A Radical Prescription

[quatona]

Something we hear frequently in this forum is that "science is descriptive, not prescriptive". So what do you guys think of this?

Scientists endorse mass civil disobedience to force climate action

I don´t consider this a scientific action. Does anyone? Did anyone claim it was?

 

[Ophiolite]

The findings of science dealing with the relevant and requisite phenomenology must be perceived vis-à-vis their continuing approximation to, and intertwining with, the essence of the spectrum of the ontological landscape, so to speak, wherein all truths, per se, create their own paradigms and therefore, ipso facto, must and/or must not be utilized in every case on a case by case basis or otherwise.

I can talk crap too, but I prefer to be honest and call it crap. (Note: one year ago crap was not on the list of vetoed words. I am using it here on the basis this is still true.)
Now do you intend to continue the avoidance tactics, or will you give a proper answer? Some might consider your avoidance to be cowardly, or provocative, or ignorant, or rude, or dumb, or insolent, or cretinous. I would just call it unseemly, unhelpful and ultimately not at all to your credit. Please desist.

 

[Resha Caner]

If your constituents are ignorant, hate-filled racist degenerates, I do hope so.

There is no expectation that a representative must break the law just because constituents advocate for it. They take an oath when entering office. Other than that, nope. They can't ignore them just because they're jerks ... though I understand you think that.

But that does lead into the role of experts. Expertise is not a rationale for dictating what government does, but it can be an effective means of persuasion. Being a jerk is a poor means of persuasion, but some people use it in other ways.

Case in point ...

I noted your penchant for just being ridiculous.
And naive.

I'm sure you get results with this approach. You may or may not realize why it produces results. Baiting can be effective if you can cause the other person to become emotional and retaliate. Their message is then lost in the resulting fracas and they fail to persuade anyone. They might even lose some credibility.

But I consider it a dishonorable way to conduct politics.

 

[redleghunter]

No, it wasn't. But thanks for admitting that you have no intention of having your lie-based beliefs corrected - you could have read or watched my links, but you seem to prefer keeping your lie-based 'reason to ignore intelligent people who say things counter to what my favorite right-wing extremist tells me to believe' intact.


Sad, and all too common these days.

Yes it was mainstream media news in the 70s.

 

[SLP]

There is no expectation that a representative must break the law just because constituents advocate for it.....

Precious - I guess you could not recognize your own antics?

I noted your penchant for just being ridiculous.
And naive.

 

[SLP]

Yes it was mainstream media news in the 70s.

Pathetic...

 

[Resha Caner]

Precious - I guess you could not recognize your own antics?

Are we changing topics? Are you asking me to discuss how I handle people who use baiting as a tactic when they can't address the content of a post?

 

[SLP]

Are we changing topics? Are you asking me to discuss how I handle people who use baiting as a tactic when they can't address the content of a post?

You and your buddy Redleghunter are quite a pair.
I noted your penchant for just being ridiculous.
And naive.

Whats to address? You want to play pretend, I see things for the way they are.
Do you really believe that Moscow Mitch will take to heart the opinions, concerns, etc. of a person that he would consider a 'leftist'?
Like I wrote - naive.

Unless you have more than one-trick, not interested in your self-righteous fantasies.

 

[Resha Caner]

Whats to address? You want to play pretend, I see things for the way they are.

I understand you take comfort in the perfection of your perceptions, but what good is it if you can't persuade others?

 

[SLP]

I understand you take comfort in the perfection of your perceptions,

.

but what good is it if you can't persuade others?

Not here to persuade anyone. Learned long ago that conservative-types are immune to persuasion, especially by reality, and particularly regarding things they hold dear.
It is naive to think that an elected official at the national, and in many cases, the state level even cares when their constituents think - that much should be clear based on polling data related to things like gun control or impeachment of the narcissistic oompa-loompa. Most seem to take their orders from lobbyists and/or their own egos/brainwashing.
I understand that. You don't seem to.

 

[SLP]

When people don't vote the way you want, stop them from voting.

Interesting.
Right Wing Launches Campaign to Bully Commission Into Voter Roll Purge

 

[Resha Caner]

It is naive to think that an elected official at the national, and in many cases, the state level even cares when their constituents think - that much should be clear based on polling data related to things like gun control or impeachment of the narcissistic oompa-loompa. Most seem to take their orders from lobbyists and/or their own egos/brainwashing.
I understand that. You don't seem to.

