War on Science

  • 43 Replies
  • 13241 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« on: 04/10/2007 16:59:46 »
>>Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday she would sign an executive order rescinding President Bush's restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/ap_po/clinton_science;_ylt=AgxkDomvUboYW6.8xkMOUjMiANEA

I think it is a war against science without purpose.

*

another_someone

  • Guest
War on Science
« Reply #1 on: 04/10/2007 18:17:17 »
You think Clinton's actions, or Bush's actions, are a war against science?

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #2 on: 04/10/2007 18:28:49 »
then? what do you make out of it?

"The Bush administration has declared war on science," the New York senator said. "When I am president, scientific integrity will not be the exception it will be the rule."


*

Offline Quantum_Vaccuum

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 135
  • The Base Of Chemistry
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #3 on: 04/10/2007 22:26:31 »
I can only wish that we'll have a president that will actuly help so much in global warming, i trully think it exists

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #4 on: 05/10/2007 04:43:26 »
Global Warming is another Lie which is propagated by scientists.
THERE IS NO PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING.
FALSE PROPAGANDA MACHINE THATS WHAT SCIENCE STANDS FOR>

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #5 on: 05/10/2007 07:51:56 »
Global Warming is another Lie which is propagated by scientists.
THERE IS NO PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING.
FALSE PROPAGANDA MACHINE THATS WHAT SCIENCE STANDS FOR>

Can you substantiate that? Are you suggesting, for instance, that the Greenland ice fields are not melting? Can you explain why the Thames flood barrier is now being raised 6 times a year rather than once every 6 years as was first intended if sea level is not higher?
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #6 on: 05/10/2007 08:43:50 »
Assume that the global warming is happening.

Q.How much rise in temperature took place in last 100 years ?
A.<1 Degree C on average ..infact in 2005-06 temperature globally wtook a dip ..In russia at certain places the temperature down to -15 C.
Q.How so we measure global warming ?
A.Environment is unstable and one must consider a suffcient long time period to analyze and compute the average increase in temperature and other facors like melting of ice.
Q.What was the time span used  to declare that the Global Warming is taking place?
A.In think some thousands years of data. Which may be incorrect...
Q.Is it not possible that Global Warming is part of Natural Cycle?
A.Yes.
Q.If Natural Cycle is a possibility then what makes you think that this "increase" is not natural but man made?
A.There is a coorelation between human progress and global warming which resulted in less than 1 degree Centigrade rise in temperature.
Q.Interesting. Since your annual average is for 100 years ... will it will take another 100 to verify?As I said in 2005-06 the temperatures went down.
A.Yes it will take time say anything for certainities.
Q.Uncertain and you are claiming scientificly that Progress is the cause of Global Warming?
A.Sorry.
Q.If the Global Warming is Natural then can how can one stop it?
A.I dont think it can be stopped.
Q.If it can not stopped then why are you raising the hue and cry?
A.SO THAT OTHERS CAN HELP US>

I offer a simple solution : Migrate to my country.
And stop crying.



*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #8 on: 06/10/2007 09:09:59 »
Assume that the global warming is happening.
 
Q.Is it not possible that Global Warming is part of Natural Cycle?
A.Yes.
Q.If Natural Cycle is a possibility then what makes you think that this "increase" is not natural but man made?

Q.Uncertain and you are claiming scientificly that Progress is the cause of Global Warming?
A.Sorry.
Q.If the Global Warming is Natural then can how can one stop it?
A.I dont think it can be stopped.
Q.If it can not stopped then why are you raising the hue and cry?
A.SO THAT OTHERS CAN HELP US>

I offer a simple solution : Migrate to my country.
And stop crying.




Your initial assertion was not about the cause of global warming, but that it is a lie. The average temperature of the planet is increasing - FACT. The climate is changing in many countries - FACT. Sea levels are rising - FACT. Ice sheets are melting - FACT.

Yes, the planet does go through periodic climate changes and if what we are seeing is part of a natural cycle then there is probably very little that can be done to stop it.

But, just stop for a minute to consider the possibility that it is you who is wrong and not the 99% of experts who have researched global warming. I appreciate that is very unlikely as you are the only 1 who knows what is really going on, but I think it's worth consideration.

Maybe the Earth is warming itself to sustain its pleasure!
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #9 on: 06/10/2007 09:25:06 »
If only I am correct then it does not mean I am wrong.
Statistically it means I have 1/n chances of being correct. There are so many facts which came out of
near zero probability.
Take for example the gene replciation theory.
If there is only one liveable Universe and there is only one habitable planet then
What are  the chances of finding a human being???
Since there are infinite number of possibilities therefore there was a very small chance for human being to manifest...




