Utopia Talk / Politics / The Left Hates Science

kargen Member	Tue Feb 12 11:15:14 http://www...CK9Jud6wvihMzZcrpTDsyfujdR8HUI Six minute video touching on some of the areas of science the left stifles.
hood Member	Tue Feb 12 11:43:13 Fuck your videos. Article or summary.
kargen Member	Tue Feb 12 11:45:19 Okay a summary. The left hates science and tries to oppress any study that has findings contrary to their feelings.
hood Member	Tue Feb 12 11:51:25 I see no evidence presented. GTFO.
kargen Member	Tue Feb 12 11:59:16 http://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html Try that. An article written by the person interviewed you ignorant putz.
hood Member	Tue Feb 12 12:02:44 See, was it too hard to produce a fucking article? Video articles are cancer. Don't be a fucking carcinogen.
NeverWoods Member	Tue Feb 12 12:08:44 "The left hates science and tries to oppress any study that has findings contrary to their feelings." What is this rambling, make a concrete example or don't bother. The conservatives are known for having feels and no reals. Is this your feels kargen ?
NeverWoods Member	Tue Feb 12 12:15:00 The stupidity of the right. I have no reason to watch that clip. 1 min in and they excuse creationism for not having an impact on science. and they portray GMO opponents as an anti-science crowd. This is all feels.
NeverWoods Member	Tue Feb 12 12:22:14 Just going to leave this here. GMO is fucking horrible, The plants are developed to grow on soil that has no mineral value, so growers can shave a buck from enriching the soil. the end product is greens without any good nutrient value. How is that good for anyone?
kargen Member	Tue Feb 12 12:40:37 Looking at the other side of GMO's hybrid wheat can grow in drier climates without irrigation and still produce a good yield. Less irrigation is good for pretty much everybody. And the creationism thing depends on the type of creationism. Not all creationists believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Some actually embrace evolution saying the two do not contradict each other.
hood Member	Tue Feb 12 12:51:34 So, within the intro (first three paragraphs), already have some stupidity. Guy poses the question "where's the casualties of the Republican war on science?" in a very specific manner as to completely ignore any casualties. Not all casualties are about scientists losing jobs. Changing public opinion on an effort to enact laws of a major casualty. The efforts to purge science from school literature is another. Anyway... Next few paragraphs cherry pick (precisely something he rails against) specific cases and failures without providing any evidence. Specifically, he talks about GMO food research that was shut down. No evidence, no causation with protests. Just a random claim that looks good before scrutiny. Cites a blog (very fucking scientific) to say Republicans are more scientifically literate than others. Blog has no n size, sources itself, sources in loops. And above all, is a survey. Without any further evidence, we can completely disregard the survey posted on a blog with circular references and no mention of n size. He also again cherry picks very specific points (genetic underpinnings of behavior as an example). Sorry, no bueno. He delves further into this cherry picking by showing extreme focus to "social sciences," which happen to be the least sciency science in existence - an objective fact. And we have this quote gem: "Conservatives have been variously pathologized as unethical, antisocial, and irrational simply because they don’t share beliefs that seem self-evident to liberals." Lolwhat? Irrational for sure. Antisocial? Excuse me? Unethical? Maybe if we're talking conservative lawmakers. Random fuck hillbillies? See irrational, not unethical. Stupidity abounds in some of these statements. So to sum up this person's entire first segment: The left hate social science. Cool. One single area of study. Hardly a total war on science. Massive cherry picking and handwaving to make your first point doesn't seem like a great way to start. The second part starts off by claiming that only the left politicizes science (what the actual fuck is this regard on?) and goes on to talk about... the 1920s. Cool fucking beans there, bro. Then he tries to make a point about bad science lasting (as if this doesn't exist on both sides) and... LINKS TO A NONEXISTENT WEBSITE! Classic. So much for evidence. Even the quickest of Google searches reveals that the claim (pesticides are safe) he's making is only partially true. Some pesticides are indeed safe for humans, some are not. So he's again cherry picking evidence. He then tries to spin some climate change denial with fancy bullshittery and attempted word play. Seems to be pretty biased, much like this entire article. And I'm out. Guy has a point regarding social sciences, but not enough to spin doctor reality. His complete ignorance (whether accidental, which is hard to believe considering his topic of choice, or purposeful) towards the very obvious assaults on science that must be regularly refuted from retarded conservatives. Overall, a pretty shit argument that focused in on a single subject, ignored any transgressions countering his argument, and was horribly sourced. Little better than an op-ed.
