Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Look, i'm not here to waste my time with frustration.....
You know the answer and your trap isn't working.Do you object to the naturalistic theory that explains and predicts orbital motions in the solar system?
You know the answer and your trap isn't working.
In the context of the study, they looked at opposition to GMOs and opposition to gene therapy to correct genetic disorders (where they saw the effect described in the OP), and denial of human-caused climate change denial (where they didn't).
Beyond that, there are any number of anti-science (or pseudoscience) views:
Flat earthism
Young Earth Creationism
Vaccines are harmful
Homeopathy
Astrology
Psychic powers are real
Can I prove a negative? I simply see no evidence that the motion of bodies or lights above, influences human personality or destiny.Cool. Then you won't mind being asked: Prove astrology impotent.
So WRT homeopathy, isn't it sufficient to say "we simply see no evidence that" homeopathy has any influence on human health?Can I prove a negative? I simply see no evidence that the motion of bodies or lights above, influences human personality or destiny.
I am not expressing my personal views or beliefs here, I’m simply taking a critical approach to what you have listed as “anti-science “ views.
They are outside (in some cases, far outside) the bounds of established science.
Are you disputing that these views are 'anti-science'?
If you want to dispute whether any of these views are correct or not, please take that to a new thread. This thread is about some psychological aspects of people who have extreme anti science views.
There are accounts but not a sufficient amount to prove validity.So WRT homeopathy, isn't it sufficient to say "we simply see no evidence that" homeopathy has any influence on human health?
I don’t consider any of the views you have listed to be “extreme anti-science”.
My questions to you are relevant to the topic, since your entire premise is based on a flawed assumption that “anti-science” views exist in enough of the population to be surveyed accurately
Atheists should be safe then
The extreme was not about the anti-science, but about how strongly held the anti-science positions were. This is the source of the correlation: strength of the view held, with higher self-assessed knowledge, but lower objective knowledge.
"The more extreme the opposition, Fernbach and his co-authors found, the less people knew about the science and genetics"
One study involved more than 900 people with views against GMOs. Why is that not enough?
Big pharma, big power, big business.So WRT homeopathy, isn't it sufficient to say "we simply see no evidence that" homeopathy has any influence on human health?
But it's not JUST about health of the consumer.Views against GMOs by laypersons shouldn’t be considered as relevant, outside of being accepted as uninformed conclusions, (not having intimate knowledge on the subject).
For example, I can’t agree or disagree that “GMOs are deadly to humans health”, simply because I lack intimate knowledge of genetics. While I can read various claims, papers, and so on, at the end of it all, I don’t work with genetics; I only have opinions, based on what I’ve read from various parties.
Lol! I hope mighty Zeus will forgive your rash wordsEvery knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. This is why there are no nonbelievers in hell. By the time you are sent there, you will know who sent you, unless of course you turn from sin and to the Savior of our sins. We are all sinners, and faith and belief in Jesus Christ as Lord who resurrected from the dead saves us from our sins and from eternal torment (the second death, the first being physical death).
Your reasons are sound and I agree with them. You’re not opposing the science, you’re opposing the consequences and matters pertaining to new laws.But it's not JUST about health of the consumer.
It's about messing with nature for monopoly and big bucks.
It's about patenting products of nature and making small farming illegal unless they use their seeds, and things like that.
As a lay person i oppose these things for good reasons.
Views against GMOs by laypersons shouldn’t be considered as relevant, outside of being accepted as uninformed conclusions, (not having intimate knowledge on the subject).
Cool story.Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. This is why there are no nonbelievers in hell. By the time you are sent there, you will know who sent you, unless of course you turn from sin and to the Savior of our sins. We are all sinners, and faith and belief in Jesus Christ as Lord who resurrected from the dead saves us from our sins and from eternal torment (the second death, the first being physical death).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?