I am very much aware of the difference between the way government is described on paper and the way it actually works. It will only work as described on paper if those who have real power hold the government accountable to that piece of paper. In that regard, I think Noam Chomsky has some very astute insights into the power structure of American politics.

FYI, in addition to the engineering degree that annoys you so much, I also have an MA in American history. Part of my program was legal and constitutional history. Just thought you might want to have one more reason to be annoyed with me ... aside from what we're supposedly talking about. Oh, and I'm a KC fan.

Not here to persuade anyone.

No? Then why are you here?

 

[Ophiolite]

No? Then why are you here?

I do not speak for SLP, but for myself. Sometimes there just isn't anything on TV, the cat's asleep and the grandchildren are abroad.

 

[Resha Caner]

I do not speak for SLP, but for myself. Sometimes there just isn't anything on TV, the cat's asleep and the grandchildren are abroad.

Yeah, CF is a good place to go when you're bored.

 

[Chesterton]

No, we're exposing the misunderstanding at the root of the OP.

No, it's a silly distinction you're making between science and scientists. It's as if I said "bowling is fun" and you said "bowling is just inanimate objects bumping into each other. Bowling is not fun, but bowlers can have fun".

Science is prescriptive whenever scientists want it to be. Scientists often testify before policy makers. Sometimes they're just reporting findings, usually they're there as advocates for something.

 

[Chesterton]

I don´t consider this a scientific action. Does anyone? Did anyone claim it was?

Not that I know of.

 

[Chesterton]

I can talk crap too, but I prefer to be honest and call it crap. (Note: one year ago crap was not on the list of vetoed words. I am using it here on the basis this is still true.)
Now do you intend to continue the avoidance tactics, or will you give a proper answer?

Why do you keep asking? My position has not changed since the time I clearly indicated it.

Some might consider your avoidance to be cowardly, or provocative, or ignorant, or rude, or dumb, or insolent, or cretinous. I would just call it unseemly, unhelpful and ultimately not at all to your credit. Please desist.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say. If I didn't know you were such a nice guy or gal I could almost think you were trying to insult me. Anyway, FYI, the doctors have assured me my cretinism is in remission. The rest of that stuff, not so much.

 

[essentialsaltes]

No, it's a silly distinction you're making between science and scientists.

No, it isn't.

Science is prescriptive whenever scientists want it to be.

No, science is never prescriptive. This is what people mean when they say, "Science is descriptive, not prescriptive." A trivial observation that you seem unable to grasp.

Scientists often testify before policy makers. Sometimes they're just reporting findings, usually they're there as advocates for something.

How about that. Depending on the questions asked, sometimes people provide facts, sometimes they offer opinions. What an earthshaking observation.

Q: Is the climate, in general warming?
A: Yes, that is a scientific fact.
Q: Are humans responsible?
A: Yes, that's established beyond any reasonable doubt at this point.
Q: What should we do?
A: Well, scientifically speaking... if we don't do anything, things will be bad. If we do something, the problem can be mitigated.
Q: STOP WAFFLING! What should we do?
A: Well, on the whole, I think we should do something. This is not a scientific result. Science does not provide values. But I, as a human being, can differentiate between a bad outcome and a not so bad outcome. I prefer the not so bad outcome.

 

[Ophiolite]

Why do you keep asking? My position has not changed since the time I clearly indicated it.

You insisted I was mistaken in my understanding of the your clearly indicated position. That means it is nowhere near as clear as you think or claim. So cut the trolling, provocative, goading nonsense and state - without equivocation - what your position is.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say. If I didn't know you were such a nice guy or gal I could almost think you were trying to insult me. Anyway, FYI, the doctors have assured me my cretinism is in remission. The rest of that stuff, not so much.

Be assured if I intended to insult you, you would be in no doubt that you had been insulted. Let me clarify my observation: your behaviour is rude and discourteous. This is a discussion forum, not a "let me obfuscate, provoke, prevaricate and equivocate forum", all practices in which you seem to enjoy indulging.

 

[quatona]

Not that I know of.

Then there is no conflict. Science is and remains descriptive quite fine.