weren't, and so at least one becomes an ice age (which is not a flood), and finally the Flood migrates to the bottom of the Arabian Sea filling back up when the ice sheets melted. It's a giant mess with no consistency in the way you present it.

Diamond7 said:

Let us begin with the first word in the Hebrew Bible: Beginning. Is there or is there not a beginning?

Click to expand...

Beginning of what? The "beginning" in the bible is this one:

"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters."

The "beginning" includes an earth, waters, and heavens. If "the beginning" is a moment, then the newly created earth and heavens (universe?) come into existence at once. This is demonstrably not true. The Universe is 13.7 billion years old the Earth 4.5 billion years old. Both can be empirically measured.

Diamond7 said:

Did your life have a beginning?

Click to expand...

I am not described in the Bible.

Diamond7 said:

Did today have a beginning?

Click to expand...

Today is not mentioned in the bible.


That things have "beginnings" is *NOT* the claim made in Gen 1, it is about the whole of the earth and "the heavens". Showing that Superbowl XXVI had a "beginning" doesn't "prove" the "beginning" claim at the start of the bible.

Diamond7 said:

You said: "Rejecting the scientific research on gender to maintain an ideological position is an anti-intellectual attack on science." Nonsense, first science has to make an intellectual comment on gender. They have failed to do that. Other than to say we reproduce in this way to recombine the genes and create a natural selection. I think the answer goes beyond this. In general, we are not good at examining ourselves and trying to figure out what goes on in the brain. Science does not even know where memory is stored. It could be stored in our atoms to where you could cremate someone and their memory could still be preserved. Of course, as we get older our memory becomes more difficult to access. But it is still there. My dad could remember what he ate for lunch when he was 12 years old, but he forgot what he did for lunch today.

Click to expand...

There most certainly is scientific study of gender identity, sexuality, etc. It is not my field of expertise, so I do not know the literature or good sources to point you to. (Given some things about this site, those sources might be verboten here anyway.) This would actually be a good place for you to have a conversation with your chatbot friend. Perhaps you could as it a question like "Tell me about the scientific study of gender identity." You might find that there actually is science behind our understanding of that topic (at least the non-dogmatic understanding). After that we can see if you want to reject the scientific understanding or do the non-anti-intellectual thing.

Hans Blaster said:

There are two kinds of CRT. Neither has anything to do with science.

The original, which I'll call "academic-CRT" is a study of legal and economic impacts of policies and laws by race, particularly on unintended consequences that are racially imbalanced. It has nothing to do with science.

The newer version, which I call "Rufo-CRT" after it's "inventor", is a grab bag of white grievance politics about race, particularly the teaching of history of race relations in the US. It has nothing to do with science.


Even if you claims are true about CRT and post-modernism, it still has nothing to do with science. It is not a form of anti-intellectualism directed at science.

Click to expand...

It is when proponents of CRT claim that race is a social construct like sex is a scientific fact. CRT makes a number of claims that they say are based on fact like everyone and all instituitions are inherently racist. To make the ideology seem legit to be able to enforce it on society incluedng eeducation they have to claim fake facts. It seems to be working as CRT unederpins areas from history, sociology, psychology and even the STEM fields.

Hans Blaster said:

I'm not sure what any of that is supposed to mean, but I dig your crack at religious belief.

Click to expand...

Lol I thought that would go down well. The point was you can tell ideologies by their narrow view of the worled and how this view is claimed as a truth that everyone should follow. Any position that claims this is how things should be and how we should think is dangerous and anti-intellectual. In its extreme version it becomes totalitarian and we have seen what happens then. That is why many opponents mention freedom of speech and thinking which are the fundemental tenets and long heled truths of western thinking.

Hans Blaster said:

You've mistaken volume of noise for importance and impact.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean.

Hans Blaster said:

The American mainstream has been anti-intellectual for a very long time. Not even sure what "western white thinking" is as I am not race obsessed.

Click to expand...

