Science
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
Scientific Method
–noun
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
It seems to me that science has become the enemy of the right wing. Scientific facts like global climate change and evolution are being politicized. Science is not faith, and it is not politics.
Science is the study of the world around us and interpretation of the knowlege gained throuhg observation and experimentation. There is no room for faith in science. Unlike religion, science requires observation and tests to form an opinion. Religion relies almost exclusivley on faith. Not the same thing.
Science has become politicized by the right wing. I can't help but wonder if the reason for the resistance to the evidence of climate change isn't the fact that Al Gore became an advocate of the fight against climate change. The right wing would rather disagree with Al Gore than work to preserve our planet. When did sustaing human life become a liberal idea?
And evolution. Evolution is complex yet simple. Ideas about the mechanisms of evolution are very complex, but the concept of the biological proecess of evolution is pretty simple. And yes, there is a mountain of evidence to demonstrate that life has evolved, is evolving and will evolve in the future. It's not rocket science, but it is science.
When did gathering knowledge about the world through observation and experimentation become a liberal thing?
It seems that, to most conservatives, if the facts contradict our beliefs then the facts must be wrong. I don't get it.
Global warming and evolution are not controversies among scientists. They are only controversies among people who are unaware of the evidence, or who are resistant to it.
I had to do a little venting there. But before I go, let me give you some numbers.
97% of climatologists believe that global warming is real and that humans are playing a role.
99.85% of biologists believe in evolution.
|
|
| |
|
|
You honestly believe water won't exist on earth in liquid form? It evaporates, and then it condences. It is a cycle that will continue until the Earth is destroyed by the expanding sun before it supernovas. If you live in a desert you have no watter. I am sure the swamps of alabama need no more watter than what they have already. Do not fearmonger, unless you wish of others to do the same.
Do you look forward to billions more people without a water supply? I joke about being excited for global warming, but it is actually a serious matter.
As someone who lived north of Albany for two years, I second that FnG. Florida is hot, but we like it that way. Global Warming will mean more beach days :).
I look forward to global warming. Everybody in Buffalo, NY does.
I mean how selfish is that? What if the Neanderthals had prevented global cooling (the ice age). We might still be dragging our knuckles.
Good, then we should get out of the way so that the X-men can evolve.
Actually, when the environment changes, not everything survives. Those that adapt survive. Some speciaes don't adapt and they become extinct. That's why so many species are extinct. They didn't adapt to the changing environment.
If we go forward with a hydrogen economy, we could actually be exporting energy in the not too distant future.
Instead we are loaning George Soros $2 billion to join China in drilling in Brazil.
That's true to FnG. Renewable energy is a win-win. We reduce global warming, end dependence on foreign oil, and unlike oil, renewable energy won't ever run out.
FnG, exactly.
Imagine has an excellent point. That's really just one more reason why I don't worry about global warming. Either God exists and cares and won't kill us all with global warming, God exists and doesn't care but we will evolve, or God doesn't exist, and we will just evolve anyway like we always have. Who knows, maybe we are all just waiting to become X-men mutants and global warming is the catalyst. Who am I to stand in the way of evolution?
I would like to see a reduction in our fossil fuel use, not specifically to stop global warming, but to get off the arab oil tit.
What?
Take that shit and shove it up ass.
Yeah, FnG. We'll have to evolve. lol.
And I did forget to cite my numbers. The evolution survey comes from a survey on www.religioustolerance.org. The global warming survey comes from academics at the University of Illinois.
There's not a hell of alot we can do about global warming except to adapt.
Point taken, Kemp. And to friday, what I mean by ligitamte biologist is one with an actual degree in biology. There are plenty of people with degrees of questionable origins that publicly deny evolution. There are even actual scientists that deny evolution. I used the example before. A rocket scientist may not be very knowlegable about evolution and not believe it to be true. He is a scientist, but his area of study is not biology.
