How do we create a willing ear?

[TLK Valentine]

Transition is not what it seems.

Conservativism is not what it used to be... or claims to be.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So they became the reactionaries of an era now fading away?

Precisely. The world is changing -- into what, they don't know... and that frightens them.

So much, in fact, that they wish to retreat into the mythical "good old days," forgetting (or perhaps because) if you weren't a white, straight, Christian male, those days weren't that good...

What has replaced that era of the left the right now occupies?

What are you going on about? Eras end and get replaced. The world is always changing.

 

[timothyu]

The problem the more central liberal and conservatives are making for themselves is the desire to keep their respective tents large enough to include their extremists...in order to remain in office.

That would apply to all. Yet in focusing on the bottom feeders attention is drawn away from those at the top who fund all sides and cares less who wins.

 

[timothyu]

Conservativism is not what it used to be... or claims to be.

True, It is now the 'left' of the boomer age.

 

[Gottservant]

Wasn't it one of Solomon's proverbs, that said:

among many councilors, there is surety

??

 

[TLK Valentine]

True, It is now the 'left' of the boomer age.

While their "right" stumbles towards totalitarianism.

 

[Hazelelponi]

This thread is slightly inspired –or is at least becoming more urgent due to Pitabread’s thread about the dangers of creationism.

Creationism is but the tip of the iceberg in terms of science denial. You have climate change denial, antivaxxers, body positivity movement that slides into denial of any health consequence of obesity. In the nineties of the previous century I remember people denying or mocking the existence of the ozone depletion above the Antarctic.

When the Obamas (especially Michelle Obama) launched a campaign for healthy nutrition for children there was a huge backlash. Somehow it is bad to care for healthy food for children. The argument? “Unelected experts don’t know what my kid needs”. Well, no. That’s exactly the very definition of being an expert. Someone who knows better.


And here we are at the core of the issue. Too many people seem to think that reading one or two Facebook posts equals years and years of study and practical experience and make someone an expert on whatever subject. Any idiot with a keyboard and an internet connection can produce whatever text he wants and is put on a par, if not higher, than leading experts and Nobel prize winners.


How do we restore the notion that no one knows everything? That experts are – yes people who know a lot more and better – about a subject that the layman?

How do we restore a willing ear again for knowledge science and expertise again? It’s not a fanciful question. It is a matter of life and death. Whether it is about obesity, climate change or vaccinations, taking the wrong decision implies taking huge risks.

Any thoughts?

I'll add my two cents to this very old thread.

First, there's almost never consensus among scientists about anything, and scientists themselves are not without their peculiar biases.

Want a scientific paper done on something? The results are always skewed in the direction that sheds a more positive light on the paying group.

There's tons of papers showing marijuana use to have a negative impact on people with mental health issues, even and up to the potential of causing mental health issues in some age groups but those are easily shoved under the rug by those with power to do the shoving, and new scientific papers readily available to uphold that shows marijuana use in a singularly positive light.

We can see the same with climate change, is climate change caused by humans or is it the natural course of events for our planet? Scientist's everywhere disagree, and there's perfectly scientific peer reviewed papers on both sides of the issue.

If you haven't read and digested every side of an issue you really can't take a stance that such and such a position is "scientific" and based in knowledge and truth when even scientists disagree amongst themselves.

There's usually balance to be had in all things, and I'm wary of anyone who believes there's only one aspect of any issue, regardless of the issue.

 

[RDKirk]

We can see the same with climate change, is climate change caused by humans or is it the natural course of events for our planet? Scientist's everywhere disagree, and there's perfectly scientific peer reviewed papers on both sides of the issue.

"Who caused it?" is one question, and it seems to be the question everyone wants to argue, but that's not the only question.

A. Regardless of who caused it, is the climate changing?

B. If the climate is changing, what must be done to weather the change?

For instance, the US Navy has been mapping changes of coastlines and water levels on the east coast for decades, and they have begun mapping timetables for the abandonment of east coast naval bases.

The US Army is studying how the changing climate is affecting resources like water availability and food production in various regions of the world, trying to identify how imminent crises will create flashpoints in the near future.

They don't care who started it, they're just preparing to deal with what they see is happening. All this discussion about "who started it" is just going to lead to a lot of sectors being blindsided...and a lot of human misery will result.

 

[Astrid]

I'll add my two cents to this very old thread.

First, there's almost never consensus among scientists about anything, and scientists themselves are not without their peculiar biases.

Want a scientific paper done on something? The results are always skewed in the direction that sheds a more positive light on the paying group.

There's tons of papers showing marijuana use to have a negative impact on people with mental health issues, even and up to the potential of causing mental health issues in some age groups but those are easily shoved under the rug by those with power to do the shoving, and new scientific papers readily available to uphold that shows marijuana use in a singularly positive light.

