6 ms·

This is nasty business, the turning of "science" into a partisan wedge issue. After all, no need to debate if you can just call someone "anti-science". There'

This is nasty business, the turning of "science" into a partisan wedge issue. After all, no need to debate if you can just call someone "anti-science". There's no significant difference in the number of STEM candidates this cycle, this is fake news stuff generated by a left-of-center advocacy group and HuffPo.

sergiotapia 9y ago
"Settled science" has become a curse word to me. "Science" used to be a method, now it's a belief system in the first world. It's disgusting.
- merpnderp 9y ago
  It used to be fun sport on Facebook to kid those who followed "I fucking love science" for not having the first clue about science. But as science became more and more a partisan word, it just became sad - the birth of a new religion who's adherents didn't even care to learn their new dogma.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  It's not even consistent. The people who are convinced that global warming is going to kill us all (because science) are generally the same people who go into hysterics over nuclear power and GMOs, despite the fact that the science tells us that both of those are quite safe.
  - rmrfrmrf 9y ago
    "Science" doesn't say either of those things are safe. Studies (often paid for by the companies trying to sell the technique) say that the core concepts and techniques are safe. The problem is that side-effects are left out of scope of the study. Hence, the environmental impacts of both are swept under the rug.
    - Turing_Machine 9y ago
      "Science" doesn't say either of those things are safe. Yes, it does. Sorry. Nuclear power is orders of magnitude safer than any other energy source (including solar). We've got 60 years of real-world data on it.
      - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
        Cool, care to share some citations on it?
        Turing_Machine 9y ago
        Discussion here, with plenty of links to sources: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...
        cameldrv 9y ago
        http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Prevented-mortality-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-historical-and-projected-nuclear-power1.pdf http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Prevented-mor... Headline is that nuclear power has saved about 1.8 million lives relative to probable alternatives, even ignoring the GHG effects.
        aaronbrethorst 9y ago
        I’m afraid I don’t see the word “solar” appear once in that document, which doesn’t do anything to confirm the argument above.
      - konschubert 9y ago
        Really? I guess if you factor in all the externalities of solar and none of those of nuclear you could probably make an argument they solar killed more kids than Tschernobyl, but that's of course dishonest. Or am I missing something?
lumberjack 9y ago
When your evidence says that something or another is harmful, and that something or another is a trillion dollar asset for someone else, that someone else is not going to be like, "ah well, I guess it was nice while it lasted". The "debate" only exists in domains where people stand to lose lots of money.
- candiodari 9y ago
  > The "debate" only exists in domains where people stand to lose lots of money. But includes everybody who'd be seriously affected by that. 1) Like the people employed by those people who'd lose lots of money. 2) Like the customers of those people who'd lose lots of money. Part 1 is a LOT of people, and 2 is just about everybody everywhere.
tzs 9y ago
> There's no significant difference in the number of STEM candidates this cycle What were the numbers in past cycles?

sergiotapia 9y ago

"Settled science" has become a curse word to me. "Science" used to be a method, now it's a belief system in the first world. It's disgusting.

merpnderp 9y ago
It used to be fun sport on Facebook to kid those who followed "I fucking love science" for not having the first clue about science. But as science became more and more a partisan word, it just became sad - the birth of a new religion who's adherents didn't even care to learn their new dogma.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Turing_Machine 9y ago
It's not even consistent. The people who are convinced that global warming is going to kill us all (because science) are generally the same people who go into hysterics over nuclear power and GMOs, despite the fact that the science tells us that both of those are quite safe.
- rmrfrmrf 9y ago
  "Science" doesn't say either of those things are safe. Studies (often paid for by the companies trying to sell the technique) say that the core concepts and techniques are safe. The problem is that side-effects are left out of scope of the study. Hence, the environmental impacts of both are swept under the rug.
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    "Science" doesn't say either of those things are safe. Yes, it does. Sorry. Nuclear power is orders of magnitude safer than any other energy source (including solar). We've got 60 years of real-world data on it.
    - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
      Cool, care to share some citations on it?
      - Turing_Machine 9y ago
        Discussion here, with plenty of links to sources: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...
      - cameldrv 9y ago
        http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Prevented-mortality-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-historical-and-projected-nuclear-power1.pdf http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Prevented-mor... Headline is that nuclear power has saved about 1.8 million lives relative to probable alternatives, even ignoring the GHG effects.
        aaronbrethorst 9y ago
        I’m afraid I don’t see the word “solar” appear once in that document, which doesn’t do anything to confirm the argument above.
    - konschubert 9y ago
      Really? I guess if you factor in all the externalities of solar and none of those of nuclear you could probably make an argument they solar killed more kids than Tschernobyl, but that's of course dishonest. Or am I missing something?

lumberjack 9y ago

When your evidence says that something or another is harmful, and that something or another is a trillion dollar asset for someone else, that someone else is not going to be like, "ah well, I guess it was nice while it lasted". The "debate" only exists in domains where people stand to lose lots of money.

candiodari 9y ago
> The "debate" only exists in domains where people stand to lose lots of money. But includes everybody who'd be seriously affected by that. 1) Like the people employed by those people who'd lose lots of money. 2) Like the customers of those people who'd lose lots of money. Part 1 is a LOT of people, and 2 is just about everybody everywhere.

tzs 9y ago

> There's no significant difference in the number of STEM candidates this cycle What were the numbers in past cycles?