Here’s the deal as I see it. You want to put a magnifying glass on radicals who denounce and deny science. You want to magnify those few so much that, that you depict them as the major representatives of the conservative ideology which is at the heart of those on the right. That is insincere. That is looking at a few imperfections in the grain of reality and saying that those who deny science make up the entire reality of the right wing. That is as wrong as my classifying all Democrats and liberals as socialists. The vast majority, the overwhelming majority, of the those on the right, do not deny scientific fact. Many see a world where evolution is a fact and where evolution is a natural progression that took place after a greater power set it all into motion and triggered the beginning of evolution. Most of those on the right do not have a problem with religious instruction taught outside of public educational institutions while the legitimate facts of science are taught in public schools. This is what the overwhelming majority of conservatives look like. Not the picture that you paint of them. As for who politicized what, I believe not that the right politicized science but that the left politicized both science and religion. I believe that if one is sincere about science they understand, through fact and study, that no long term climate change effects can be truly accurate given the difference between the actual age of the earth and the span of time that scientific evidence and recorded history can cover. This vast differential in time studies prevents there from being enough historical analytical evidence to compare conclusions that are reached today to. This makes, no matter what anyone says, global warming a hypothesis not a fact. A hypothesis is defined as a theory needing investigation and a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation. The lack of an actual recorded history of all the natural phenomena throughout history makes conclusions that we reach on global warming today all a theory that can never actually be proven and turn the hypothesis of global warming into the fact of global warming. None of this is to say that man made pollutants and mans exploitation of natural resources does not damage our environment. That is not a hypothesis, that is a proven fact. But what people like Al Gore did was exploit an issue and try to turn a hypothetical into a reality. Not only that, he did so by exaggerating any scientific evidence that may point to legitimate evidence, so much that he losses credibility. His entire Academy Award winning, global warming movie on the issue was a gross exaggeration intended to scare people and misinform them about the extent of the severity of the damage that global warming might create, if it is real. Personally I believe that there is a global warming effect. We see it in cities, where suburbs could have temperatures as much as ten degrees lower than the big cities they surround. I believe it is a fact that smog and pollutants react with sun light and many cases creates a reflectivity of the sun that prevents it from its proper natural heating of the earths surface. But that is not global warming, that is global cooling. It is my opinion that the earth repairs itself if given the chance. It is an atmosphere of natural filters and cleansers that if not overwhelmed purifies itself, its atmosphere, its seas and forests. This would all lead me to believe that we can not overwhelm our earth and overtake its natural ability to repair itself. That is why, surprisingly, I am an environmentalist. Two of my greatest pleasures are the mountainous forests and oceans and lakes of our world. Their serenity and beauty overwhelms mw and on a daily basis, my heat beckons me to go to one or the other where I rejuvenate and bask in their majesty. So I want a safer and cleaner environment. But I do not exploit our environment by politicizing it by making a propaganda tool. And that is what people like Al Gore did. And he was a genuine hypocrite all along the way. Between the making of his movie and his own lifestyle, Al Gore has so far left a carbon footprint that is 5 times larger than the one I will leave behind when I die. Yet he chastises me for driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee. I do not politicize religion or the environment. It is people on the left who magnify the claims of some overly zealous religious fanatics, and paint a picture of all conservatives being that way. Those on the left are the ones trying to claim Republicans want to destroy the environment when in fact they want to preserve it while at the same time not destroying the economic quality and everyday lives of the people they lead. President G.W. Bush designated more land and regions as national preserves than any other President before him. Is the fact that he preserved the natural purity vitality of more land than any other President mentioned by the left. No. And why not? Because that does not fit into the stereotype of Republicans that the left wants to create. Is that sincere? Is that good for the environment? No, it is not. But it is an example of just how the left politicizes the environment and distorts the facts, exaggerate their claims and lie about the truth. Is this to say that Republicans do not participate in politicizing events and that they do not use propaganda? Certainly not. Some Republicans are as guilty as some Democrats. However it is I, a Republican who is pointing out that the right is as guilty as the left in some cases and it is you, a member of the left, that is claiming the only everyone on the right is guilty. As to your closing facts. It is important to remember that in the field of science in general, there is far less than a 97% consensus on a full scale global warming theory. Many conclude that the earth goes through natural heating and cooling cycles. The statistic you chose to use is one that interestingly enough has recently evolved in what is now know the title of climatologists. Those who have taken on this name are overwhelmingly liberal individuals who took on the title of climatologists because they already had a predisposition to the belief of global warming and this group of people do not seek all the evidence, they seek only more and more hypothetical evidence that advances their belief. They do not ever try to find any errors in their finds. Nor do they explore other possible reasons for their conclusions. Many of these people ignore and hide any evidence that may contradict their findings. That is not scientific sincerity. That is the politicizing science.
The difference between science and faith, in your mind, is that if I believe something it is faith, if you believe something it is science. Where did you get your numbers from? Considering your definition of a legitimate biologist is a biologist who believes in evolution, I'm surprised you changed the number from 100%.
a few hundred years ago, all scientists believed in the earth being the center of the universe. that automatically makes them right, no? At least according to your logic. You Amerikans need to stop making divisions, and start finding common ground or you will only lose and never win. Look to my nation, it was divided until it gave up division, united, and became an economic superpower. this is not politics, it is not left or right, but you on the left and right keep assigning the blame to one another. there will be more theories, such as existentialism, which will challenge both of your beliefs, which will eventually lead to your division, and downfall.
|
|
<< Home