Its also known as colonialism, or Eurocentric, White priviledge. Basicall white Europeans especially males are usually the target of these ideologies because they represent what is percieved as an oppressive regime that imposed a certain way of thinking on everyone especially minorities. Therefore the colonialist system must be torn down and replaced by the new utopian ideological way of thinking. Its usually Marxist based in that its a power struggle between minorities and those in power. Except instead of the working class and the elites they have extended this oppressor and victim idea to race and gender.

I am interested in when you think this anti-intellectualism started. I think it began around the mid 20th century with the cultural revolutions especially in the universities when they became more political. I know we have had periods in the past such as when the church ruled which was anti intellectual in that belief influenced how people seen the world. But we moved away from that into Enlightened thinking and the scientific revolution. Now it seems we are regressing back to allowing beliefs to dictate thinking with these ideologies becoming more prominent.

Hans Blaster said:

Your paranoia is showing.

Click to expand...

I think its real and so do many people. Its not just imaginary as the studies and research has been done. The fact that most people agree theres a culture war going on supports this. We here it just about every eday. White priviledge is the new catchcry useed for just about every injustice. We have had protests and even riots. Its really happening.

Hans Blaster said:

It *is* almost entirely social construct with just a tiny veneer of a few phenotypes.

Click to expand...

There is a lot about race that can be traced back to genetics and biology. For example there are genetics markers for skin color, disease propensity/resistance, facial proportions, distribution of sweat glands, hair color ect.

But this is no different to sex. There are aspects of sex that can be socially determined like gender. Gender is partly socially constructed such as degrees of mascullinity and feminine traits and behaviour.

But the point is there is some biological and genetic basis which is an important consideration in how we understaned human behaviour. But what ideologues do is they deny the biology and genetics completely and take a one sided view which is why its a belief and not science. Its a limited view to protect the belief and not an open and free thinking approach that considers all the factors. Thats why its anti-intellectual.

stevevw said:

It is when proponents of CRT claim that race is a social construct like sex is a scientific fact. CRT makes a number of claims that they say are based on fact like everyone and all instituitions are inherently racist. To make the ideology seem legit to be able to enforce it on society incluedng eeducation they have to claim fake facts. It seems to be working as CRT unederpins areas from history, sociology, psychology and even the STEM fields.

Click to expand...

You are making far more of "CRT" than it really is. You are also scrambling the academic CRT with a bunch of completely unrelated things. CRT (in any form) does not underpin history, sociology, or psyschology, and certainly not any STEM field.

stevevw said:

Lol I thought that would go down well. The point was you can tell ideologies by their narrow view of the worled and how this view is claimed as a truth that everyone should follow. Any position that claims this is how things should be and how we should think is dangerous and anti-intellectual. In its extreme version it becomes totalitarian and we have seen what happens then. That is why many opponents mention freedom of speech and thinking which are the fundemental tenets and long heled truths of western thinking.

Click to expand...

This makes no sense.

stevevw said:

Not sure what you mean.

Click to expand...

You are giving "CRT" more space in your head than it deserves. making it more imporant than even it's advocates propose.

stevevw said:

Its also known as colonialism, or Eurocentric, White priviledge. Basicall white Europeans especially males are usually the target of these ideologies because they represent what is percieved as an oppressive regime that imposed a certain way of thinking on everyone especially minorities. Therefore the colonialist system must be torn down and replaced by the new utopian ideological way of thinking. Its usually Marxist based in that its a power struggle between minorities and those in power. Except instead of the working class and the elites they have extended this oppressor and victim idea to race and gender.

Click to expand...

If you think this kind of thinking has any traction in science, you are wrong.

stevevw said:

I am interested in when you think this anti-intellectualism started. I think it began around the mid 20th century with the cultural revolutions especially in the universities when they became more political. I know we have had periods in the past such as when the church ruled which was anti intellectual in that belief influenced how people seen the world. But we moved away from that into Enlightened thinking and the scientific revolution. Now it seems we are regressing back to allowing beliefs to dictate thinking with these ideologies becoming more prominent.

Click to expand...

