The Science Wars

[Robovski]

It's mockery. He's also implying you are transphobic for relying on a scientific viewpoint.

Everywhere you go there is a turd in the punchbowl these days.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

If we're talking about a war on science, then isn't the main issue the political party doing everything to destroy science budgets and fire scientists?

[Darth Wedgius]

If we're talking about a war on science, then isn't the main issue the political party doing everything to destroy science budgets and fire scientists?

I think that is an important point, but that doesn't mean other points should be ignored. Bias in academia may sound, well, academic, but it can have long-term consequences.

[Darth Wedgius]

It's mockery. He's also implying you are transphobic for relying on a scientific viewpoint.

It seems he has a habit of seeing what he wants me to have said rather than what I have actually said. There's an upside to that: efficiency. A conversation between him and him might mean I can just sit back and watch.

[Darth Wedgius]

Oh, you're one of those biological essentiallists(sic), huh? Yeah, biologists themselves don't agree with you, but why let a little science get in the way of transphobia?

Once again, you are responding to what I didn't write. I wrote "There is no objective answer." How is that consistent with biological essentialism?

Furthermore, in my first response to you I wrote, "Yes, there are brain studies that suggests some commonalities between cis-brains and trans-brains of the sex the trans-whatever identifies as..." Which you have decided is news to me.

Either this is just empty mockery of someone you have decided is guilty of wrongthink and must be punished, or you should read and think over these things a little before responding. Well, there are less likely explanations as well... Parallel worlds, comforting delusions when you read a response, aliens transreversemogrifying your brain, the Mandellla effect (what, it isn't spelled with three Ls where you come from?)... But I think the "you should be a little more careful" may be more helpful. Mischaracterizing everyone who disagrees with you may make for some good feels, but I think it may be one of the reasons we seem to have science wars as frequently as science discussions, if you get my meaning (as optimistic as that sounds at this point).

[ScreamingDoom]

Right, sure. Because it's the Left that denies climate change, denies evolution, denies the failures of abstinence only education programs, denies the existence of transgender and intersex people, claims there's a link between abortion and breast cancer, claims hurricanes are God's punishment for gay people, thinks wind farms will slow the Earth's rotation...

*eyeroll*

Edited for tone. Simple mockery is adequate.

And here we have an example of just the sort of thing that causes what I was posting about originally. You care about ideology, not if something is scientifically valid. I bet you didn't even watch any of the stuff I posted, did you? You just contemptuously dismissed it without bothering to actually look at what is actually being said and then lumped it in with a political ideology. This is why science is under attack by the left. When experimental evidence suggests something that does not fit their worldview, they just lump it in with other ridiculous things. Now, of course, the right does this as well -- ideologues are on both sides of the political spectrum -- but they are not the ones with centers of power in academia. They can't twist the process of science to spit out the answers they want. At best they can set up alternate academia which is also laughably poor (Crocoduck has a bunch of videos on these sort of things, too).

The fundamental thing about science is this: observation trumps all. It does not matter what you think should be right. You can't argue with it, you can't make Nature change her answer. If Nature says you are wrong then you are wrong. This is why it's so difficult to be a scientist. Most people can't admit to being wrong. Hell, even some scientists are tempted away from facing their wrongness, either through their own ideology or through outside pressure (no one pays for studies that don't confirm their biases, after all).

Case in point: Dr. William M. Gray. He was a pioneer in meteorological research and is credited with tropical cyclone forecasting. During the Clinton Administration, he was invited to a symposium led by Vice President Al Gore to talk about climate change. He agreed to come, but said that he didn't think there was enough evidence to support an anthropogenic source for climate change.

He was unceremoniously uninvited and mysteriously had his funding cut. Keep in mind, he didn't say it wasn't the case that humans were the primary cause of climate change, merely that he didn't think that there was enough evidence to support such a claim at that time.

He would later become an opponent of anthropogenic climate change.

He was also an observational scientist and disdained climate modelling.

He was not a crack-pot. He was not an idiot. He was not being paid by some other ideological group (he ended up funding most of his climate research after his funding was cut entirely by himself). He was a scientist, but because he didn't toe the party line, he was ostracised. This is the kind of damage the left is doing to one of the founding pillars of modern liberal civilization.

[Arkle]

Translation: "I found this one guy who agrees with my worldview, so the greater than 95% of peer reviewed studies that say otherwise are wrong."

And you accuse me of valuing ideology over facts. *eyeroll, followed by jerk-off motion* It never occurred to you that your Dr. Gray was wrong? I mean, I looked the guy up. So far his "argument" was repeating a Right Wing conspiracy and engaging in personal attacks. http://www.westword.com/news/the-skeptic-5089763 He is also a proponent of the "world government" conspiracy theory. A popular one among anti-Semites, I might add. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05_pf.html

So your source is a Godwin's Law violating conspiracy nut. And you value him over thousands of peer-reviewed studies.

But I'm the asshole here? Gimme a break.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

- but they are not the ones with centers of power in academia. They can't twist the process of science to spit out the answers they want

The only reason that the right are not ones with centers of powers in academia and not in a position to twist the process, is because they have a basic worldview and consensus reality which is inconsistent with the most basic and agreed-upon scientific truths.

If there's a war on science, I'm going to take a wild leap and say that the originator is the group trying to defund and destroy science as a process at every turn, rather than a group twisting or misrepresenting scientific facts for their own agenda.

[Admiral X]

Both are attacks on science. Christ, you're reminding me of Huxley.

[MadAmosMalone]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson has some thoughts on this.

https://youtu.be/x7Q8UvJ1wvk

The video was uploaded in 09. Would be interesting to ask him about this today.