The Left's War on Science

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
63,565
369
126
#76
Here you're about as accurate as one, though.
Something that I find interesting about your protestations about having a deeper understanding of such things like science as you present here in this thread is the multi-dimensional way in which you are practiced in shining on people who decent with your views almost as if you had spent years and years at being so wrong about mostly everything it has afforded you more practice at denial than most people will ever have the misfortune to achieve.

My own opinion on this is that I believe it is very fortunate for you that the actual world you live in, one that owing to the rareness of your defective thinking, does not reflect it more generally, and as a result, protects you from a world of madness that would actually exist if it ran on your terms.

I do find it sad, however, that when you open your mouth you have to suffer the wrath of a majority who can instantly recognize the dangerous madness that will and is manifesting in the world were your kind of thinking is growing in popularity now that the internet allows the most reason enfeebled a voice on the internet.
 

Pohemi420

Platinum Member
Oct 2, 2004
2,162
31
91
#78
It is simply stunning how the right-wing cult has projected all of their faults onto their opponents.

The punchline is, this cuts both ways. Both the left and the right have their pet science denials and both are equally damaging to progress.

But yeah, keep trying to make it look like the climate change and evolution denialists aren't just as bad here. In defense of the left at least they haven't mainstreamed anti-vax like the right-wing did. But then, the right-wing mainstreamed all of their fringe and became the batshit party so...

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/ske...cience-denialism-pseudoscience-left-vs-right/
This is what is as unbelievable as anything else the right tries to pull, in my opinion. And it's done blatantly, often with willful and intentional ignorance. The hypocrisy is astounding.
 
Jul 13, 2005
24,884
270
106
#79
I'm pretty sure it's sarcasm but these days it's harder to tell. Maybe the convention of /s would help.

No Trump supporter has any grounds to complain about anyone else regarding science. Dear Leader hasn't the grasp of a properly educated grade school student, well, in most anything but especially anything involving science.
it is total sarcasm.... :)
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
#80
It is simply stunning how the right-wing cult has projected all of their faults onto their opponents.

The punchline is, this cuts both ways. Both the left and the right have their pet science denials and both are equally damaging to progress.

But yeah, keep trying to make it look like the climate change and evolution denialists aren't just as bad here. In defense of the left at least they haven't mainstreamed anti-vax like the right-wing did. But then, the right-wing mainstreamed all of their fringe and became the batshit party so...

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/ske...cience-denialism-pseudoscience-left-vs-right/
No both biology (evolution) and climatology/earth science (global warming) are sciences. Evolution has been demonstrated true at smaller timeframes. Climate change is falsifiable (if in 150 years from now it’s the same temperature without having changed our economy or use of fossil fuels).

What the left sometimes mistakes as “science ignorance” is merely a refusal to go along without question in implementing political policies derived from scientific theories (e.g. carbon tax). Belief or disbelief in a scientific topic doesn’t obligate one to political beliefs that might be associated with that science. We saw how that worked with Lysenkoism once upon a time.
 
Jan 12, 2005
14,924
2,465
126
#81
This is what is as unbelievable as anything else the right tries to pull, in my opinion. And it's done blatantly, often with willful and intentional ignorance. The hypocrisy is astounding.

You guys just cheerlead and look to each other for emotional reinforcement, but you've not don't a thing to disprove the content of the videos. Some very good points are made about how the left actively stifles scientific progress because they've made some topics too taboo to even discuss. The left holds back progress to finding truth for the sake of feelings.
 

Pohemi420

Platinum Member
Oct 2, 2004
2,162
31
91
#82
You guys just cheerlead and look to each other for emotional reinforcement, but you've not don't a thing to disprove the content of the videos. Some very good points are made about how the left actively stifles scientific progress because they've made some topics too taboo to even discuss. The left holds back progress to finding truth for the sake of feelings.
How many times are you going to keep repeating what you already claimed in the OP? We already know the bullshit you claim to be true, no need to be a broken record. Despite what your masters seem to think, repeating lies does not magically convert them to truth.
 
Jan 12, 2005
14,924
2,465
126
#83
How many times are you going to keep repeating what you already claimed in the OP? We already know the bullshit you claim to be true, no need to be a broken record. Despite what your masters seem to think, repeating lies does not magically convert them to truth.