I once bought a book on the history of anti-intellectualism in America, but I now realize I never read it. (It's somewhere on my book pile.) So, I guess I'll have to make an educated guess: the Great Awakening.

stevevw said:

I think its real and so do many people. Its not just imaginary as the studies and research has been done. The fact that most people agree theres a culture war going on supports this. We here it just about every eday. White priviledge is the new catchcry useed for just about every injustice. We have had protests and even riots. Its really happening.

There is a lot about race that can be traced back to genetics and biology. For example there are genetics markers for skin color, disease propensity/resistance, facial proportions, distribution of sweat glands, hair color ect.

Click to expand...

Again, all superficial phenotypes. Tell me how does one determine who is "white" in America today? In 1950? In 1900? In 1850? Answer that question and you will know now mostly cultural race is.

stevevw said:

But this is no different to sex. There are aspects of sex that can be socially determined like gender. Gender is partly socially constructed such as degrees of mascullinity and feminine traits and behaviour.

But the point is there is some biological and genetic basis which is an important consideration in how we understaned human behaviour. But what ideologues do is they deny the biology and genetics completely and take a one sided view which is why its a belief and not science. Its a limited view to protect the belief and not an open and free thinking approach that considers all the factors. Thats why its anti-intellectual.

Click to expand...

Who says we should ignore biology and genetics in gender?

Hans Blaster said:

I do not know the literature or good sources to point you to.

Click to expand...

I love irony because the chatbot you hate can do exactly that. It can do what you can not do.

Hans Blaster said:

I now realize I never read it.

Click to expand...

I have bought lots of books I never read because they are a waste of time. They should be reduced to a magazine article. If the author even knows what he is talking about at all, which is rare. Readers digest use to condense the books down. Now we can do that with a chatbot. If we want more information, ask for more. If we want less tell the chatbot to condense the information. We can set the level anywhere from preschool to Ph.D. Then we can be amazed when PhD's do not understand a chatbot set at preschool levels. Used to be we would struggle to get them into the third grade. Now we struggle to get them to pass a preschool readiness test.

I am the same way, so I do not have room to be throwing stones at others. My aunt had a Ph.D in Sociology and told me I function a lot better at a graduate level than I do at an undergraduate level. She taught at Boston University. My brother taught at John Hopkins. When she retired, she worked with the students on their dissertations.

I understand your disdain for chatbots, but like it or not, your job is to teach people how to use it.

Diamond7 said:

I understand your disdain for chatbots, but like it or not, your job is to teach people how to use it.

Click to expand...

No, my job is not to teach people how to use chatbots. It is to do physics.

Hans Blaster said:

No, my job is not to teach people how to use chatbots. It is to do physics.

Click to expand...

Because I studied theater and lighting, that is what I studied in Physics. I had a friend who was doing stained glass and was having trouble getting the results he wanted. I had to explain to him the difference between the additive color theory and the subtractive color theory.

Interesting that this is a theory and not fact. Even though this is how our eyes work. This is how photography works. We can not function in the real world if we do not understand how to work with light. There is a medical eye doctor who became a photographer. He does underwater photography. You can see his work in commercials on TV sometimes. Because he has mastered dealing with the way light is affected by water.

In astrophysics, Neil Degrasse believes that the study of light and its behavior can help us to understand the nature of matter and energy, the structure of the universe, and the way that objects move through space.

We know that the Bible makes numerous references to light, both in a literal and metaphorical sense. But for some reason, you want to disregard the Bible and what the Bible tells us about the physics of light. The Bible uses the symbol of light to convey a variety of meanings, including physical illumination, spiritual guidance, and moral truth.

You want to work with "ambivalent light". That is fine to create an effect, but I would not want to live there the way you do because there is so much more to life than that.

The challenge of working with ambivalent light are the subtleties of this type of lighting can be difficult to capture accurately with a camera, and may require careful adjustments to exposure, white balance, and other settings in order to achieve the desired effect.

The results may not be as eye-catching or attention-grabbing as brighter or more dramatic lighting. It is difficult to create images that are visually striking and memorable using ambivalent light.

But if you're happy and content with the mediocre, then carry on.

Diamond7 said:

Because I studied theater and lighting, that is what I studied in Physics.

