4 ms·

They don't suppress science, they just suppress stuff they don't like with no regard for facts. If science supported their agenda it would be hailed as the sec

They don't suppress science, they just suppress stuff they don't like with no regard for facts. If science supported their agenda it would be hailed as the second coming.

wnevets 10y ago
>They don't suppress science, they just suppress stuff they don't like with no regard for facts. What? No, thats suppressing science.
- netsharc 10y ago
  I suppose it's just a pedantic issue, but if someone found a chemical which, proven by science, Latinos are particularly allergic to, the administration would probably buy it to coat their mythical wall with. Science also says walls are hard for humans to walk through, and they're not disputing that.
  - wnevets 10y ago
    Picking and choosing facts is by definition anti-science. You don't have to be amish and ignore all benefits of science to be anti-science
    - brianwawok 10y ago
      Amish actually use power tools, and often have a community phone for emergencies.
      - wnevets 10y ago
        I believe there is varying degrees of acceptance of such things. Some are more liberal than others when it comes to such technology
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      Yes, but you're trying to be consistent. A lot of people don't really get science and think it's a bunch of mumbo-jumbo cooked up by geeks to trick hardworking simple folk out of their money so the geeks can go off having themselves a time on expeditions to exotic locations or playing with shiny toys. Just as the media's portrayal of science is generally a shallow and stereotypical one, so is the popular understanding of it. If you want a vision of the future, imagine an angry man tweeting 'shut up nerd,' forever.
- WhitneyLand 10y ago
  Point taken. It would have been more accurate if I had said, they have nothing against science per se, and no motivation to argue against science unless it suites their agenda.
revscat 10y ago
Suppressing facts is suppressing science.
btown 10y ago
> "Lies propagate, that's what I'm saying. You've got to tell more lies to cover them up, lie about every fact that's connected to the first lie. And if you kept on lying, and you kept on trying to cover it up, sooner or later you'd even have to start lying about the general laws of thought. Like, someone is selling you some kind of alternative medicine that doesn't work, and any double-blind experimental study will confirm that it doesn't work. So if someone wants to go on defending the lie, they've got to get you to disbelieve in the experimental method. Like, the experimental method is just for merely scientific kinds of medicine, not amazing alternative medicine like theirs. Or a good and virtuous person should believe as strongly as they can, no matter what the evidence says. Or truth doesn't exist and there's no such thing as objective reality. A lot of common wisdom like that isn't just mistaken, it's anti-epistemology, it's systematically wrong. Every rule of rationality that tells you how to find the truth, there's someone out there who needs you to believe the opposite. If you once tell a lie, the truth is ever after your enemy; and there's a lot of people out there telling lies—" - Eliezer Yudkowsky, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/65 http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/65
- xapata 10y ago
  Even in the scientific community there are arguments about epistemology -- thus the occasional paradigm shift. Currently many scientific disciplines are overly reliant on Frequentist evidence, but many scientists only have a weak understanding of statistics, so we've ended up in a situation where most published studies in some fields are not reproducible. I expect the dominant episteme will shift within the next couple decades.
  - WhitneyLand 10y ago
    This is a totally unfair defense of science deniers. Science has flaws but, deniers have malice. No matter what mistakes science makes it has one fundamental virtue that politicians will never have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
    - 10y ago
anigbrowl 10y ago
If science supported their agenda it would be hailed as the second coming. I'd rephrase that as 'when science suits their agenda', which is not to say that their support for it will be in the least bit consistent.

They don't suppress science, they just suppress stuff they don't like with no regard for facts. If science supported their agenda it would be hailed as the second coming.

wnevets 10y ago

>They don't suppress science, they just suppress stuff they don't like with no regard for facts. What? No, thats suppressing science.

netsharc 10y ago
I suppose it's just a pedantic issue, but if someone found a chemical which, proven by science, Latinos are particularly allergic to, the administration would probably buy it to coat their mythical wall with. Science also says walls are hard for humans to walk through, and they're not disputing that.
- wnevets 10y ago
  Picking and choosing facts is by definition anti-science. You don't have to be amish and ignore all benefits of science to be anti-science
  - brianwawok 10y ago
    Amish actually use power tools, and often have a community phone for emergencies.
    - wnevets 10y ago
      I believe there is varying degrees of acceptance of such things. Some are more liberal than others when it comes to such technology
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Yes, but you're trying to be consistent. A lot of people don't really get science and think it's a bunch of mumbo-jumbo cooked up by geeks to trick hardworking simple folk out of their money so the geeks can go off having themselves a time on expeditions to exotic locations or playing with shiny toys. Just as the media's portrayal of science is generally a shallow and stereotypical one, so is the popular understanding of it. If you want a vision of the future, imagine an angry man tweeting 'shut up nerd,' forever.
WhitneyLand 10y ago
Point taken. It would have been more accurate if I had said, they have nothing against science per se, and no motivation to argue against science unless it suites their agenda.

revscat 10y ago

Suppressing facts is suppressing science.

btown 10y ago

> "Lies propagate, that's what I'm saying. You've got to tell more lies to cover them up, lie about every fact that's connected to the first lie. And if you kept on lying, and you kept on trying to cover it up, sooner or later you'd even have to start lying about the general laws of thought. Like, someone is selling you some kind of alternative medicine that doesn't work, and any double-blind experimental study will confirm that it doesn't work. So if someone wants to go on defending the lie, they've got to get you to disbelieve in the experimental method. Like, the experimental method is just for merely scientific kinds of medicine, not amazing alternative medicine like theirs. Or a good and virtuous person should believe as strongly as they can, no matter what the evidence says. Or truth doesn't exist and there's no such thing as objective reality. A lot of common wisdom like that isn't just mistaken, it's anti-epistemology, it's systematically wrong. Every rule of rationality that tells you how to find the truth, there's someone out there who needs you to believe the opposite. If you once tell a lie, the truth is ever after your enemy; and there's a lot of people out there telling lies—" - Eliezer Yudkowsky, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/65 http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/65

xapata 10y ago
Even in the scientific community there are arguments about epistemology -- thus the occasional paradigm shift. Currently many scientific disciplines are overly reliant on Frequentist evidence, but many scientists only have a weak understanding of statistics, so we've ended up in a situation where most published studies in some fields are not reproducible. I expect the dominant episteme will shift within the next couple decades.
- WhitneyLand 10y ago
  This is a totally unfair defense of science deniers. Science has flaws but, deniers have malice. No matter what mistakes science makes it has one fundamental virtue that politicians will never have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
  - 10y ago

anigbrowl 10y ago

If science supported their agenda it would be hailed as the second coming. I'd rephrase that as 'when science suits their agenda', which is not to say that their support for it will be in the least bit consistent.