TJ Member	Tue Feb 12 12:53:20 There is no money in truth.
hood Member	Tue Feb 12 12:53:56 "Not all creationists believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Some actually embrace evolution saying the two do not contradict each other." Equally retarded, and more nefarious. Anyone can craft a definition of god that doesn't contradict scientific findings. That doesn't make it a valid topic to cover in schools.
NeverWoods Member	Tue Feb 12 12:55:50 Sure they can grow, but what are they good for? At that point they are just bad desserts, you are not getting anything from it that has any good value. If there was a lack of wheat or caloric-rich green you could make a better case for GMO. But there isn't. GMO crops should be avoided if you want any nutrients. Farmers burn wheat to artificially keep prices stable. Yeah, I agree 100 that not all creationists have the same beliefs, the issue is and I am sure you would agree with me here, there are creationists that want to rid of science programs that might be at odds with the bible. And that should not be overlooked.
NeverWoods Member	Tue Feb 12 12:59:32 Do you also understand you don't need heavy use of pesticides to grow wheat? There is going to be a loss of 20-30% of the crops, but that's better than burning it.
McKobb Member	Tue Feb 12 13:13:28 I had a rabbi that taught earth sciences in school. He said if you asked him as a teacher how old the earth was he would talk to you about the big bang. If you asked him as a rabbi he would say several thousand years. If you asked him to reconcile these answers he would say there is no need, one is science and the other faith.
kargen Member	Tue Feb 12 13:40:53 "Equally retarded, and more nefarious. Anyone can craft a definition of god that doesn't contradict scientific findings. That doesn't make it a valid topic to cover in schools." So don't cover it in schools.
NeverWoods Member	Tue Feb 12 13:48:10 Props to Hood for reading 6 pages of garbage. If someone did what Kargen just did, I would flip. linking is fine but linking 6 pages and say go read that, without providing any concrete examples from it. It's a tactic to just overwhelm someone with text/links that you end up trying to find ways to discredit the links rather than the argument being made. And if the link has 10 lies and one truth in it that you have to admit too, you might end up in a trap. Fuck you, go read it your self!
hood Member	Tue Feb 12 13:49:10 Tell your compatriots in retardation so we don't have to keep playing whack-a-tard.
hood Member	Tue Feb 12 13:50:50 "Props to Hood for reading 6 pages of garbage." I didn't get through the entire thing. Maybe 3ish pages. And I did kind of ask for an article over a video. Article was produced, so I gave it a shot.
kargen Member	Tue Feb 12 13:59:39 "GMO crops should be avoided if you want any nutrients." "In the spring of 2016, The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) issued a report confirming the safety of GMOs and also their compositional and nutritional equivalency with non-GMO foods. The NAS confirms, “Statistically significant differences in nutrient and chemical composition have been found between GE (genetically engineered) and non-GE plants by using traditional methods of compositional analysis, but the difference have been considered to fall within the range of naturally occurring variation found in currently available non-GE crops.” And why would they burn wheat already grown? Farmers burn stubble after the wheat is harvested but if they want to control the amount of wheat they do that by planting less wheat. The idea is to produce more wheat on less land. That lowers the environmental impact along with lowering cost to grow. And you skipped right over the dry compared to irrigated wheat and what impact that has on water.
NeverWoods Member	Tue Feb 12 14:01:49 The issue is, he never put out an argument, he made a statement and linked a bunch of garbage. Like he was way too much of a coward to actually put something out there. Let the links take the heat. I would argue point by point basis rather than take on 30 issues at once.
hood Member	Tue Feb 12 14:23:38 "The issue is, he never put out an argument" This is quite true. It was a contributing factor in me requesting a text link vs. a video. But having made that request, it'd be very hot rod if me to not at least make the attempt to read it.
NeverWoods Member	Tue Feb 12 14:29:22 Can you link that study? Not all GMO's are equal like I said they are made with different intents but common practice is growing on soil that is lacking on minerals. If you find that being as good as plants growing on soil that is enriched. Other concerns are. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835 "As genetically modified (GM) foods are starting to intrude in our diet concerns have been expressed regarding GM food safety. These concerns, as well as the limitations of the procedures followed in the evaluation of their safety, are presented. Animal toxicity studies with certain GM foods have shown that they may toxically affect several organs and systems. The review of these studies should not be conducted separately for each GM food, but according to the effects exerted on certain organs, it may help us create a better picture of the possible health effects on human beings. The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. However, many years of research with animals and clinical trials are required for this assessment. The use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which may promote cancer." I won't deny that there are benefits to GMO's, but it's not anti-science to be against it. I still would not search out and buy GMO food.
