tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23124811.post8636137074931186666..comments2023-10-29T10:28:08.377-04:00Comments on I've got words and I'm not afraid to use 'em: Science in Public DiscourseJacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11055418637177456464noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23124811.post-83337464433045655182009-03-28T19:26:00.000-04:002009-03-28T19:26:00.000-04:00I still think you are being dismissive of people&#...I still think you are being dismissive of people's viewpoints, and you don't leave much room for debate/legitimate disagreement (somthing you accuse those you disagree with of doing). I will tell you what is anti-science, saying "the time for debate is over" (Al Gore). Or, "the science is settled." <BR/><BR/>In other news, Freeman Dyson is not a scientist (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine). <BR/><BR/>As soon as global warming produces a testable hypothesis that is verified, I'll get fully on board. Until then, I will remain a skeptic.Michael L. Heienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17981797893559665061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23124811.post-56928435294439838632009-03-27T00:49:00.000-04:002009-03-27T00:49:00.000-04:00There's a bit of oversimplification due to the bre...There's a bit of oversimplification due to the brevity, but those were given as example of the public nature of anti-science sentiment that is displayed as a result of religion.<BR/><BR/>The majority of noise from the anti-stem cell people is from those who dislike and distrust science in general. Your extrapolations are specious. <BR/><BR/>And global warming? Propaganda aside (and, in my opinion, probably necessary if distasteful), I will say that people who do not believe that humans have had and are having an impact on the global climate that has been producing and is likely to continue to produce increasing average temperatures (over base changes, and behind wildly fluctuating year to year temps) which will have unpredictable results, is anti-science. <BR/><BR/>We'll see how good Obama really is for science. All signs now point to orders of magnitude better than Bush.Jacobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11055418637177456464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23124811.post-24570306467825752632009-03-16T15:07:00.000-04:002009-03-16T15:07:00.000-04:00I am sure you did not mean to say something like t...I am sure you did not mean to say something like this in a short communcation...but when you say <BR/><BR/>"...anti-science types. Anti-scientists are dominated, publicly, by religious (anti-evolution, anti-stem cells) and industrial (anti-global warming) anti-science groups..." <BR/><BR/>Do you really mean to say (or imply) that if someone is opposed to stem cell research, or say global warming propoganda (I am making a distiction between Al Gore here and actual climate science) that they are "anti-science?" I think it is possible to have moral objections to what we are willing to do. These questions need to be asked. Even Obama said "no cloning." Does this mean he is "anti-science" since we have the technology to clone?" No it doesn't. I think by paining people as "anti-science" for a position you can fall into the same Dogma which they possess (ie you are unwilling to entertain challenges to your point of view).Michael L. Heienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17981797893559665061noreply@blogger.com