We can see the same with climate change, is climate change caused by humans or is it the natural course of events for our planet? Scientist's everywhere disagree, and there's perfectly scientific peer reviewed papers on both sides of the issue.

If you haven't read and digested every side of an issue you really can't take a stance that such and such a position is "scientific" and based in knowledge and truth when even scientists disagree amongst themselves.

There's usually balance to be had in all things, and I'm wary of anyone who believes there's only one aspect of any issue, regardless of the issue.

Looking for balance? This above sure isnt an example.

 

[Hazelelponi]

"Who caused it?" is one question, and it seems to be the question everyone wants to argue, but that's not the only question.

A. Regardless of who caused it, is the climate changing?

B. If the climate is changing, what must be done to weather the change?

For instance, the US Navy has been mapping changes of coastlines and water levels on the east coast for decades, and they have begun mapping timetables for the abandonment of east coast naval bases.

The US Army is studying how the changing climate is affecting resources like water availability and food production in various regions of the world, trying to identify how imminent crises will create flashpoints in the near future.

They don't care who started it, they're just preparing to deal with what they see is happening. All this discussion about "who started it" is just going to lead to a lot of sectors being blindsided...and a lot of human misery will result.

I understand that with the climate changing things need done, but who started it and how best to deal with it from that angle specifically, is a very important part of the discussion.

Those who believe man is 100% causal to the change will then believe it's within their grasp to stop it's occurrence and will act in very different ways from those who believe this is just a natural occurrence.

This concept (that man is causal) is where the idea that we must strip mine the earth of all it's rare minerals to make the batteries so we can all drive electric cars comes from - regardless of the cost. Etc. Etc. (Paid for by a corporation near you).

It's not about completely ignoring the issues, it's deciding what exactly the issues are and how best to act accordingly.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not about completely ignoring the issues, it's deciding what exactly the issues are and how best to act accordingly.

When I see tree huggers give up these:

1. gas powered cars
2. cement patios
3. glass windows
4. barbecue grills
5. fireplaces
6. pop
7. CO2 extinguishers

I'll consider taking them seriously.

 

[ottawak]

I understand that with the climate changing things need done, but who started it and how best to deal with it from that angle specifically, is a very important part of the discussion.

Those who believe man is 100% causal to the change will then believe it's within their grasp to stop it's occurrence and will act in very different ways from those who believe this is just a natural occurrence.

This concept (that man is causal) is where the idea that we must strip mine the earth of all it's rare minerals to make the batteries so we can all drive electric cars comes from - regardless of the cost. Etc. Etc. (Paid for by a corporation near you).

It's not about completely ignoring the issues, it's deciding what exactly the issues are and how best to act accordingly.

The concept that man is causal does not require that man must be 100% causal. You have erected a false dichotomy.

 

[Astrid]

The concept that man is causal does not require that man must be 100% causal. You have erected a false dichotomy.

As in balance.

 

[ottawak]

When I see tree huggers give up these:

1. gas powered cars
2. cement patios
3. glass windows
4. barbecue grills
5. fireplaces
6. pop
7. CO2 extinguishers

I'll consider taking them seriously.

Many of them have already.

 

[timothyu]

If you look to those who seek to profit from solving an issue you may usually find those same who created the problem for the same reasons.

 

[RDKirk]

I understand that with the climate changing things need done, but who started it and how best to deal with it from that angle specifically, is a very important part of the discussion.

Those who believe man is 100% causal to the change will then believe it's within their grasp to stop it's occurrence and will act in very different ways from those who believe this is just a natural occurrence.

This concept (that man is causal) is where the idea that we must strip mine the earth of all it's rare minerals to make the batteries so we can all drive electric cars comes from - regardless of the cost. Etc. Etc. (Paid for by a corporation near you).

It's not about completely ignoring the issues, it's deciding what exactly the issues are and how best to act accordingly.

A growing number of scientists--possibly a majority--who believe that man caused it...also believe that we've gone beyond the tipping point that man can fix it.

 

[Hazelelponi]

A growing number of scientists--possibly a majority--who believe that man caused it...also believe that we've gone beyond the tipping point that man can fix it.

I don't believe it's a growing number, they have simply silenced dissent...

 

[RDKirk]

I don't believe it's a growing number, they have simply silenced dissent...

If you assert that dissent has been silenced, on what do you base a belief that the number is not growing?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you look to those who seek to profit from solving an issue you may usually find those same who created the problem for the same reasons.

I think some scientists like to light fires, then put them out.

It makes me wonder if Nebraska Man was one such endeavor, where scientists jumped on the bandwagon prematurely (but on purpose), then made brownie points with the public by settling the issue.

 

[Astrid]

I don't believe it's a growing number, they have simply silenced dissent...

Do you believe dissent on evolution has been similarly silenced?