NeverWoods Member	Tue Feb 12 14:48:09 https://gmoawareness.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/glyphosate_roundup_wheat_gluten_celiac_samsel-seneff.pdf Glyphosate is used to spray non-organic crops so as a crop desiccant. It has been linked to Celiac, gluten sensitivity, and irritable bowel syndrome
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 12 16:40:24 So does the right though. It is a human condition to "hate" facts that contradict your views. Not even the scientist themselves are not immune to this. They get attached to whatever discovery they made, hence: "Progress is made one funeral at a time" - Max Planck
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 12 16:57:16 "He delves further into this cherry picking by showing extreme focus to "social sciences," which happen to be the least sciency science in existence - an objective fact." Yes, but the social sciences actually have alot of impact on social and economic policy (corporate and political). Garbage that actually informs activism and policy decisions. The type of moral outrage inducing things like "implicit bias" and "toxic masculinity". And it does indeed suffer from a heavy liberal bias, instititutes that have 40 liberal professor for every conservative. One consequence is that almost all the studies have conservatives and right wingers as the subject matter. This leads to skewed results for one, and a constant pathologizing of people from one ideology. Intellectual echo chambers. OMG look what republitards think! -Random Libtard reading Buzzfeed "journalist" reporting social "science".
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 12 17:02:21 Thought I have to say, what a shocker that conservatives after a century of evolution denial suddenly are on the barricades defending genetics and biology :) Why is that? And IQ of all things, right? I love me some science if it validates the racist beliefs that I already had! I am just joking, only half of you are racists, the rest of you just suffer from low IQ, according to the science :P
Sam Adams Member	Tue Feb 12 17:40:55 "GMO crops should be avoided if you want any nutrients. " Jesus. How retarded. Thats basically flat earther and antivaxxer stupidity levels.
kargen Member	Tue Feb 12 18:33:32 "If someone did what Kargen just did, I would flip. linking is fine but linking 6 pages and say go read that, without providing any concrete examples from it." I posted a six minute video summarizing the article. You can read the article, watch the video, skip both and go on some kind of rant or ignore the whole thing. "The issue is, he never put out an argument, he made a statement and linked a bunch of garbage." I posted the video thinking six minutes isn't that long maybe a few people will watch and comment then after that we could having seen the video start the shit storm there. "Not all GMO's are equal" yeah that was my point. Remember you started the GMO discussion stating "GMO is fucking horrible". Not some GMO is bad and some is good. So I provided an example of good. The report is close to 600 pages long but I think this is the part that you want. http://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/8#236
hood Member	Tue Feb 12 20:04:08 "Yes, but the social sciences actually have alot of impact on social and economic policy (corporate and political)." Sure. But societal norms practically change with the seasons (on a species level). The bullshit we put up with today is not the bullshit we put up with yesterday and its not the bullshit our parents put up with. Whereas if you were to take away Louis Pasteur's discovery, where the fuck are we? Hopefully someone else makes this discovery. As much as the social sciences may impact our own personal lives, they aren't going to have a huge impact to history. We will be a chapter footnote. Meanwhile future generations will be discussing the discovery of the higgs boson, the quantum computer (if it can be done), non-fossil fuel energy. Harping on the social sciences and ignoring very real attacks on the things that launch a species into the future is fairly dishonest in an argument that there's a war on science. "a constant pathologizing of people from one ideology" I mean, this happens whether there's scientific support (good or bad science) or not. Nobody needs actual evidence to pathologize the other team. "Trump derangement syndrome" being a thing people actually use, seriously, is the most glaring evidence of this.
Canadian Member	Tue Feb 12 23:42:54 Can't we all just get along and hate on the anti-vaxxers?
McKobb Member	Wed Feb 13 00:14:59 Canada was built on dead beavers. We need to get back to that!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 13 01:28:41 Hood I am not so sure about the first parts. Societal norms use to changed slowly and were for the longest time instructed by religious dogma. This is all new developments and brings with it (atleast attempts) the scientific integrity and veracity that killed religion. Just like religious dogmas had a negative effect so does this have negative effects on the search for knowledge by limiting the search space and stifiling discourse, so does this. I don’t think it will last, because there are really good scientists in these fields pushing it forward. Likewise simply pathologizing group A versus saying there is scientific evidence for the pathology of group A. This carries different weight generally in the countries we live (everyone wants science on their side now that god is dead, even the religious people). You have people with fairly advanced degrees in ”real science” who believe this garbage. Is this worse than people who make policy based on religious dogma? No, it is equally bad.
