3 ms·

The more I read these kind of articles the more I realize that it really has nothing to do with science, or science denial. Nobody in these kinds of discussions

The more I read these kind of articles the more I realize that it really has nothing to do with science, or science denial. Nobody in these kinds of discussions really cares about the science. It’s all about politics and ideology. Why aren’t these same people who are talking about science denial never speak up and make a fuss about the denial of climate change by a huge swath of the US population including the elected (e.g. POTUS)?

rhn_mk1 8y ago
> Nobody in these kinds of discussions really cares about the science. It’s all about politics and ideology. So when someone speaks up to rid science of the ideological influence, then by this definition, they don't care about science either? > Why aren’t these same people who are talking about science denial never speak up and make a fuss about the denial of climate change Who says they don't?
erentz 8y ago
> Why aren’t these same people who are talking about science denial never speak up and make a fuss about the denial of climate change by a huge swath of the US population including the elected (e.g. POTUS)? 1. Fallacy of relative privation? Nobody can talk about X because Y is worse. Nobody should fix X until everybody has fixed Y first. 2. Fighting ideologically driven decision should be a good thing if you’re concerned about the ideologically driven decision making going on in our government. Don’t pick and choose. That’s hypocracy. (There’s at least one person sometimes unfortunately (mis?)labeled as being in the IDW who is terrible at this, a big gaping load of hypocracy shows up anytime religion or Israel comes into play. His name rhymes with Sen Bhapiro.)
Udik 8y ago
> Why aren’t these same people who are talking about science denial never speak up and make a fuss about the denial of climate change This is called, in layman's terms, "whataboutism". I think each of us is free to pursue a primary interest, and the arguments need to be evaluated in themselves, not in relation to what else the person might be saying or not saying about some other topic. Anyway, for me this is primarily about science. I can't see any validity in certain arguments and I abhor the idea (which seems to me the only possible justification for them) that we should choose our truths according to how much we like their consequences- real or imagined. Or, let's put it this way: every time a scientist says that the study of nature provides support for one or another of our current moral values and ethical stances, I cringe.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
"Nobody in these kinds of discussions really cares about the science" ? I think the point of the article is that we should care about science. The author is indicating that there seems to be evidence that difference exist in the brain from a pre-natal age, and that the impetus behind the more popularly published stuff is political. This is not an ideological argument, nor one that has the backing of major news outlets trying to promote a specific agenda - just the opposite - someone saying: "hey, look at the data, why are people being called sexist for reporting the data?"
perilunar 8y ago
> Why aren’t these same people who are talking about science denial never speak up and make a fuss about the denial of climate change... Quillette published an article in January on just that: "The Right Needs To Grow Up On Environmentalism".
belorn 8y ago
I made a comment just a couple of days ago comparing the scientific approach of climate change with the scientific approach to pay gap. When climate change scientists get unaccounted data in regard to greenhouse gases it get put on hold until it get accounted. With pay gap the opposite happens where the unaccounted data is used as proof for discrimination. The unaccounted data in climate change is no more proof of natural phenomenon than unaccounted data in wages is proof of discrimination, and yet scientists in those two fields reach the opposite conclusions. If we really cared about science they should follow the same standard and treat unaccounted data as just that, unaccounted.

rhn_mk1 8y ago

> Nobody in these kinds of discussions really cares about the science. It’s all about politics and ideology. So when someone speaks up to rid science of the ideological influence, then by this definition, they don't care about science either? > Why aren’t these same people who are talking about science denial never speak up and make a fuss about the denial of climate change Who says they don't?

erentz 8y ago

> Why aren’t these same people who are talking about science denial never speak up and make a fuss about the denial of climate change by a huge swath of the US population including the elected (e.g. POTUS)? 1. Fallacy of relative privation? Nobody can talk about X because Y is worse. Nobody should fix X until everybody has fixed Y first. 2. Fighting ideologically driven decision should be a good thing if you’re concerned about the ideologically driven decision making going on in our government. Don’t pick and choose. That’s hypocracy. (There’s at least one person sometimes unfortunately (mis?)labeled as being in the IDW who is terrible at this, a big gaping load of hypocracy shows up anytime religion or Israel comes into play. His name rhymes with Sen Bhapiro.)

Udik 8y ago

> Why aren’t these same people who are talking about science denial never speak up and make a fuss about the denial of climate change This is called, in layman's terms, "whataboutism". I think each of us is free to pursue a primary interest, and the arguments need to be evaluated in themselves, not in relation to what else the person might be saying or not saying about some other topic. Anyway, for me this is primarily about science. I can't see any validity in certain arguments and I abhor the idea (which seems to me the only possible justification for them) that we should choose our truths according to how much we like their consequences- real or imagined. Or, let's put it this way: every time a scientist says that the study of nature provides support for one or another of our current moral values and ethical stances, I cringe.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

"Nobody in these kinds of discussions really cares about the science" ? I think the point of the article is that we should care about science. The author is indicating that there seems to be evidence that difference exist in the brain from a pre-natal age, and that the impetus behind the more popularly published stuff is political. This is not an ideological argument, nor one that has the backing of major news outlets trying to promote a specific agenda - just the opposite - someone saying: "hey, look at the data, why are people being called sexist for reporting the data?"

perilunar 8y ago

> Why aren’t these same people who are talking about science denial never speak up and make a fuss about the denial of climate change... Quillette published an article in January on just that: "The Right Needs To Grow Up On Environmentalism".

belorn 8y ago

I made a comment just a couple of days ago comparing the scientific approach of climate change with the scientific approach to pay gap. When climate change scientists get unaccounted data in regard to greenhouse gases it get put on hold until it get accounted. With pay gap the opposite happens where the unaccounted data is used as proof for discrimination. The unaccounted data in climate change is no more proof of natural phenomenon than unaccounted data in wages is proof of discrimination, and yet scientists in those two fields reach the opposite conclusions. If we really cared about science they should follow the same standard and treat unaccounted data as just that, unaccounted.