*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #10 on: 06/10/2007 09:45:25 »
The difference is that the "experts" have done research, they have published papers, their results have been scrutinised. You, on the other hand, just make statements that you have signally failed to provide any evidence for. I know who I would rather believe.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #11 on: 06/10/2007 10:16:39 »
ok.So the criteria for acceptability is dependent on the insitution and its process. There are relgious institutions as well which scientists consider irrational just like the relgious men consider who consider science a farce.
More than 70% people believe in religion.If a fact is accepted by majority does it become a truth?
With the defintion of science I consider singular validations as as valid proposal and therefore reduce the nature of truth to statistics.
This solves the scrodinger's cat problem as well.

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
War on Science
« Reply #12 on: 06/10/2007 10:38:37 »
You're missing the point. The difference between your statements and those by scientific experts on particular topics is that their's are supported by EVIDENCE.

Religions do not concern themselves with evidence. In fact the majority of scientific evidence is against the teachings of religious dogma. Majority opinion does not make something true. What matters is the EVIDENCE.
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #13 on: 06/10/2007 11:00:23 »
evidence for what?
Evidence can be singular in nature.
But because evidence is singular in nature doesnt mean
it is false.
Singular dimensions of rationality can be valid as well.


*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #14 on: 06/10/2007 11:04:11 »
There was an interesting experiment in psychology :
A women never felt the pain or fear.
For her jumping from a cliff was a ordinary as walking on the streets.
Even the defintions of pain and pleasure can be relative...This is becuase Pleasure is also a chemical state mostly found during Sex.
Sometimes dreams can trigger pleasure.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #16 on: 06/10/2007 20:17:48 »
If a fact is accepted by majority does it become a truth?


A fact is a fact is a fact regardless how many people believe it. That is the difference between science & religion - science deals with facts, hard evidence & verifiable predictions. Religion, on the other hand, contains no facts, only beliefs & faith.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #17 on: 06/10/2007 20:20:26 »
There was an interesting experiment in psychology :
A women never felt the pain or fear.
For her jumping from a cliff was a ordinary as walking on the streets.
Even the defintions of pain and pleasure can be relative...This is becuase Pleasure is also a chemical state mostly found during Sex.
Sometimes dreams can trigger pleasure.


And that is supposed to prove what? What that says to me, as a psychologist, is that the part of her brain that registers fear was not working. That may be the result of brain damage or faulty genes. How does that relate to a "war on science" or dreams bringing pleasure?

And in what way is the example you gave an experiment? What did the experiment involve? What was their methodology? Who conducted it? Where? When? What hypothesis were they trying to prove? Did they succeed?

Was it the researchers who stopped her brain registering fear? I can't believe that to be the case as it would fly in the face of every ethic known to research.

And as for the link in your subsequent post, can you explain the relevance to this thread of a church objecting to a gay funeral?
« Last Edit: 06/10/2007 20:26:40 by DoctorBeaver »
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

paul.fr

  • Guest
War on Science
« Reply #18 on: 06/10/2007 20:42:48 »
Can everyone please note how well i have been to steer clear of this and other "interesting" topics. I think i deserve a round of applause.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #19 on: 06/10/2007 21:45:31 »
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

paul.fr

  • Guest
War on Science
« Reply #20 on: 06/10/2007 21:46:58 »


I thank you, takes a bow, soaks up the adulation...still would have been nice to contribute though, but i fear my responce would not have lasted too long.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #21 on: 06/10/2007 21:48:49 »


I thank you, takes a bow, soaks up the adulation...still would have been nice to contribute though, but i fear my responce would not have lasted too long.

Would I be correct in assuming that the second word of your 2-word reply would have been "off"?
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

paul.fr

  • Guest
War on Science
« Reply #22 on: 06/10/2007 22:29:44 »
Would I be correct in assuming that the second word of your 2-word reply would have been "off"?

But in a more polite, accronim based fashion.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #23 on: 07/10/2007 07:31:05 »
Quote
And that is supposed to prove what?
From current evolutionary point of view nothing.:-))
Thats what the replication theory says.
There is no purpose which can be known from the troll
of species.
Anways the thread tries to differentiate between religion and science. Homosexuality which is for pleasure is opposed by Religion and Modern governments are finding it hard to believe the science. There are no new findings but only theories. Science is appearing to become like religion.
=======================================
Quote
What that says to me, as a psychologist, is that the part of her brain that registers fear was not working. That may be the result of brain damage or faulty genes. How does that relate to a "war on science" or dreams bringing pleasure?
Indeed fear is a chemical state as well. But I dont think one learn to induce courage... the brain has high  plasticity... only a Natural process can remove fear or produce fear in a sustainable way.
Same applies to pleasure..
==================================
Quote
And in what way is the example you gave an experiment? What did the experiment involve? What was their methodology? Who conducted it? Where? When? What hypothesis were they trying to prove? Did they succeed?
This experiment was performed in US by renowned neurologists.The purpose was to demonstrate plasticity of brain. But they found a contradiction.
This women managed to develop courage without any external means.
================================
Quote
Was it the researchers who stopped her brain registering fear? I can't believe that to be the case as it would fly in the face of every ethic known to research.
No researchers were able to recreate in other beings.
It was a natural state .. and in principle brain has tremendous amount of plasticity... If left brain stops functioning the right brain learns the functions of left.

======================================
Quote
And as for the link in your subsequent post, can you explain the relevance to this thread of a church objecting to a gay funeral?
We see a clear case of violation of human rights.
The gay died with a desire to promote gayism ... but the relgious people did not accept the funeral.

=====================================
We need to collect more evidence in favour of Evolution towards sustainable pleasure.
The latest which apparently being asked in the evolutionary circle is:
Why different rates of evolution?
Why it took so much time to evolve?
Both questions are not supported by evidence.


*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #24 on: 07/10/2007 08:54:13 »

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #25 on: 07/10/2007 09:18:43 »
Quote
And that is supposed to prove what?
From current evolutionary point of view nothing.:-))
Thats what the replication theory says.
There is no purpose which can be known from the troll
of species.
Anways the thread tries to differentiate between religion and science. Homosexuality which is for pleasure is opposed by Religion and Modern governments are finding it hard to believe the science. There are no new findings but only theories. Science is appearing to become like religion.


=======================================

Which governments would these be? Please list them or post a link to your source. Also, check how much money governments spend on science compared to their spending on religion.

And science becoming like a religion? Don't be silly. As I have already said - and so have others replying to you here - science tries to produce theories with veriable predictions. There is nothing about religion that can be verified.

No new discoveries? I thought you yourself posted here about a new discovery - the potential genetic trigger! Actually, maybe you're right. There have not been any new "discoveries", merely new evidence that existing theories are either correct or not. When the LHC at CERN gets up to full power, we may find particles that have been predicted but not yet seen. Some theories will survive the LHC experiments, others will fall by the wayside. That is how science works.

Quote
Quote
What that says to me, as a psychologist, is that the part of her brain that registers fear was not working. That may be the result of brain damage or faulty genes. How does that relate to a "war on science" or dreams bringing pleasure?

Indeed fear is a chemical state as well. But I dont think one learn to induce courage... the brain has high  plasticity... only a Natural process can remove fear or produce fear in a sustainable way.
Same applies to pleasure..
==================================

That depends on how you would define "natural process". Therapy can remove fears. Is therapy a natural process?

Quote
Quote
And in what way is the example you gave an experiment? What did the experiment involve? What was their methodology? Who conducted it? Where? When? What hypothesis were they trying to prove? Did they succeed?
This experiment was performed in US by renowned neurologists.The purpose was to demonstrate plasticity of brain. But they found a contradiction.
This women managed to develop courage without any external means.
================================

Quote
Was it the researchers who stopped her brain registering fear? I can't believe that to be the case as it would fly in the face of every ethic known to research.
No researchers were able to recreate in other beings.
It was a natural state .. and in principle brain has tremendous amount of plasticity... If left brain stops functioning the right brain learns the functions of left.

======================================

You still haven't said what the experiment actually was. Please give a citation or link.

Quote
Quote
And as for the link in your subsequent post, can you explain the relevance to this thread of a church objecting to a gay funeral?
We see a clear case of violation of human rights.
The gay died with a desire to promote gayism ... but the relgious people did not accept the funeral.

=====================================


But what the hell has that got to do with science?

Quote
We need to collect more evidence in favour of Evolution towards sustainable pleasure.
The latest which apparently being asked in the evolutionary circle is:
Why different rates of evolution?
Why it took so much time to evolve?
Both questions are not supported by evidence.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution. Micro-evolution has been observed in laboratory conditions. However, I have not yet seen 1 single shred of evidence of evolution towards sustainable pleasure. In fact, I would say the opposite is the case. If evolution is driven by the need for sustainable pleasure, how do you explain prey animals? Do you think that living in constant fear of being eaten is a step towards sustainable pleasure?

DIfferent rates of evolution? Simple. If the niche an organism fills disappears then the organism will need to evolve rapidly or it will become extinct. If the organism is comfortable in its environment, has plenty of food etc, then there is no need for urgent evolution. Plus, of course, evolution is a generational thing. The faster an organism reproduces, the more chance there is for rapid evolution.

So, who is it that is asking these questions? I read a lot of science magazines, I visit a lot of science websites, I talk to a lot of very knowledgeable scientists, and I've not heard those questions asked overly much.

You throw statements around without any proof to back them up. You introduce topics that have no relevance to what you originally asserted and, when questioned, dodge the issue by introducing more irrelevancies. Please provide substantiation for your assertions or stop making them. Or, if as I suspect, there is no substantiation and you have merely dreamed up this theory, at least have the courtesy to present it in a logical manner, laying out your arguments in a sensible way, so that we can debate it in an appropriate way. If you cannot do this, then I suggest you take your theories elsewhere.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2007 09:26:32 by DoctorBeaver »
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #26 on: 07/10/2007 10:11:32 »
Lies lies and junk lies
I am already adding "proof" for evolution towards sustainable pleasure under the topic "Algorithm for TSP".
========================================
Quote
There is plenty of evidence for evolution. Micro-evolution has been observed in laboratory conditions. However, I have not yet seen 1 single shred of evidence of evolution towards sustainable pleasure. In fact, I would say the opposite is the case. If evolution is driven by the need for sustainable pleasure, how do you explain prey animals? Do you think that living in constant fear of being eaten is a step towards sustainable pleasure?
Fear is not something which is desired and is therefore absent. There is no sense of "contant" fear.
But a sense "constant movement towards pleasure".
Animals do not feel stressed or suffer from depression in natural conditions is in fact a proof in favour of TSP.Where as the Animals which do not find the natural habitat suffer from depression.
================================
Quote
DIfferent rates of evolution? Simple. If the niche an organism fills disappears then the organism will need to evolve rapidly or it will become extinct. If the organism is comfortable in its environment, has plenty of food etc, then there is no need for urgent evolution. Plus, of course, evolution is a generational thing. The faster an organism reproduces, the more chance there is for rapid evolution.
fastest reproducing life entities are virus and microbes.
Its a complete stupidity to think that mindless reproduction leads to evolution.
It is the opposite. Those who move towards sustainable pleasure survive rest become dead.

====================================
Quote
So, who is it that is asking these questions? I read a lot of science magazines, I visit a lot of science websites, I talk to a lot of very knowledgeable scientists, and I've not heard those questions asked overly much.
It is a secret.
Quote
You throw statements around without any proof to back them up. You introduce topics that have no relevance to what you originally asserted and, when questioned, dodge the issue by introducing more irrelevancies. Please provide substantiation for your assertions or stop making them. Or, if as I suspect, there is no substantiation and you have merely dreamed up this theory, at least have the courtesy to present it in a logical manner, laying out your arguments in a sensible way, so that we can debate it in an appropriate way. If you cannot do this, then I suggest you take your theories elsewhere.
Or is it the otherway round.You dont what to ask ?


*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #28 on: 07/10/2007 18:45:20 »

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #29 on: 07/10/2007 19:21:44 »
No, you have not given any proof. You have put forward conjectures that are based on false uderstanding of established scientific principles.

Face the truth, no-one here is going to be convinced by your mindless babbling so I suggest you use the forum at http://yetanotherloony.com to spout your rubbish.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #30 on: 07/10/2007 20:05:28 »
proof of what?
Do you know that gene replication theory doesnt predict anything?
It says "There is nothing but consequences."

Are you reading TSP algorithm ? Are you able to understand?Do you understand how it relates to the Gene replication theory and why ?

You are wasting your time if you have nothing to contribute.


*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #31 on: 07/10/2007 20:08:26 »
What has been wasting my time is reading your rubbish. Henceforth, that is an error I shall not repeat.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #32 on: 09/10/2007 08:42:22 »
DOnt value this thread and you persih.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1908313/posts

Quote
Professor Richard Dawkins, a senior British evolutionary scientist and outspoken atheist, drew fire on Monday for saying that Jews ?more or less monopolize American foreign policy.? Religious Jews are a small group, Dawkins said, but are ?fantastically successful? in lobbying the US government. Dawkins, who is currently in the US in an attempt to promote atheism and fight religious influence, expressed hope that atheists would be similarly successful in determining government policy.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #33 on: 09/10/2007 09:11:00 »
Quote
DOnt value this thread and you persih.

Please don't use bullying language like that on our forum.  It's his decision whether or not to value this thread, and as he sees no scientific merit in what you are saying, he chooses not to.  This will have no consequence for him, (he will certainly not perish as a result of ignoring you) but you have lost yet another person who you may, had you been reasonable and taken on board what the intelligent people on this forum have to say, have cone round to your way of thinking.

Any hypothesis that can't stand up to scrutiny is incorrect, and I fail to see you and 'sustainable pleasure' standing up to any scrutiny, so maybe Doctor Beaver has the right idea.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #34 on: 09/10/2007 10:36:25 »
Do you think that the intelligent people are not playing politics?
They are stupid and I dont care for his approval.
I appeal to your conscience...
It is not Religion Vs. Science
It is Science Vs. Science

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #35 on: 09/10/2007 11:00:20 »
I'm certain that some intelligent people do play politics, but I think you will find few of them here.  Most people come to this forum to discuss science, share ideas and educate themselves.

Quote
Do you think that the intelligent people are not playing politics?
They are stupid and I dont care for his approval.

So intelligent people are stupid and although you told someone that the would perish if they ignored your rants, you claim not to care for his approval?

In what way is any of this science vs science? and what does religion have to do with it?

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #36 on: 09/10/2007 11:09:28 »
Religion, rituals and its reason propagates using meme.
And religion has led to irrationality.
Science is rational and considers the Universe as rationalizable ... therefore from scientific point of view Religion is a Virus.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #37 on: 09/10/2007 13:01:03 »
The  war :
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=hillary_brings_up_science_but_will_it_st_5&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Quote
...instead of fostering a climate of discovery and innovation, the Bush administration has declared war on science. The record is breathtaking: banning the most promising kinds of stem cell research, allowing political appointees to censor studies on climate change, muzzling global warming experts like Dr. James Hansen, overruling doctors and the FDA on emergency contraception, suppressing and manipulating data on mercury pollution, even delaying one report which found that 8 percent of women between 16 and 49 years of age have mercury levels in their blood that could harm future children, denying the risks of toxins like asbestos in the air after the 9/11 attacks, overruling scientists who sought to protect animals under the Endangered Species Act, eliminating scientific committees at the Department of Health and Human Services that did not parrot the politically accepted ideology -- or packing those committees with industry insiders, altering scientific tests on the lead content of children's lunch boxes -- and appointing a lead industry consultant to a key panel formed by the Centers for Disease Control, barring a USDA researcher from publishing or even discussing his work on antibiotic resistant bacteria, censoring government websites on breast cancer research, contraception, climate change, and so much else.




*

Offline Carolyn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3761
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #39 on: 09/10/2007 17:41:39 »
Can everyone please note how well i have been to steer clear of this and other "interesting" topics. I think i deserve a round of applause.

Very impressive Paul!  I know you've already received one round, but I'm so impressed I think you deserve two!

Carolyn

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #40 on: 09/10/2007 17:48:48 »
DOnt value this thread and you persih.


Oooh, I'm so scared I'm going to buy more toilet paper
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline kdlynn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2851
    • View Profile
Re: War on Science
« Reply #41 on: 10/10/2007 03:27:02 »
strangely enough, dkv, you were once again asked a direct, clear, and reasonable question and you have failed to answer except with more gibberish...

*

Offline pete_inthehills

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 50
    • View Profile
    • The Beggshill Bothy
War on Science
« Reply #42 on: 10/10/2007 11:56:59 »
I was always amused by those folk who wanted to put a sticker on any books explaining evolution.  The sticker would say "this is just one theory of how the world was created".
To be fair, then the religious books should also have a sticker saying "this is just one theory of how the world is created."

pete
inthehill

*

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 43
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #43 on: 12/11/2007 04:22:50 »
So call scientific facts are provisional, any reputable scientist will tell you this. Global warming is not the only issue. Reducing all forms of pollution, which no one considers healthy, is. Who wants to wait for definitive evidence of global warming? Is it not reasonable to reduce air borne pollution. Much of the fish that we catch is not safe to eat. Who do we think we are fooling? The entire planet is largely polluted. Scientific investigation is a global phenomenon, which no administration can long deny. Moreover, public awareness will demand change. I believe, in the long run, environmental science will prevail. As to what science in certain areas can pursue, this is a sensitive issue. Hopefully, enlightened dialog will decide what is reasonable. As a society, we are not especially enlightened, in my view. As such, we must elect enlightened representatives at all levels if we hope to turn this situation around. Or become such enlightened leaders. Can you suggest a better solution?