• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Left's War on Science

Jack Hays said:
Compared to the damage done by the left, anything like that is just a rounding error.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no way in which the right's attack on scientific curriculum constitutes quantization error.
 
Fishking said:
Break: Partisan hack doesn't understand what he read so just spouts a bunch of partisan crap!
Click to expand...

The article in the OP was filled with bare assertions and very short on anything that would back up the claims of the author.

Basically, "It's true because I say it's true!"

Not at all surprised you didn't understand that.
 
Jack Hays said:
Compared to the damage done by the left, anything like that is just a rounding error.
Click to expand...

Neither you nor the author of the piece have demonstrated any substantive or real 'damage' done by 'the left'.

Yet again you're tilting at windmills and chasing after ghosts that aren't there.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
The article in the OP was filled with bare assertions and very short on anything that would back up the claims of the author.

Basically, "It's true because I say it's true!"

Not at all surprised you didn't understand that.
Click to expand...

Another person that doesn't read, understand the content, or knows how to click embedded links.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
I read it. It's how I know it was full of unsupported bare assertions.

Clearly it has you fooled.

Bummer.
Click to expand...

*yawn* Your lack of content is boring and extremely redundant. Ta ta.
 
Jack Hays said:
It was just a figure of speech to illustrate the insignificance of the right.
Click to expand...

The right is rather culturally insignificant. In fact, their biggest cultural influence is to try to bring racism back into the mainstream.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Sorry you couldn't make a rational or honest point.

I'm used to that from you.
Click to expand...

It's not for me to make the point. It's for those who are criticizing the content provided. Let me know when an actual analysis and content-based criticism is provided and then the onus will be on me. Not surprising you don't know how this works.
 
Absentglare said:
The right is rather culturally insignificant. In fact, their biggest cultural influence is to try to bring racism back into the mainstream.
Click to expand...

You are again reinforcing the OP's point. Are you doing that on purpose?
 
Fishking said:
It's not for me to make the point. It's for those who are criticizing the content provided. Let me know when an actual analysis and content-based criticism is provided and then the onus will be on me. Not surprising you don't know how this works.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim it was up to you to make 'the' point. Thus far you haven't made any rational or relevant point.

I read the article in the OP.
I found it full of bare assertions and unsupported claims.
I stated that to be the case.

Sorry that upsets you to the point of being reduced to your usually sputtering and rationalizing.

Why didn't you read the article?
 
Jack Hays said:
Confirmation bias and politicization are the Left's two powerful weapons against science. The Left has a much more pronounced negative impact on science than anything coming from the Right.


The real war on science

[FONT=&]Posted on November 21, 2016 | 63 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
The Left has done far more than the Right to set back progress. – John Tierney
Continue reading →

Magazine: The Real War on Science. Read the whole thing. Here are some excerpts of particular relevance to climate science:
Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science. I know that sounds strange to Democrats who decry Republican creationists and call themselves the “party of science.” But I’ve done my homework. I’ve read the Left’s indictments, including Chris Mooney’s bestseller, The Republican War on Science. I finished it with the same question about this war that I had at the outset: Where are the casualties?
Where are the scientists who lost their jobs or their funding? What vital research has been corrupted or suppressed? What scientific debate has been silenced? Yes, the book reveals that Republican creationists exist, but they don’t affect the biologists or anthropologists studying evolution. Yes, George W. Bush refused federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, but that hardly put a stop to it (and not much changed after Barack Obama reversed the policy).
The danger from the Left does not arise from stupidity or dishonesty; those failings are bipartisan. Some surveys show that Republicans, particularly libertarians, are more scientifically literate than Democrats, but there’s plenty of ignorance all around. Both sides cherry-pick research and misrepresent evidence to support their agendas. Whoever’s in power, the White House plays politics in appointing advisory commissions and editing the executive summaries of their reports. Scientists of all ideologies exaggerate the importance of their own research and seek results that will bring them more attention and funding.
But two huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse.

The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices. . . .
And that brings us to the second great threat from the Left: its long tradition of mixing science and politics. . . .

Click to expand...

Well, considering I am in a debate with a bunch of leftists who swear they see a 90% satisfaction rate from SRS recipients in various studies, even though some of these studies have 70% drop out rates....I know exactly what you mean.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-a...ssurdity-day-vagina-trans-front-hole-cis.html

BTW: they like to upend language, redefine basic words like vagina and penis, men and women, to suit their agenda as well.
 
Absentglare said:
Only six percent of scientists are republican. Only nine percent of scientists are conservative:

353878c495245e53902fb6878b2cf3f9.gif


And ninety seven percent of scientists believe that scientists should be actively involved in political discussions:

679e92e7598ef07b884bbdc89a6fee22.gif


I don't know that i've ever seen a thread so completely wrong and easily disproven.

Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion | Pew Research Center
Click to expand...

Follow the money. Modern science and research is just like Hollywood. If you want a job, you'd better toe the line.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
I didn't claim it was up to you to make 'the' point. Thus far you haven't made any rational or relevant point.

I read the article in the OP.
I found it full of bare assertions and unsupported claims.
I stated that to be the case.

Sorry that upsets you to the point of being reduced to your usually sputtering and rationalizing.

Why didn't you read the article?
Click to expand...

So me pointing out any response(which now includes yours), which is tantamount to "Nuh-uh", remains valid. Thanks for the concession. Next.
 
Fishking said:
So me pointing out any response(which now includes yours), which is tantamount to "Nuh-uh", remains valid. Thanks for the concession. Next.
Click to expand...

Sorry you couldn't make a rational point and you couldn't read the article.

Thanks for admitting you have no interest in honesty or rational discourse.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Sorry you couldn't make a rational point and you couldn't read the article.

Thanks for admitting you have no interest in honesty or rational discourse.
Click to expand...

Lol...again, it's for you to make a rational, content based, point first. I don't need to but point that out. Once you actually do, then I may deign to condescend to you and give a response.
 
Fishking said:
Lol...again, it's for you to make a rational, content based, point first. I don't need to but point that out. Once you actually do, then I may deign to condescend to you and give a response.
Click to expand...

I did. Thanks for proving my point for me.
 
Jack Hays said:
I posted the OP, and I have no interest in defending the cultural Right.
Click to expand...

That sentence is a contradiction. When you select the "left" as the target of your condmenation, you are, in fact, making a tacit endorsement of the right.
 
Absentglare said:
That sentence is a contradiction. When you select the "left" as the target of your condmenation, you are, in fact, making a tacit endorsement of the right.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I don't need to endorse either. I did not, for example, vote for either Clinton or Trump. In science, I'd like to see both sides at arm's length.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not at all. I don't need to endorse either. I did not, for example, vote for either Clinton or Trump. In science, I'd like to see both sides at arm's length.
Click to expand...

When you select "the left", you are deliberately excluding "the right" whether you're aware of it or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom