Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?

[AV1611VET]

i sure as heck am opposed to corrupt SCIENTISTS aka the global warming phoney money grubbing ones.

No, they work for the United States Government, actually. Well, one of them is. The other one never did, really.

This brings up a good point.

I get the impression scientists are employed to "find" just what their employers are looking for.

And they do a good job of it.

If they can't "find" it, then they can probably "find" something else just as (or almost as) beneficial.

I'm sure if I employed a shrewdness of scientists to find the Loch Ness Monster, and they didn't find her, they would at least come back with very convincing interpretations of some of their sonar blips and images.

In short, they aren't going to come back empty-handed.

 

[Gracchus]

The universe does not appear to have life of itself or consciousness.

I am part of the universe. I am alive and I am conscious. Now of course, I am not the whole universe. Rocks are not alive, but neither are my hair or fingernails. The very atoms of which I am composed are continually being exchanged with the environment. Human beings are transient dynamic patterns, like ripples in a stream. The ripples are not separate from the stream.
So, it is just as correct to say that the universe is me, as it is to say that my hair is part of me.
I know the universe is conscious and self aware, because I am conscious and self aware, and I am part of the universe.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I am part of the universe. I am alive and I am conscious. Now of course, I am not the whole universe. Rocks are not alive, but neither are my hair or fingernails. The very atoms of which I am composed are continually being exchanged with the environment. Human beings are transient dynamic patterns, like ripples in a stream. The ripples are not separate from the stream.
So, it is just as correct to say that the universe is me, as it is to say that my hair is part of me.
I know the universe is conscious and self aware, because I am conscious and self aware, and I am part of the universe.

Spoilsport.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

This brings up a good point.

We'll see.

I get the impression scientists are employed to "find" just what their employers are looking for.

Only those scientists who work directly for large corporations.

And they do a good job of it.

No, actually many of them do a terrible job at it. You should read some of the papers!

If they can't "find" it, then they can probably "find" something else just as (or almost as) beneficial.

The unscrupulous, corrupt ones do. Most corporations hire scientists who aren't the best and brightest.

I'm sure if I employed a shrewdness of scientists to find the Loch Ness Monster, and they didn't find her, they would at least come back with very convincing interpretations of some of their sonar blips and images.

Not the ones with any integrity. Or who ever wanted to be employed by any reputable research institution. Unlike theologians, who can spout the most amazing garbage and still get hired (the AFA grabs the most absurdist dolts on the planet), scientists have a little problem with something called "peer-review" which will slam the unethical ones.

In short, they aren't going to come back empty-handed.

Just like theologians and apologists. The difference is that science has evolved () a mechanism to minimize corruption and incompetence.

 

[canukian]

This brings up a good point.

I get the impression scientists are employed to "find" just what their employers are looking for.

And they do a good job of it.

If they can't "find" it, then they can probably "find" something else just as (or almost as) beneficial.

I'm sure if I employed a shrewdness of scientists to find the Loch Ness Monster, and they didn't find her, they would at least come back with very convincing interpretations of some of their sonar blips and images.

In short, they aren't going to come back empty-handed.

and they sure as heck are not going to tell their paymasters the opposite of what they want to hear.

and they couch their presentation in next to impossible to understand gibberish.

and they seek to destroy the lives of the honest scientists who are brave enough to say the truth.

god in no way fears the truth and science should be the persute of truth, same as religion.

 

[canukian]

Only those scientists who work directly for large corporations.

oh really. and the goverments of nations and the UN are in no way corrupt in seeking results that will result in more taxes?

 

[AV1611VET]

... (the AFA grabs the most absurdist dolts on the planet) ...

Are you talking Donald Wildmon's organization?

 

[Cabal]

This brings up a good point.

I get the impression scientists are employed to "find" just what their employers are looking for.

And they do a good job of it.

If they can't "find" it, then they can probably "find" something else just as (or almost as) beneficial.

I'm sure if I employed a shrewdness of scientists to find the Loch Ness Monster, and they didn't find her, they would at least come back with very convincing interpretations of some of their sonar blips and images.

In short, they aren't going to come back empty-handed.

It's called not burying your talent in the ground.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

and they sure as heck are not going to tell their paymasters the opposite of what they want to hear.

and they couch their presentation in next to impossible to understand gibberish.

and they seek to destroy the lives of the honest scientists who are brave enough to say the truth.

god in no way fears the truth and science should be the persute of truth, same as religion.

