3 ms·
>They don't suppress science, they just suppress stuff they don't like with no regard for facts. What? No, thats suppressing science.
by 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 agoI 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 agoPicking 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 agoAmish actually use power tools, and often have a community phone for emergencies.
- wnevets 10y agoI believe there is varying degrees of acceptance of such things. Some are more liberal than others when it comes to such technology
- anigbrowl 10y agoYes, 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 agoPoint 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.