NeverWoods Member	Wed Feb 13 05:47:58 "I posted a six minute video summarizing the article. " Don't post a six-minute video and leave it at that. bring up a good point from the video, a point you can stand behind. This is why it's a cowardly act just to post something and leave it at that. I don't know what you agree with or what you disagree with. So Why should anyone go into 30 points just because you fail to even stand behind 1? "yeah that was my point" I don't know what your point was. the video stated it was an anti-science movement. I made the case that GMO are not good, with good reason. It's not an anti-science stance. I ended up getting hung up on GMO's which is my own blame. I don't think all GMO's are bad and there is a big positive aspect to it. But that does mean there are negative things about it that people might object too. That is something reasonable that both can agree on.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 13 07:43:36 Problem generally with anti GMO people is that once you get into the details it isn’t the genetic engineering that care about, but alot of other things that have nothing to do with genetic engineering, like the use of pesticides or that fact that giant corporations own and control the food supply. To the extent that the nutritional or chemical profile of the actual crop is harmful, then we can maybe say that this specific GMO crop was bad due to genetic engineering, if this is the fact. You know, like everything else we engineer from bridges to medicine, sometimes they don’t turn out like intended. There is in principle nothing negative with genetically modifing crops provided they go through a rigorous process to prove they are safe. So, blanket statements like ”GMO is fucking horrible” makes about as much sense as ”civil engineering is fucking horrible”.
NeverWoods Member	Wed Feb 13 08:01:29 "To the extent that the nutritional or chemical profile of the actual crop is harmful...." Define what you mean by harmful, we might have 2 ideas on what is and isn't. if it's nutritionally deficient, I would consider that harmful if that is the only source of nutrients one gets. I really don't buy into the proteins argument for it being harmful.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 13 08:14:08 Is made harmful or more harmful (less nutrition and/or more unhealthy stuff) as a result of being geneticslly modified. But even this, it may be a trade off. Hypothetically you may modify something that solves stravation for millions but also increases the risk of diabetes in that population. Why don’t you define what you mean with ”GMO is fucking horrible”? I presume something more nuanced that can be captured is such a careless statement?
hood Member	Wed Feb 13 08:14:17 "Societal norms use to changed slowly" They were carried by horse and by boat. Of course they'll move slowly. Once these things were being carried by car, norms started to shift faster. Then they were carried by plane and by electric current (TV, radio). They shifted faster. Now they're carried by an insane number of electric currents (huge variety of TV) and, most importantly, by the internet in a much more direct fashion. The technology of the time has greatly increased our ability to change what we think of as normal. I don't expect this current climate of normal to last more than a decade. And we're roughly 3 years into it already. "Likewise simply pathologizing group A versus saying there is scientific evidence for the pathology of group A. This carries different weight" As much as I'd like to agree with you, I don't think "but science" actually has any weight. That's part of what the guy's article was about. People might like to think they're being sciency, they may use "big, fancy language" in arguments and accuse the other person of "needing to educate themselves" and "do some research," but it's just posturing. And we've got multiple studies touching on this (albeit you'll have to infer it). I admittedly have a poor perception of people, but I don't think that it's clouding my judgment on this. It's rare to find someone who actually wants the real science instead of the science that agrees with them. And just wanting the science that agrees with you is about as scientific as religion, as you have said in the past.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 13 08:20:13 But it is a relevant question you ask. Plenty of non GMO foods are really bad for your health, deficient in nutrients and also bad for the environment. Processed meats for instance, Organic banans from Costa Rica travel on a ship that runs on diesel to get to Sweden. What if we could modify them to grow them here and skip the transportation.