You are making a number of extremely foolish assumptions.

1st, the bulk of the climate change science comes from non-governmental sources - and the corporations would NEVER pay someone to point out that they're destroying the planet.

2nd, it's only gibberish to you because you don't understand the science involved. A little education and you'll be able to understand quite well.

3rd, there is no evidence that anyone's career is getting destroyed by scientists who fear their results on climate change. None.

4th, God almost certainly doesn't exist, and doesn't really care.

 

[AV1611VET]

and they sure as heck are not going to tell their paymasters the opposite of what they want to hear.

and they couch their presentation in next to impossible to understand gibberish.

and they seek to destroy the lives of the honest scientists who are brave enough to say the truth.

god in no way fears the truth and science should be the persute of truth, same as religion.

I agree with what you said here, except for this last line.

I don't think science should be the pursuit of Truth, as Truth comes to us, and is written in such a way that a child can understand it.

Science is too myopic (short-sighted) to be able to find the Truth with their man-made tools.

But for the most part, I agree with you --

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Are you talking Donald Wildmon's organization?

Yes. They give Christians a bad name. A very bad name.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I agree with what you said here, except for this last line.

I don't think science should be the pursuit of Truth, as Truth comes to us, and is written in such a way that a child can understand it.

Science is too myopic (short-sighted) to be able to find the Truth with their man-made tools.

But for the most part, I agree with you --

Since you can't prove that the book you use to make your claims about "truth" is true, and since it's full of things that have been proved wrong, you might want to rethink that whole "Truth" thingie.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. They give Christians a bad name. A very bad name.

Riiiiight -- the American Family Association is a top-notch watchdog organization.

I used to be a member back when it was called the NFD (National Federation for Decency).

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

oh really. and the goverments of nations and the UN are in no way corrupt in seeking results that will result in more taxes?

Prove it.

Talk is cheap, chiclet. You have a case, you prove it. Otherwise it looks like you're just blowing hot air.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Riiiiight -- the American Family Association is a top-notch watchdog organization.

I used to be a member back when it was called the NFD (National Federation for Decency).

As I said - they give Christians a bad name.

 

[AV1611VET]

Prove it.

Talk is cheap, chiclet. You have a case, you prove it. Otherwise it looks like you're just blowing hot air.

He doesn't need to.

You basically said the same thing here:

We'll see.

Only those scientists who work directly for large corporations.

No, actually many of them do a terrible job at it. You should read some of the papers!

The unscrupulous, corrupt ones do. Most corporations hire scientists who aren't the best and brightest.

Not the ones with any integrity. Or who ever wanted to be employed by any reputable research institution. Unlike theologians, who can spout the most amazing garbage and still get hired (the AFA grabs the most absurdist dolts on the planet), scientists have a little problem with something called "peer-review" which will slam the unethical ones.


Just like theologians and apologists. The difference is that science has evolved () a mechanism to minimize corruption and incompetence.

And Cabal gave it a name:

It's called not burying your talent in the ground.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

He doesn't need to.

You basically said the same thing here:

And Cabal gave it a name:

Actually, I didn't. You should reread my post.

He blames all scientists working for governments and the UN for promoting climate change and ruining the careers of scientists who deny it.

He needs to supply evidence; otherwise he's just blowing hot air.

I pointed out that scientists aren't perfect.

Fish or cut bait, old man.

 

[Cabal]

And Cabal gave it a name:

And only creationists, one with a massive prejudice against science, would make out that burying talents in the ground is a good thing.

 

[sfs]

Riiiiight -- the American Family Association is a top-notch watchdog organization.

I used to be a member back when it was called the NFD (National Federation for Decency).

You mean the organization that employs this guy? A little weak theologically, I'd say -- not to mention historically, ethically and rationally. But hey, if you vouch for them . . .

(Read the comments after his piece, by the way. It's one of the rare times you'll see everyone -- liberal, conservative, Christian, non-believer, pacifists, veterans, whatever -- united in disgust at a single point of view.)

 

[canukian]

Prove it.

Talk is cheap, chiclet. You have a case, you prove it. Otherwise it looks like you're just blowing hot air.

talk is indeed cheap, and i know a hopeless case when i see one. ta ta!