Click to expand...

You studied theater lighting, not physics.

Diamond7 said:

In astrophysics, Neil Degrasse believes...

Click to expand...

who?

Diamond7 said:

But if you're happy and content with the mediocre, then carry on.

Click to expand...

You are insufferable aren't you?

Hans Blaster said:

You are insufferable aren't you?

Click to expand...

That is the way I was taught. We want people to remember Bible truth so we teach in a way that they will remember. Jesus was the greatest teacher that ever lived. Even if we just study the sermon on the mount. So we try to learn from Jesus how to teach. Remember when He said: "“If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole ... Matthew 5:30

He repeats Himself three times and not just once. This leaves you with an image that is pretty much impossible to get rid of. Even though the real offense is not for us to stumble, but for us to cause others to stumble. God can forgive us when we sin. The problem is when we cause others to sin.

If you are ambiguous, then you are harmless and people will not remember what you say. In one ear, out the other. I said something to my wife once and it was 10 years later she figured out what I told her. Look at the Bible. 6000 years and people are still trying to figure it out. Just what was that tree, just what was the forbidden fruit that cause all of this mess that the world is in?

Also my dad and my brothers, all being doctors, they are pretty aggressive. Just to get their education. I had to learn how to survive and they understand that.

Hans Blaster said:

You studied theater lighting, not physics.

Click to expand...

The additive and subtractive color theories are based on the physics of light and color. Everything has color, but the color is in the light. Objects have the ability to absorb or reflect light. In theater, we filter the light.

Hans Blaster said:

who?

Click to expand...

Neil Degrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist #1 on the New York Times bestseller list.

Diamond7 said:

I love irony because the chatbot you hate can do exactly that.

Click to expand...

If you think current chatbots are good at pointing to valid sources of information you really don't understand chatbots.

Diamond7 said:

Neil Degrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist #1 on the New York Times bestseller list.

Click to expand...

Why do you keep omitting his surname when talking about him then?

stevevw said:

It is when proponents of CRT claim that race is a social construct

Click to expand...

It's anthropologists and geneticists who claim that race is a social construct.

As a quick test of the most popular chatbot, ChatGPT, I asked it one question about my own research: 'What studies has Stephen Schaffner published about positive selection in malaria?'
It responded with four papers:

Stephen Schaffner has published several studies about positive selection in malaria. Here are some of his most notable publications:

1. "Positive selection of Plasmodium falciparum parasites with multiple var2csa-type PfEMP1 genes during the course of infection in pregnant women" (2018). This study examined how the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum adapts during pregnancy to infect the placenta. The authors found that the parasite undergoes positive selection for genes that encode a protein called PfEMP1, which helps the parasite bind to placental cells.
2. "Positive selection on Plasmodium falciparum surface antigens drives adaptation to new and variable environments" (2019). This study looked at how the malaria parasite adapts to different environments by analyzing the genetic diversity of surface antigens. The authors found that positive selection was a major driver of adaptation in these genes.
3. "A framework for variation discovery and genotyping using next-generation DNA sequencing data" (2011). Although not directly related to positive selection in malaria, this paper describes a tool called GATK (Genome Analysis Toolkit) that is widely used in genomic research, including in studies of malaria.
4. "Genetic diversity and protective efficacy of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine" (2015). This study evaluated the genetic diversity of the malaria parasite after vaccination with the RTS,S/AS01 vaccine, which targets the circumsporozoite protein. The authors found that the vaccine did not induce positive selection for escape mutants, indicating that it is unlikely to lead to vaccine resistance.

Click to expand...

The first study is real but was published in 2011, not 2018. I had nothing to do with it. The second study seems to be a complete fabrication. The third and fourth studies are real and have the correct dates, but I again had nothing to do with them, although they were by colleagues of mine. The last sentence of the summary of the fourth paper is exactly wrong.

Hans Blaster said:

Why do you keep omitting his surname when talking about him then?

Click to expand...

Just lazy. When you say Musk people know who you mean. If you say Tyson they think of chicken legs.