NeverWoods Member	Wed Feb 13 08:32:10 "Why don’t you define what you mean with ”GMO is fucking horrible”? I presume something more nuanced that can be captured is such a careless statement?" . It might be a bit careless to say such a wide-ranging thing. Saying All cars are fucking horrible when I mean Fords are horrible. But I thought this was clear. Bad GMO is fucking horrible. If you want me to pin out which corn is fucking horrible, That is not something I really want to be dragged into. I still don't get your point? You want to talk about GMO's or that not wanting GMO's is an anti-science stance?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 13 09:02:11 Hood These fields are new, it may be obvious that things change more rapidly due to tech, but not thay new ideas from relatively young fields should be adopted so rapidly I think science does have alot of weight, especially for secular people, the nominal liberal. But even religious people have seen and acknowledge the power of science, it is everywhere around them, glowing a blue light in their face. Few people find those sciences ”controvertial”. It is true that for some people the old gods have been replaced by a secular religion. The ”posturing” type. They have these beliefs and science is there to validate their world view. They wont change their minds so easly. But for a lot of people, ranging from high to low ability to read science papers, they believe what newspapers report and because of time constraint or lack of interest do not read further. Ultimatly I think we actually can make progress collectively and individually on the issues of how the world works, but that progress is contingent on the quality of data we get and how it is delivered. The quality and delivery is suffering alot in social science, and it becomes a pressing matter because they are both important and impactful.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 13 09:09:56 NW Yea sure, ”bad” anything can be horrible. It isn’t clear when someone makes a blanket statement that their views are very nuanced. But fair enough. My position is that anyone who says and actually believes a blanket statement like that doesn’t know what they are talking about. Science is a big term, uneducated on the subject would be the better term.
NeverWoods Member	Wed Feb 13 12:27:26 Generalization is just that.
kargen Member	Wed Feb 13 16:12:34 "Don't post a six-minute video and leave it at that. bring up a good point from the video, a point you can stand behind." Don't tell me how to troll.
kargen Member	Wed Feb 13 16:19:10 "I don't know what your point was." Did you not read my post? Scroll back up. It starts with, "Looking at the other side of GMO's" You made a blanket statement about GMO's I provided an example of a GMO that is actually beneficial then later followed with a link to a report that disputes your claim of GMO's having no nutritional value. " It might be a bit careless to say such a wide-ranging thing. Saying All cars are fucking horrible when I mean Fords are horrible." and that is exactly what you did. To your credit you are walking back on that claim.
NeverWoods Member	Wed Feb 13 17:34:47 "Don't tell me how to troll. " Haha. ok
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Feb 16 06:12:08 NW The scientific consensus is that GMOs are no worse for us or the ecosystem than ordinary crops and foods. So generally, there is nothing wrong with GMOs. It would then go against the scientific consensus to generalize and say "GMO is fucking horrible".
NeverWoods Member	Sat Feb 16 13:04:31 Explain this. In what way is saying "GMO is fucking horrible" a stance of anti-science? Does it affect science or education of science?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Feb 16 13:13:59 I am not sure I am part of this "anti-science" discussion, where I want to label you the "left" or any group as particularly "anti science". Science is a big topic as I said earlier neither the left nor the right or the up or the down are anti it all. If someone thinks "generally" GMO is fucking horrible, they are uneducated on the subject. That is all.
NeverWoods Member	Sat Feb 16 13:29:08 It was a generalization statement. Don't know why you are on my dick. If you don't want to talk about the subject.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Feb 16 13:33:56 We can talk about why it is wrong to make a general blanket statement that GMOs are fucking horrible when the scientific consensus is that they are not. But you seem to want me to say if this makes you or someone else "anti science", i.e another general blanket statement. I think I have been clear where I stand on this. So the question is, are you going against the scientific consensus in generally thinking GMOs are bad? I presume you do not do this for say global warming? You believe the scientific consensus on global warming?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Feb 16 13:47:39 And I get that you made a generalized statement, that is kinda the whole point I am making, that you are wrong to make this generalized statement. GMOs are generally no worse or better than ordinary foods according to the scientific consensus.
NeverWoods Member	Sat Feb 16 19:18:02 What do you extactly want to the argument about? "So the question is, are you going against the scientific consensus in generally thinking GMOs are bad? " How many types of plant and grown GMO's are there? Some are bad some are good. maybe even a majority are good. but there is no encompassing consensus on GMO's. Maybe I meant the bad GMO's. I wish to read more about GMO studies in general, not saying no to that. If you have any link them. I was going to write about the PDCAAS scores. but that is a diffrent subject.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 17 03:30:40 I think I have made the case. If someone generalizes that GMOs are generally bad, then that is wrong and goes against the scientific consensus. If you do not believe this, there is nothing to argue about. Yes, there is a consensus. http://www...lt/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf And here is an article on scientific conensus fails and motivated reasoning prevails. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2018.1502201
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: