Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

[waldo]

Been there, done that.

.. Hell, the most effective refutation comes in the form of the many (and I mean a sh*t load) of failed models, wrong projections and teh many frauds by the truther set.

not all models are failed... not all projections are wrong. Your standard bellicose routine is to take isolated and/or selected instances and play them up as representative of the greater whole... you know, like your standard nonsense over arctic melting projections. Your claims on fraud would need additional information. In any case, none of your unsubstantiated opinion presumes to refute the underlying physical science basis for the support of the theory of AGW. In keeping with this thread, your act is to purposely cast doubt (your doubt) and spread misinformation to attempt to prop-up your personal denial.

Prevailing science! Are you mad?

please advise on your alternate/preferred word for prevailing

So is it your opinion that the contemporary science practice is entirely above the power and influence of money and the priests representing these various disiplines would rather cut off thier offending hands than misrepresent those same disiplines? I can hardly fathom our great fortune to be presented so fully with your religious convictions. Scientism has a great believer and leader in your person sir. I cannot help but think that you are in their service with the mission of fattening and protecting thier purses.

it is my opinion that those people who purposely attempt to taint prevailing scientific findings as being wholly realized, tailored, manufactured, manipulated, made-up... by unethical scientists driven only by research funding dollars seeking predetermined outcomes... those people do so for no other purpose than to cast doubt and spread misinformation about prevailing scientific findings they find unacceptable to their ideological bent and denier selves.

 

[petros]

This is one of our biggest failings as a society - this idea of attaching a dollar bill to every single action someone makes.

Dangle the prestigous carrot of being published and you'll get a paper saying pigs can fly. To the 5% of Scientists that aren't working commercially, it's a Holy Grail that money can't buy.

 

[Cannuck]

Of course most people with an I.Q. below 4.5 know that pretty well all endeavours in life are largely driven by the almighty dollar.

Fixed it for you. Why do you insist on questioning me and looking so silly?

youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

 

[DaSleeper]

Fixed it for you. Why do you insist on questioning me and looking so silly?

More Semantic saturation!

 

[skookumchuck]

not all models are failed... not all projections are wrong. Your standard bellicose routine is to take isolated and/or selected instances and play them up as representative of the greater whole... you know, like your standard nonsense over arctic melting projections. Your claims on fraud would need additional information. In any case, none of your unsubstantiated opinion presumes to refute the underlying physical science basis for the support of the theory of AGW. In keeping with this thread, your act is to purposely cast doubt (your doubt) and spread misinformation to attempt to prop-up your personal denial.



please advise on your alternate/preferred word for prevailing



it is my opinion that those people who purposely attempt to taint prevailing scientific findings as being wholly realized, tailored, manufactured, manipulated, made-up... by unethical scientists driven only by research funding dollars seeking predetermined outcomes... those people do so for no other purpose than to cast doubt and spread misinformation about prevailing scientific findings they find unacceptable to their ideological bent and denier selves.

So perhaps you will fill us all in on your status as an educator/scientist? You appear to really like labels. Is Popular Science beyond question as a source of the right kind of thinking?
Worst Drought In 1,000 Years Forecasted For The U.S. | Popular Science

 

[taxslave]

"all of us"... just who is your "US"? In the whole time I've been here you've not posted a single damn thing... to substantiate a single damn thing. All you've got is your continual prattle (aka, your unsubstantiated opinion). When you're pressed to the point of supporting your inane opinion statements, you revert to this same ready-reach fall-back... where you claim, past posts have "covered it all". Of course, you're full of BS... YOU HAVE NO GAME. All you have is your continual drive-by routine, like this post of yours I'm quoting/replying to!

it was a simple request... one I've challenged you on before. You keep nattering on about "getting caught manipulating data". Somehow, you just can't seem to present even a single example of your said "getting caught". Go figure. Of course, even if you could find a smattering of said examples, the denier routine is to take an isolated incident/occurrence and play it up broadly and sweepingly as something indicative of the greater whole. It's what dumbass deniers like you do... cause YOU GOT NO GAME!



prove it/show it... support that denier talking point. I just went through a post that presumed to do just that... the one single representative link from that post showed an actual 2013 cost-breakdown estimate for the U.S. government federal support for scientific research related to climate science associated with the U.S. Congressional mandated USGCRP umbrella project that draws from 13 U.S. government departments/agencies.

as I said in summation, "for this isolated instance, to support your underlying premise, you'd need to further qualify that ~ $2.5 billion dollars in the context of that described USGCRP mandate as applied to the respective 13 U.S. government agencies participating in the USGCRP and their, in turn, respective complements of scientists working to support the USGCRP mandate." Have a go at this, hey taxi... sure you can! Find all those related funded proposals and show that the proposals were asking for research findings to line up with a pre-determined want/result... one that wasn't fully qualified to that end. Sure you can, taxi... sure you can! C'mon taxi, step-up FOR ONCE! :mrgreen:



drive-by arteeest!

More drivel from the C&P king. Do your own google or read the links that other people people post. I am not about to reinvent the wheel for you.

 

[Cannuck]

I am not about to reinvent the wheel for you.

Thank gawd!!! You'd probably make it square and claim its a better way just because your wife says so. Unscientific people are like that you know.

 

[taxslave]

Most people are not motivated by money. I think one problem is that most people without money actually believe that those that have money are motivated by it. I think people project too much.

That why you work in the recycling depot?

 

[Cannuck]

That why you work in the recycling depot?

Is that what your wife says?

 

[JLM]

I think there is one fact that many people overlook and that is that on some occasions common sense trumps science. An example of this would be the debunked notion that for forty years the medical profession and dieticians have been pushing a lot of misinformation about cholesterol and healthy foods like eggs, sausages, and butter, which has been found is NOT directly related to heart attack and stroke.

 

[darkbeaver]

not all models are failed... not all projections are wrong. Your standard bellicose routine is to take isolated and/or selected instances and play them up as representative of the greater whole... you know, like your standard nonsense over arctic melting projections. Your claims on fraud would need additional information. In any case, none of your unsubstantiated opinion presumes to refute the underlying physical science basis for the support of the theory of AGW. In keeping with this thread, your act is to purposely cast doubt (your doubt) and spread misinformation to attempt to prop-up your personal denial.



please advise on your alternate/preferred word for prevailing



it is my opinion that those people who purposely attempt to taint prevailing scientific findings as being wholly realized, tailored, manufactured, manipulated, made-up... by unethical scientists driven only by research funding dollars seeking predetermined outcomes... those people do so for no other purpose than to cast doubt and spread misinformation about prevailing scientific findings they find unacceptable to their ideological bent and denier selves.

I would substitute factual in the place of prevailing. The fact that present scientific alleged findings prevail does not in any way imply factualization excepting in those cases where hard tangible items such as rustproof spikes, puncture proof tires and super absorbant diapers can be had and actual hands can be laid upon. Prevailing science in no quanlitative way is a proof of fact and has no more lasting power than todays top brand of toothpaste. These are of course just my opinions but they carry great weight in the international scientific community, and no I cannot comment any further about that great weight for fear of loss of tenure at one of the worlds leading academic hangouts.

 

[Cliffy]

The OP question can just as easily be asked: why do many reasonable people believe in creationism? As John Lenon once said" "Whatever gets you through the night, it's all right." People need to believe that what they do in life is OK even if there is evidence that they are harming their own health, that of the environment or other people. Psychopaths have no empathy for the harm they cause. They is why they gravitate to positions of power. People need to develop blind spots in order to feel good about themselves

 

[darkbeaver]

Of course most people with an I.Q. above 4.5 know that pretty well all endeavours in life are largely driven by the almighty dollar.

No no no you are wrong most people hate loath and detest money!

 

[JLM]

The OP question can just as easily be asked: why do many reasonable people believe in creationism? As John Lenon once said" "Whatever gets you through the night, it's all right." People need to believe that what they do in life is OK even if there is evidence that they are harming their own health, that of the environment or other people. Psychopaths have no empathy for the harm they cause. They is why they gravitate to positions of power. People need to develop blind spots in order to feel good about themselves

I have to do something I rarely do......................disagree with you..................I don't feel that people should be feeling good about themselves to the detriment of other people. (If I've understood your post correctly)

 

[Cannuck]

common sense trumps science.

Not really, but as Cliffy and John Lennon say, "whatever gets you through the night, it's alright"

 

[JLM]

No no no you are wrong most people hate loath and detest money!

As can be seen at the bank lineups on pay day.

 

[Cliffy]

I have to do something I rarely do......................disagree with you..................I don't feel that people should be feeling good about themselves to the detriment of other people. (If I've understood your post correctly)

I didn't say they have to, just that they do. It is just an observation.

As to the OP:

 

[JLM]

Not really, but as Cliffy and John Lennon say, "whatever gets you through the night, it's alright"

I said "on SOME occasions".

I didn't say they have to, just that they do. It is just an observation.

As to the OP:

Sorry, I misinterpreted you.

 

[Cannuck]

I said "on SOME occasions".

I know what you said.

No no no you are wrong most people hate loath and detest money!

I don't know anybody that detests money. I do know lots of people (myself included) that don't place a high value on it. The younger generations in particular are not driven by pursuit of a dollar. Older generations see that as laziness. They are wrong of course.

 

[JLM]

I don't know anybody that detests money. I do know lots of people (myself included) that don't place a high value on it. The younger generations in particular are not driven by pursuit of a dollar. Older generations see that as laziness. They are wrong of course.

Whatever you say, there, Einstein!