Conservatives: Why are you anti-science?

[zsdersw]

zsdersw got beat the hell up here...wow. lol!

Not really. It's been quite fun.

 

[zsdersw]

So let me get this straight.

You assumed that science somehow does conflict with some long-held belief of his, simply because he is conservative, and challenged him on that assumption.

He asked you what the conflict is. Your response is vague because you have no idea. Yet you come across as being sure there must be something.

So he asks you why you asked him such a question in the first place, and you accuse him of sidestepping yours.

If I have that right, did you ever consider that maybe he's not sidestepping your question because your assumption was wrong, there isn't anything in conflict in the first place, so there is nothing to sidestep? Yet you keep trying to pin something on him.

Why?

Lots of assuming going on in this thread, but none by me.

You all have assumed that long-term beliefs are always and necessarily religious in nature and that I must have some special reason for asking DSF in particular. You all couldn't have gotten it more wrong if you tried.

Consider the following:

1. Long-held beliefs are sometimes religious (if you're a religious person), but very often they're not, even for religious people. DSF has never come across in this forum as a very religious person, so I wouldn't assume anything about what's at the root of his long-held beliefs.

2. DSF was the first person I've seen in this thread to offer a succinct answer to the OP's title; "I'm a conservative and I love science", and since I've had arguments and discussions with him/her before in other threads, I thought I'd pose the question to him/her.

3. There was no sinister calculation or ulterior motive for asking DSF. When I was asked why I put the question to DSF I responded casually because the choice of DSF was casual. There was no side-step.

4. DSF did side-step the original question by steering the conversation down the path of "why'd you ask me" instead of answering the question. Doesn't matter to me... I've gotten quite a bit of enjoyment out of this, anyway.

 

[piasabird]

Never trust a scientist who receives funding from the government. He is going to go along with whatever his funding source wants him to prove or believe. Once you receive money from the government you have to play by their rules.

Does a belief in evolution make you enlightened? Does it make you smarter? Can evolution balance a budget? Can evolution build a dam or produce hydro-electricity? Can evolution cure world hunger?

No, no , no and no. The argument for evolution has no redeeming value.

 

[NeoV]

"o, no , no and no. The argument for evolution has no redeeming value."

Much like your posts on any/all things science related.

 

[TheSlamma]

Does a belief in evolution make you enlightened? Does it make you smarter? Can evolution balance a budget? Can evolution build a dam or produce hydro-electricity? Can evolution cure world hunger?

No, no , no and no. The argument for evolution has no redeeming value.

Does the belief in God do any of these 4? No, no, no and no

Cool then religion can be tossed in the trash where it belongs.

 

[Ausm]

Does the belief in God do any of these 4? No, no, no and no

Cool then religion can be tossed in the trash where it belongs.

Religion is a money maker tho...

 

[bfdd]

lol idiots in here lecturing others on sciencenyet they argued for the consensus. Pro too there is nothing scientific about a consensus. In fact its the exact opposite lols.

 

[Schadenfroh]

What is so dangerous about locally grown produce?

Locally grown produce is not directly dangerous to the individual, the "dangerous" was targeted at organic foods, which cause foodborne illnesses at significantly higher rates (percentage-wise) than modern agricultural techniques that science has provided us.

On a large scale, locally grown produce can be more damaging to the environment due to its general inefficiency when compared to growing crops in more suitable soil / climate.

And why do you want to put government regulation on stuff that really does not need regulated? Not like some supplements are going to do any harm to anyone.

The government is obligated to prevent deliberately misleading advertisements for products. Companies cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. That being said, government should stay the hell away from operating corporations to prevent conflicts of interest. I do not want the same body regulating drug / food safety that owns a stake in the companies that produce said product.

In general, "supplements" cost ignorant consumers countless millions (if not billions) each year due to false promises of improved health. Consumers ignorant of scientific studies might chose herbal supplements / alternative medicine over modern medicine that is scientifically proven to be effective at combating illness, which is dangerous to their health and those around them (if infectious).

 

[crashtestdummy]

Never trust a scientist who receives funding from the government. He is going to go along with whatever his funding source wants him to prove or believe. Once you receive money from the government you have to play by their rules.

Wait, what? You really think there's an evil government conspiracy to slant science in an anti-christian, anti-free-market direction? I have many complaints about the way research is often performed, but this is just about the silliest thing I've ever heard.

Does a belief in evolution make you enlightened? Does it make you smarter? Can evolution balance a budget? Can evolution build a dam or produce hydro-electricity? Can evolution cure world hunger?

No, no , no and no. The argument for evolution has no redeeming value.

