3 ms·

The fact that you feel personally attacked by my statement suggests that your beliefs are well, beliefs, and not necessarily grounded in fact. I recommend you

The fact that you feel personally attacked by my statement suggests that your beliefs are well, beliefs, and not necessarily grounded in fact. I recommend you read "The Wizard and The Prophet" as it chronicles the dawn of the environmentalist movement in an engaging and insightful way. That environmentalism was largely funded by wealthy folks, most of whom had only a rudimentary understanding of science, should be a clue towards how much science factors into those discussions.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
This is a bogus argument. If want to discuss the relative level of science in current beliefs about, say, nuclear waste, then go ahead and do so. But please do not impugne current "environmentalists" (a group which, as far as this topic goes, includes a number of "actual scientists") with your claims about the origins of the environmental movement. As for those claims, the environmental movement in the USA is generally dated back to the publication of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", and in its early years was not really funded by anyone at all. In addition, most things are largely funded by wealthy folks, so this observation is largely content free.
throwbadubadu 4y ago
But it's also not like every scientist (vs environmentalist, can't we just stop with stupid generalization and classification like that?) would be in full support of going on with nuclear as civil power source, and there is also more than pure science to consider. Stuff fails (from waste disposal processes to planes falling out of the sky) not because we have not understood the science or almost perfect processes established, but for many various reasons? I think it's also unfair to claim poster before as feeling attacked, and then giving statement about his beliefs, which you don't know. So could do the same thing here? Those grounded facts extrapolated to the complex practical reality is again itself just belief, and could do the same here then...
acdha 4y ago
Consider that your emotional desire to feel smug and contrarian are being quite effectively manipulated by the wealthy industries funding the people whose ideas you’re repeating. Environmentalism has a long history of scientists sounding alarms which turned out to be accurate, and your uninformed assertion otherwise is doing your credibility no service here.
pflenker 4y ago
No, that’s not it, sorry. The line of argument which boils down to „my side is guided by logic and facts, while your side is guided by emotion and fear“ makes the one who invokes it (ironically) vulnerable to missing valuable facts that might otherwise enrich or even challenge their mental model of the discussion at hand. Note that this is a meta discussion which comments on how you were presenting your thoughts.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

This is a bogus argument. If want to discuss the relative level of science in current beliefs about, say, nuclear waste, then go ahead and do so. But please do not impugne current "environmentalists" (a group which, as far as this topic goes, includes a number of "actual scientists") with your claims about the origins of the environmental movement. As for those claims, the environmental movement in the USA is generally dated back to the publication of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", and in its early years was not really funded by anyone at all. In addition, most things are largely funded by wealthy folks, so this observation is largely content free.

throwbadubadu 4y ago

But it's also not like every scientist (vs environmentalist, can't we just stop with stupid generalization and classification like that?) would be in full support of going on with nuclear as civil power source, and there is also more than pure science to consider. Stuff fails (from waste disposal processes to planes falling out of the sky) not because we have not understood the science or almost perfect processes established, but for many various reasons? I think it's also unfair to claim poster before as feeling attacked, and then giving statement about his beliefs, which you don't know. So could do the same thing here? Those grounded facts extrapolated to the complex practical reality is again itself just belief, and could do the same here then...

acdha 4y ago

Consider that your emotional desire to feel smug and contrarian are being quite effectively manipulated by the wealthy industries funding the people whose ideas you’re repeating. Environmentalism has a long history of scientists sounding alarms which turned out to be accurate, and your uninformed assertion otherwise is doing your credibility no service here.

pflenker 4y ago

No, that’s not it, sorry. The line of argument which boils down to „my side is guided by logic and facts, while your side is guided by emotion and fear“ makes the one who invokes it (ironically) vulnerable to missing valuable facts that might otherwise enrich or even challenge their mental model of the discussion at hand. Note that this is a meta discussion which comments on how you were presenting your thoughts.