Cheerleading does nothing to counter the plainly laid out examples in the OP. The left decries the the right's war on science, and certainly some things done by the right are anti-science. But no one talks about the left and their war on science in certain subjects, some examples are in the OP and not one of you can counter that, just belittle and deflect.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
#84
Cheerleading does nothing to counter the plainly laid out examples in the OP. The left decries the the right's war on science, and certainly some things done by the right are anti-science. But no one talks about the left and their war on science in certain subjects, some examples are in the OP and not one of you can counter that, just belittle and deflect.
It was already countered, you just ignored it because ironically, all you have is feelings.

Uh, OP, we get that you don't actually know science for jack shit, but the Google guy did not use "basic science", and considering that several of the scientists that did the studies he cited for his rationale came out and said he deliberately misinterpreted their results and clearly doesn't understand the science (as you conservative idiots are so prone to doing), well you'd have to be a goddamned moron (as you and the rest of the conservatives that constantly resort to the same methods are so keen to prove) to claim that the science backs up his claims. But don't let that stop you from pushing your lies or anything or reinforcing how you are either too stupid or are similarly intentionally not comprehending things.
As has been covered before, the Google guy did not know what he was talking about and people he cited as evidence came out and said he was wrong and using their research incompetently.
 
Jan 12, 2005
14,924
2,465
126
#86
So...you must not be reading the replies in the thread then? Are you simply talking at yourself? Or...

Mr. 420, the left has made some things too taboo to research. To even broach some of these subjects it too taboo for them. The video provides some examples.
 

Pohemi420

Platinum Member
Oct 2, 2004
2,162
31
91
#87
Mr. 420, the left has made some things too taboo to research. To even broach some of these subjects it too taboo for them. The video provides some examples.
I think I would have better conversation and debate with a brick wall. Perhaps the replies would at least be more varied. You are clearly too brainwashed to think logically and within the confines of reality.

Also: stop trying to direct me to your bullshit video source. I've already watched it, and as I expected...it provides no factual data to support your idiotic statement. It's been debunked in this thread already if you weren't so blind to the truth.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
52,076
554
126
#88
No both biology (evolution) and climatology/earth science (global warming) are sciences. Evolution has been demonstrated true at smaller timeframes. Climate change is falsifiable (if in 150 years from now it’s the same temperature without having changed our economy or use of fossil fuels).

What the left sometimes mistakes as “science ignorance” is merely a refusal to go along without question in implementing political policies derived from scientific theories (e.g. carbon tax). Belief or disbelief in a scientific topic doesn’t obligate one to political beliefs that might be associated with that science. We saw how that worked with Lysenkoism once upon a time.
The hilarity of your intellectual acrobatics here is they precisely mirror the same acrobatics done over tobacco and health in the 30-40 years after a clear undeniable consensus was reached in 1954 on tobacco causing lung disease and cancer.

The consensus on climate change is just as strong as the consensus on tobacco. And the corporate "doubt propaganda" campaign is exactly the same too.

But because of people like you who are dupes for a corporate propaganda campaign on climate change that is identical to the one on tobacco, we have to wait for millions to die and trillions of dollars lost before you acquiesce or die out and leave the problem to the younger generation.

Fucking luddites.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
#89
The hilarity of your intellectual acrobatics here is they precisely mirror the same acrobatics done over tobacco and health in the 30-40 years after a clear undeniable consensus was reached in 1954 on tobacco causing lung disease and cancer.

The consensus on climate change is just as strong as the consensus on tobacco. And the corporate "doubt propaganda" campaign is exactly the same too.

But because of people like you who are dupes for a corporate propaganda campaign on climate change that is identical to the one on tobacco, we have to wait for millions to die and trillions of dollars lost before you acquiesce or die out and leave the problem to the younger generation.

Fucking luddites.
We should also be clear on the fact that ‘disagree on policy to combat climate change’ is the latest retreat by conservatives who spent decades vehemently denying the science and claiming climate change didn’t exist at all.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
#90
The hilarity of your intellectual acrobatics here is they precisely mirror the same acrobatics done over tobacco and health in the 30-40 years after a clear undeniable consensus was reached in 1954 on tobacco causing lung disease and cancer.

The consensus on climate change is just as strong as the consensus on tobacco. And the corporate "doubt propaganda" campaign is exactly the same too.

But because of people like you who are dupes for a corporate propaganda campaign on climate change that is identical to the one on tobacco, we have to wait for millions to die and trillions of dollars lost before you acquiesce or die out and leave the problem to the younger generation.

Fucking luddites.
You do realize that "clear undeniable consensus" was used in the past to justify things like slavery, eugenics. and the Guatemala and Tuskeegee experiments on syphillis? If your concern is that "anti-science" corporate propaganda can convince voters to select against your preferred policies that seems like a problem of democracy. Using science to justify imposing a political policy on voters who would otherwise oppose it sounds like the exact opposite of democracy to me.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,817
1,319
126
#91
You do realize that "clear undeniable consensus" was used in the past to justify things like slavery, eugenics. and the Guatemala and Tuskeegee experiments on syphillis? If your concern is that "anti-science" corporate propaganda can convince voters to select against your preferred policies that seems like a problem of democracy. Using science to justify imposing a political policy on voters who would otherwise oppose it sounds like the exact opposite of democracy to me.
Needs more duh-version.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
#92
Needs more duh-version.
You do realize the "consensus science says this so that necessarily means you must support political policy X" is a tool being wielded by the right as well? If the left can use "consensus science" to override voter will on climate change the right can use it to outlaw abortion in an increasing number of cases ("scientific consensus is that unborn children can feel pain at X weeks, thus abortions should be outlawed after that time"). It's really a route you don't want to go down; if your political argument isn't winning over voters that likely means your political argument needs work to convince voters and not that science needs to be used to justify anti-democratic and authoritarian actions in the name of "science."
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
52,076
554
126
#93
You do realize that "clear undeniable consensus" was used in the past to justify things like slavery, eugenics. and the Guatemala and Tuskeegee experiments on syphillis? If your concern is that "anti-science" corporate propaganda can convince voters to select against your preferred policies that seems like a problem of democracy. Using science to justify imposing a political policy on voters who would otherwise oppose it sounds like the exact opposite of democracy to me.
No, no they weren't.

You do realize you're using classic creationist science denial arguments, right?
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,817
1,319
126
#94
You do realize the "consensus science says this so that necessarily means you must support political policy X" is a tool being wielded by the right as well? If the left can use "consensus science" to override voter will on climate change the right can use it to outlaw abortion in an increasing number of cases ("scientific consensus is that unborn children can feel pain at X weeks, thus abortions should be outlawed after that time"). It's really a route you don't want to go down; if your political argument isn't winning over voters that likely means your political argument needs work to convince voters and not that science needs to be used to justify anti-democratic and authoritarian actions in the name of "science."
Utterly specious. The thing you mention hasn't been studied by thousands & thousands of scientists worldwide. Whatever scientific consensus that might exist wrt to your duh-versionary topic is extremely small and immaterial within the concept of women's sovereignty over their own bodies. It's ridiculous.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
3,634
159
126
#95
You do realize the "consensus science says this so that necessarily means you must support political policy X" is a tool being wielded by the right as well? If the left can use "consensus science" to override voter will on climate change the right can use it to outlaw abortion in an increasing number of cases ("scientific consensus is that unborn children can feel pain at X weeks, thus abortions should be outlawed after that time"). It's really a route you don't want to go down; if your political argument isn't winning over voters that likely means your political argument needs work to convince voters and not that science needs to be used to justify anti-democratic and authoritarian actions in the name of "science."
Ultimately though, the left can't "override voter will". Nothing will get done unless a majority of voters are persuaded to accept (or, at least not oppose)
what the science says. So you are surely engaging in a straw-man here?

Also your argument appears quite confused - are you saying the scientists don't get any special authority on the facts, or that the voters should merely get to decide what to _do_ about those facts?

In the abortion case you cite, there's a factual question about feeling pain, and there's a moral/political question about what follows from that. Those are two separate questions.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
#96
Ultimately though, the left can't "override voter will". Nothing will get done unless a majority of voters are persuaded to accept (or, at least not oppose)
what the science says. So you are surely engaging in a straw-man here?

Also your argument appears quite confused - are you saying the scientists don't get any special authority on the facts, or that the voters should merely get to decide what to _do_ about those facts?

