1
Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Fodder: Science and Doubting, Educated Conservatives....Follow

#27 Apr 06 2012 at 6:15 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
gbaji wrote:
[quote=someproteinguy]

The other problem is that increasingly, it's those sensationalist news articles that are being called "science". I don't think there's anything surprising at all that the more educated a conservative is, the more likely he will be to reject those things. He knows enough to know that's not really what science is about.

Why would conservatism be a factor in level of education and recognition and/or subsequent rejection of 'sensationalist news articles?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#28 Apr 06 2012 at 8:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
In the 1970's we thought we were about to enter an ice age.

No we didn't.


The other 42 papers were actually cancer related and thus can be ignored per the other article.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#29 Apr 06 2012 at 8:14 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
What helps me sleep at night about science is that in three more years and we'll all have flying DeLoreans at least.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#30 Apr 06 2012 at 8:18 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,826 posts
I doubt the accuracy of any survey, scientific or non-scientific, that is produced by any organization that has an agenda, whether that organization is left-leaning or right-leaning.
#31 Apr 06 2012 at 8:21 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
What helps me sleep at night about science is that in three more years and we'll all have flying DeLoreans at least.

That's just sensationalized science rumors that the media is spreading. Can't you tell the difference?!

The time-traveling Delorean, however, should be in the dealer lots before the decade is out.





Edited, Apr 6th 2012 4:21pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#32 Apr 06 2012 at 8:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I doubt the accuracy of any survey, scientific or non-scientific, that is produced by any organization that has an agenda, whether that organization is left-leaning or right-leaning.

Is there an organization without an agenda?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#33 Apr 06 2012 at 8:25 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,826 posts
Elinda wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I doubt the accuracy of any survey, scientific or non-scientific, that is produced by any organization that has an agenda, whether that organization is left-leaning or right-leaning.

Is there an organization without an agenda?


I should have added the word political before agenda, which would precluded you asking your question. Since I didn't, no there are no organizations with agendas. There are a few organizations left that are either devoid of political agendas or actually and truly bipartisan.
#34 Apr 06 2012 at 8:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I wouldn't want my scientific organization to be bipartisan anyway. It should be apolitical.

That said, people often just attach the partisan label to anything that doesn't fit what they want so then they can dismiss it out of hand with the easy excuse.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Apr 06 2012 at 8:33 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,826 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I wouldn't want my scientific organization to be bipartisan anyway. It should be apolitical.

That said, people often just attach the partisan label to anything that doesn't fit what they want so then they can dismiss it out of hand with the easy excuse.


I agree 100% with your first sentence. However, I find it's getter harder and harder to find any organization that is truly apolitical.
#36 Apr 06 2012 at 9:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Thats just one aspect of science where I think that anyone who can claim "we know and understand this phenomenon well enough to make massive, sweeping environmental changes with profound economical impacts, or well enough to say at this point we can safely ignore this" is an idiot.


This is become more of a general problem in many fields. The shear amount of data that can be produced these days really is swamping those of us trying to keep up. Even in my own field the amount of data that used to compose an entire publication, and months of work, some 15 years ago can now be generated in under a minute. We rely on software to filter the data for us, but much of that is still in the developmental stage and it has several shortcomings. It's painful watching publications come out sometimes. You know what they're seeing may well be an artifact of the software, but you're unable to do anything about it. Sadly the researcher usually remains clueless until their 'bio-marker' starts failing miserably in further testing. Not fun seeing someone chase ghosts for 5 years. Of course other fields laugh at what we consider to be 'big' data, which really scares me sometimes.

The ability to create terabytes of data in a relativity short time is part of the problem, you also have a lot of science being done these days. Add in that cross-disciplinary projects are all the rage, and it just makes it hard to keep up with everything that going on. I have about a half dozen publications I try to follow just in my own narrow field. If we try to increase from "proteomics" to a more useful level like say "medical research" or "drug discovery" well good luck keeping up and getting your own work done.

So pretty much this. Smiley: clown


____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 316 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (316)