3 ms·

> a gift to the anti-science crowd... How can this be a gift if science can answer the all the questions of "anti-science" crowd? Or may be deep down, we not r

> a gift to the anti-science crowd... How can this be a gift if science can answer the all the questions of "anti-science" crowd? Or may be deep down, we not really sure about our answers?

klez 9y ago
> Or may be deep down, we not really sure about our answers? Because removal won't necessarily be decided by a scientist. It will be decided by someone appointed by the school board. Also there are guidelines for removal of stuff on the basis of the "belief that the material is “pornographic”". This has nothing to do with the certanity of science (which is not an absolute, anyway) or the fact that "deep down we're not really sure".
Oletros 9y ago
It is a gift because the bill doesn't talk about the validity of the science
Lev1a 9y ago
This enters the realm of politics where everything is up in the air. (Peer-reviewed) Science is pretty much considered fact. The only crowds this will benefit are as said above climate-change deniers (because they fear for their profits from fossil fuels), abstinence-only sex ed supporters(because they're blinded by their religious superstitions), anti-vaxxers (who consider one falsified and later retracted "study" as "evidence" that vaccines somehow cause autism). This benefits them because it gives them a stage on which to present their bullshit and manipulate people a lot easier. This is pretty similar to how the Somali community in Minnesota was influenced to be anti-vaxxers and now look at the result [0]... [0]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/measles-outbreak-rages-after-anti-vaccine-groups-target-vulnerable-community/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/measles-outbreak-rag...
- babyrainbow 9y ago
  > it gives them a stage on which to present their bullshit and manipulate people a lot easier. My question is, if it can be shown as bullshit, I mean, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to loose? > manipulate people a lot easier. So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right?
  - Oletros 9y ago
    > So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right? http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
  - Lev1a 9y ago
    "People" who spout nonsense again and again for some form of monetary gain or to live out and push on others their religious superstitions want to force their stance into the public eye through proposals like this. > My question is, if it can be shown as bullshit, I mean, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to loose? There are always easily manipulated people in the broad public who are being used to weaken the overall perception of validity and the trust in REAL science. > So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right? If they had any legitimate claim of sound science they would be perceived as such by the public and thus wouldn't need to push proposals like this. Such methods are used to bypass the peer-review process which is vital to ensure (new) findings are actually valid. This process also has the side-effect that "science" that's falsified/made up (like the autism-and-vaccines study that was falsified but was/is used to influence/manipulate vulnerable or naive parents) is weeded out.
  - taylodl 9y ago
    Where do these critical thinking skills to detect bullshit come from? Look at all the bullshit we inherited from Aristotle. No one even thought to think it was bullshit until people came along and said "let's see" and actually started performing experiments and thus introducing the Scientific Age. Ask any small child which will object will fall faster: a 10 Kg weight or a 5 Kg weight and they'll unanimously say the 10 Kg weight. So not only are we dealing with anthropological biases we're also dealing with logic: not all bullshit can be shown to be bullshit. One of the most famous examples is my assertion there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars. You say that's bullshit. Now I say prove it's bullshit, prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbit of Earth and Mars! You can't. You can't prove that's bullshit. It's at this point you may realize the tables have been subtly turned against you. You see, I made the assertion there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. It's not on you to prove that's bullshit, it's on me to provide evidence of my assertion. So, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to lose? Everything. Edit: changed 'You say' to 'You see'
mcphage 9y ago
> How can this be a gift if science can answer the all the questions of "anti-science" crowd? Because it's not whether science can answer the questions, it's whether the hearing officers have any interest in answering the questions. And it's clear by the way the bill was designed, that the hearing officers will be chosen so that they do not.

> a gift to the anti-science crowd... How can this be a gift if science can answer the all the questions of "anti-science" crowd? Or may be deep down, we not really sure about our answers?

klez 9y ago

> Or may be deep down, we not really sure about our answers? Because removal won't necessarily be decided by a scientist. It will be decided by someone appointed by the school board. Also there are guidelines for removal of stuff on the basis of the "belief that the material is “pornographic”". This has nothing to do with the certanity of science (which is not an absolute, anyway) or the fact that "deep down we're not really sure".

Oletros 9y ago

It is a gift because the bill doesn't talk about the validity of the science

Lev1a 9y ago

This enters the realm of politics where everything is up in the air. (Peer-reviewed) Science is pretty much considered fact. The only crowds this will benefit are as said above climate-change deniers (because they fear for their profits from fossil fuels), abstinence-only sex ed supporters(because they're blinded by their religious superstitions), anti-vaxxers (who consider one falsified and later retracted "study" as "evidence" that vaccines somehow cause autism). This benefits them because it gives them a stage on which to present their bullshit and manipulate people a lot easier. This is pretty similar to how the Somali community in Minnesota was influenced to be anti-vaxxers and now look at the result [0]... [0]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/measles-outbreak-rages-after-anti-vaccine-groups-target-vulnerable-community/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/measles-outbreak-rag...

babyrainbow 9y ago
> it gives them a stage on which to present their bullshit and manipulate people a lot easier. My question is, if it can be shown as bullshit, I mean, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to loose? > manipulate people a lot easier. So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right?
- Oletros 9y ago
  > So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right? http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
- Lev1a 9y ago
  "People" who spout nonsense again and again for some form of monetary gain or to live out and push on others their religious superstitions want to force their stance into the public eye through proposals like this. > My question is, if it can be shown as bullshit, I mean, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to loose? There are always easily manipulated people in the broad public who are being used to weaken the overall perception of validity and the trust in REAL science. > So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right? If they had any legitimate claim of sound science they would be perceived as such by the public and thus wouldn't need to push proposals like this. Such methods are used to bypass the peer-review process which is vital to ensure (new) findings are actually valid. This process also has the side-effect that "science" that's falsified/made up (like the autism-and-vaccines study that was falsified but was/is used to influence/manipulate vulnerable or naive parents) is weeded out.
- taylodl 9y ago
  Where do these critical thinking skills to detect bullshit come from? Look at all the bullshit we inherited from Aristotle. No one even thought to think it was bullshit until people came along and said "let's see" and actually started performing experiments and thus introducing the Scientific Age. Ask any small child which will object will fall faster: a 10 Kg weight or a 5 Kg weight and they'll unanimously say the 10 Kg weight. So not only are we dealing with anthropological biases we're also dealing with logic: not all bullshit can be shown to be bullshit. One of the most famous examples is my assertion there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars. You say that's bullshit. Now I say prove it's bullshit, prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbit of Earth and Mars! You can't. You can't prove that's bullshit. It's at this point you may realize the tables have been subtly turned against you. You see, I made the assertion there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. It's not on you to prove that's bullshit, it's on me to provide evidence of my assertion. So, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to lose? Everything. Edit: changed 'You say' to 'You see'

mcphage 9y ago

> How can this be a gift if science can answer the all the questions of "anti-science" crowd? Because it's not whether science can answer the questions, it's whether the hearing officers have any interest in answering the questions. And it's clear by the way the bill was designed, that the hearing officers will be chosen so that they do not.