It won't balance a budget or build a dam, but it will help you cure diseases and has already solved world hunger several times throughout history. Every domestic animal or plant is not the same as was originally found in the wild. In every case, the plant or animal has been artificially selected over many generations to yield crops more favorable to human consumption. This is the same process as evolution, one that we have been using for thousands of years. The only difference is that it uses human constraints rather than environmental/food supply/sexual ones (though you could consider the human constraints to be more clearly delineated environmental and sexual constraints).

Here's a very simple example of how natural selection and artificial selection overlap in function and use. I heard an interview once with a hot pepper farmer. When you plant a field of peppers, some of them will randomly be a little hotter than others (small genetic variations, much like the ones you get with siblings). They were trying to develop hotter peppers, but couldn't figure out an efficient way to select for them. One day, a bunch of deer got into the peppers, and ate a whole bunch of them. While the farmer initially thought that this was a disaster, it turns out that the deer had eaten all the mild peppers and left the hot ones behind. This left him with the hot ones selected for re-seeding. This is how hot peppers first began to exist in the wild too: mammals taste capsaicin, the "hot" compound in peppers, but birds do not. The peppers with more capsaicin are more likely to be eaten by birds, which spread pepper seeds, than mammals, which do not. Thus, only the peppers that were "hotter" survived, leaving the wild chili after thousands of generations.

For part of my own work, I design antibiotics that are more difficult for bacteria to become resistant to. Antibiotic resistance arises when you expose the bacteria to a toxin (antibiotic) that does not immediately kill them all (patient only takes half of effective dose, for example). The most easily killed bacteria will die off, while the bacteria that randomly pick up a little bit of resistance live on. It is this variety that re-infects the patient, and is passed on requiring a higher dose of that antibiotic in order to be effective. After several rounds of this (several partially treated patients), a strain of the bacteria has been developed that is strongly resistant, and the antibiotic becomes useless.

I use an understanding of how mutations create resistance to make antibiotics that are harder to develop a resistance to (i.e. require larger structural changes to the bacteria). While I do not work on natural selection myself, none of what I do would have any chance of working if not for natural selection (and no one would have thought to do it, either).

 

[jhbball]

Wait, what? You really think there's an evil government conspiracy to slant science in an anti-christian, anti-free-market direction? I have many complaints about the way research is often performed, but this is just about the silliest thing I've ever heard.

It won't balance a budget or build a dam, but it will help you cure diseases and has already solved world hunger several times throughout history. Every domestic animal or plant is not the same as was originally found in the wild. In every case, the plant or animal has been artificially selected over many generations to yield crops more favorable to human consumption. This is the same process as evolution, one that we have been using for thousands of years. The only difference is that it uses human constraints rather than environmental/food supply/sexual ones (though you could consider the human constraints to be more clearly delineated environmental and sexual constraints).

Here's a very simple example of how natural selection and artificial selection overlap in function and use. I heard an interview once with a hot pepper farmer. When you plant a field of peppers, some of them will be randomly a little hotter than others (small genetic variations, much like the ones you get with siblings). They were trying to develop hotter peppers, but couldn't figure out an efficient way to select for them. One day, a bunch of deer got into the peppers, and ate a whole bunch of them. While the farmer initially thought that this was a disaster, it turns out that the deer had eaten all the mild peppers and left the mild ones behind. This left him with the hot ones selected for re-seeding. This is how hot peppers first began to exist in the wild too: mammals taste capsaicin, the "hot" compound in peppers, but birds do not. The peppers with more capsaicin are more likely to be eaten by birds, which spread pepper seeds, than mammals, which do not. Thus, only the peppers that were "hotter" survived, leaving the wild chili.

For part of my own work, I design antibiotics that are more difficult for bacteria to become resistant to. Antibiotic resistance arises when you expose the bacteria to a toxin (antibiotic) that does not immediate kill them all (patient only takes half of effective dose, for example). The most easily killed bacteria will die off, while the bacteria that randomly pick up a little bit of resistance live on. It is this variety that re-infects the patient, and is passed on requiring a higher dose of that antibiotic in order to be effective. After several rounds of this (several partially treated patients), a strain of the bacteria has been developed that is strongly resistant, and the antibiotic becomes useless.

I use an understanding of how mutations create resistance to make antibiotics that are harder to develop a resistance to (i.e. require larger structural changes to the bacteria ). While I do not work on natural selection myself, none of what I do would have any chance of working if not for natural selection (and no one would have thought to do it, either).

you're part of the liberal conspiracy! PS, he won't read/acknowledge/understand what you just wrote.