In the abortion case you cite, there's a factual question about feeling pain, and there's a moral/political question about what follows from that. Those are two separate questions.
Unsure by what you mean by "special authority on the facts." Facts are facts and can be independently verified by any and all. If you mean special authority on what how to interpret the facts or what they mean, then scientists should be provided with less skepticism than the layperson because they're speaking on their domain of expertise (just like if I had a question on religious orthodoxy versus heresy I'd probably listen to the views of the pope less skeptically than I would the guy who attends church once a year and sleeps through the service). If you mean scientists should get some sort of "special authority on the facts" that allows them oversized influence (if not outright veto powers) to decide what the political implication of those facts are and what political policies should be adopted to address those implications, I believe that scientists should have the same one vote as their idiot neighbor who thinks that humans and dinosaurs co-existed and cavemen had rodeos where they'd ride brontosaurs.
 
Mar 11, 2004
17,758
280
126
#97
We should also be clear on the fact that ‘disagree on policy to combat climate change’ is the latest retreat by conservatives who spent decades vehemently denying the science and claiming climate change didn’t exist at all.
Oh they still do (deny it and claim its not real and definitely has nothing to do with anything humankind has been doing). Not even kidding, I can hardly think of a single one that didn't fall back to claiming climate change is a lie as part of some grand conspiracy. They try to take all stances other than admitting the reality, and they try to cater them depending on audience. The reality is they still are wholly ignorant and believe its a lie. They just learn little "gotcha" arguments to try and seem like they know what they're talking about at all and think they're shutting down liberals attempting to further the alleged lie.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,817
1,319
126
#98
Unsure by what you mean by "special authority on the facts." Facts are facts and can be independently verified by any and all. If you mean special authority on what how to interpret the facts or what they mean, then scientists should be provided with less skepticism than the layperson because they're speaking on their domain of expertise (just like if I had a question on religious orthodoxy versus heresy I'd probably listen to the views of the pope less skeptically than I would the guy who attends church once a year and sleeps through the service). If you mean scientists should get some sort of "special authority on the facts" that allows them oversized influence (if not outright veto powers) to decide what the political implication of those facts are and what political policies should be adopted to address those implications, I believe that scientists should have the same one vote as their idiot neighbor who thinks that humans and dinosaurs co-existed and cavemen had rodeos where they'd ride brontosaurs.
You obfuscate magnificently. Of course everybody gets the same vote in our Democracy. That was never at issue. And of course scientists should have an outsized influence on public opinion particularly when it comes to issues of public welfare like vaccination, pollution, climate change & so forth. To say otherwise is to be daft.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
52,076
554
126
#99
You obfuscate magnificently. Of course everybody gets the same vote in our Democracy. That was never at issue. And of course scientists should have an outsized influence on public opinion particularly when it comes to issues of public welfare like vaccination, pollution, climate change & so forth. To say otherwise is to be daft.
He's using the same style arguments that creationists and alt-med peddlers use. It's classic science expertise undermining. The same shit the tobacco companies used too.

Anyone who tries to undermine a strong 90+% consensus of experts in a given field of science with the old" science has been wrong before" trope is full of shit.

Meanwhile, Dunning-Kruger 101: That any lay person thinks they can determine when a scientific consensus is questionable.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
He's using the same style arguments that creationists and alt-med peddlers use. It's classic science expertise undermining. The same shit the tobacco companies used too.

Anyone who tries to undermine a strong 90+% consensus of experts in a given field of science with the old" science has been wrong before" trope is full of shit.

Meanwhile, Dunning-Kruger 101: That any lay person thinks they can determine when a scientific consensus is questionable.
The 90% consensus of experts in a given field of science is not really relevant to the political implications of that consensus and what political policies are appropriate to address those implications. One could just as easily use the "90% consensus on climate change" to justify a political policy to address climate change that voters would rightly reject as monstrous, such as we should reduce the Earth's population by 99%. That would likely "fix" the problem of climate change but would be strongly objected to the voters in that 99% portion who were scheduled to be culled.

That's sorta how science would be useful here. Given a scientific consensus of "climate is changing due to greenhouse gases," the voters would first decide "is this is a problem we should address?" If they vote yes, then the scientists' expertise could be called on to say "we're thinking of implementing Policy A, how does that compare to Policy B in achieving political goal X?" Scientists and other experts could then say "A has these pros and these cons in meeting Objective X, and B has these different sets of pros and cons." The voters would then take that information and vote on A, B, some other policy C through K, or do nothing at all. That's how democracy works; not "scientists agree that Plan A is the best so screw what the voters choose because they're wrong."
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS