5 ms·

I can see the worry with vaccination, as it directly affects everyone, but does everyone necessarily have to agree on the other two issues? Is it a real issue

I can see the worry with vaccination, as it directly affects everyone, but does everyone necessarily have to agree on the other two issues? Is it a real issue if someone is doing really good things for society, being an excellent person, but happens to disagree with you about evolution or climate change? Science is getting to be its own fundamental religion for many IMHO, who prescribe 'science' as the answer to everything, and treat scientific papers as the bible (They also cherry pick the scientific papers they like, and ignore the ones they don't, just like religious folks do). Also, the link you cite for climate change is 404, but I would expect the only real bone of contention is whether any change in the climate is caused by humans or not. Are there really people who deny the climate is changing?

IgorPartola 12y ago
Yes. People who do not believe in evolution are holding back progress. They are making everyone's quality of life worse through their sheer ignorance. People who do not believe in global warming are even worse. I will literally suffocate in my lifetime because of these imbicils. I suppose in some philosophical sense, no we don't all need to agree, but in a practical sense if we want to survive and thrive as a species, we must.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  It's extremely hard for me to imagine how my quality of life would improve if my neighbor started believing in evolution. Perhaps you can provide an example?
  - acadien 12y ago
    Its about an educated and critical thinking public. A public that approaches everything with a critical eye is less susceptible to political pandering and more accepting of good science and evidence/data based laws. The average person doesn't know how to interpret a bar graph and has no clue what a good source of data looks like. Agreeing on a specific point, such as evolution, is just a symptom of the larger problem.
  - eanzenberg 12y ago
    Sure: People who don't believe in evolution can taint those around them especially the young, which could cause those to not pursue scientific careers, setting back further progress in those fields and pushing forward the next discoveries in fields like cancer, life-lengthening, and other diseases. These "potential setbacks of breakthroughs" hurts society's quality of life.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    You would be less likely to get an antibiotic-resistant infection in the future, because an understanding of evolution is necessary to understand how massive application of antibiotics can lead to more resistant bacteria in the future. You would be more likely to survive a pandemic in the future because there would be more public support for research into how diseases evolve. There would be less racial strife because more people would understand that the differences we see in people lie on a continuous genetic spectrum, not broken up in distinct "races."
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      I don't think excessive antibiotic use is exclusive to those who don't believe in evolution, but thanks for at least providing a few concrete examples instead of more hand hand waving.
    - walterbell 12y ago
      What do you think of the evolutionary impact of pesticides on bacteria resistance?
- Smoofer 12y ago
  Your comments come off as ridiculously condescending
  - IgorPartola 12y ago
    It is meant to be. Stubborn ignorance deserves ridicule.
    - Smoofer 12y ago
      ugh, didn't really think the "tough guy i am very smart" thing was on HN
      - IgorPartola 12y ago
        To be fair, I didn't think evolution deniers were present on HN either.
- reasonish 12y ago
  You're probably going to die from cancer or heart disease. Even if you just look at environmental factors, we're more likely to die either from the bee population dying due to pesticides, or because of the massive increase in routine use of antibiotics in meat production. Neither of which really get much media attention, maybe because they're both issues caused by science, and people like cheap food. But at the end of the day we're going to die from overcrowding . The population has doubled in the last 30 years. (Hence why science has to make horrible dangerous food to feed them all). Whether your fellow man believes in global warming is pretty irrelevant, and whether he believes in evolution is even less relevant to anything that matters. You're certainly not going to die from global warming! Your comment is the sort of "scientific fundamentalism" I was talking about.
  - eanzenberg 12y ago
    First world countries are not overcrowded. Scientific progress (increase food production, improved medicine and care) is the reason you will probably live 30 years longer than if you were born 2 centuries ago.
    - reasonish 12y ago
      Those stats are faulty - the infant mortality rate 2 centuries ago was massive, which dragged the life expectancy down massively. Also, I don't think extending our life past 80 or so is a good idea. Quality of life is far more important than quantity. Define "overcrowded"... First world countries are more crowded than they were 30 years ago, and (IMHO) the quality of life has gone down. And as for your "increase food production"... We're force feeding chickens to be morbidly obese, pumping them full of anti-biotics so they don't get ill from living in squalid conditions. We're killing off the bee population with pesticides everywhere. These things are not good, and will only get worse as there are more people to feed.
      - eanzenberg 12y ago
        Sure it is.. if me at 40 is like today's 30, and me at 80 is like today's 50, then keep pushing the envelope.
- jdefr89 12y ago
  You're being a little dramatic. "People who do not believe in evolution are holding back progress" ... Honestly... The cool thing about science is that whether you think gravity is real or not you will still fall. Progress will always be made in due time..
  - danpalmer 12y ago
    > in due time While the rest of the world leaps forward perhaps?
    - jdefr89 12y ago
      You mean the rest of the world doesn't have people that don't believe in evolution?
      - eivarv 12y ago
        Large scale evolution denialism in the western world is pretty much exclusive to the U.S. There are, of course, various smaller groups of believers and faith-based private schools that espouse creationism, but it is certainly not very prevalent.
  - IgorPartola 12y ago
    I present to you Texas science textbooks and their treatment of the theory of evolution. Or shall we teach our future engineers that Pi is exactly 3 too? Ignorant people with influence is a terrible thing.
    - redblacktree 12y ago
      Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
  - Retra 12y ago
    The cool thing about politics is that failure will always be made in due time. That is, if you don't take great care to educate people.
jjaredsimpson 12y ago
denying any truth is a flaw in thinking. it matters less materially than vaccination in that I don't have to worry about the spread of a disease which may infect me or my children. just because someones beliefs don't directly cause me harm, doesn't imply that those believes are immune from criticism. especially on correctness grounds.
tashon 12y ago
Although it's only one case, here's an NPR interview (http://www.npr.org/2015/03/10/392142452/florida-gov-scott-denies-banning-phrase-climate-change http://www.npr.org/2015/03/10/392142452/florida-gov-scott-de...) discussing the governor of Florida's policy to avoid the term 'climate change'. Not sure if denying usage of the term is equivalent to denying its existence, but hopefully it's something.
allemagne 12y ago
Global warming is another issue that affects everyone, so it does matter in the way you described. >Science is getting to be its own fundamental religion for many IMHO, who prescribe 'science' as the answer to everything If "not believing in evolution or global warming" isn't a real issue for society, I don't understand how "believing too much in science" can be a real issue. Senators and other powerful politicians deny global warming and evolution to demonstrably negative effects. I haven't seen any evidence that the /r/atheism-style fundamentalism is having any effect on the world besides being pompous and annoying. I'm also assuming that you're criticizing the vagueness of giving 'science' as an answer to big problems as some internet atheists might be wont to do. Otherwise I'm not sure what you're criticizing.

IgorPartola 12y ago

Yes. People who do not believe in evolution are holding back progress. They are making everyone's quality of life worse through their sheer ignorance. People who do not believe in global warming are even worse. I will literally suffocate in my lifetime because of these imbicils. I suppose in some philosophical sense, no we don't all need to agree, but in a practical sense if we want to survive and thrive as a species, we must.

tedunangst 12y ago
It's extremely hard for me to imagine how my quality of life would improve if my neighbor started believing in evolution. Perhaps you can provide an example?
- acadien 12y ago
  Its about an educated and critical thinking public. A public that approaches everything with a critical eye is less susceptible to political pandering and more accepting of good science and evidence/data based laws. The average person doesn't know how to interpret a bar graph and has no clue what a good source of data looks like. Agreeing on a specific point, such as evolution, is just a symptom of the larger problem.
- eanzenberg 12y ago
  Sure: People who don't believe in evolution can taint those around them especially the young, which could cause those to not pursue scientific careers, setting back further progress in those fields and pushing forward the next discoveries in fields like cancer, life-lengthening, and other diseases. These "potential setbacks of breakthroughs" hurts society's quality of life.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  You would be less likely to get an antibiotic-resistant infection in the future, because an understanding of evolution is necessary to understand how massive application of antibiotics can lead to more resistant bacteria in the future. You would be more likely to survive a pandemic in the future because there would be more public support for research into how diseases evolve. There would be less racial strife because more people would understand that the differences we see in people lie on a continuous genetic spectrum, not broken up in distinct "races."
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    I don't think excessive antibiotic use is exclusive to those who don't believe in evolution, but thanks for at least providing a few concrete examples instead of more hand hand waving.
  - walterbell 12y ago
    What do you think of the evolutionary impact of pesticides on bacteria resistance?
Smoofer 12y ago
Your comments come off as ridiculously condescending
- IgorPartola 12y ago
  It is meant to be. Stubborn ignorance deserves ridicule.
  - Smoofer 12y ago
    ugh, didn't really think the "tough guy i am very smart" thing was on HN
    - IgorPartola 12y ago
      To be fair, I didn't think evolution deniers were present on HN either.
reasonish 12y ago
You're probably going to die from cancer or heart disease. Even if you just look at environmental factors, we're more likely to die either from the bee population dying due to pesticides, or because of the massive increase in routine use of antibiotics in meat production. Neither of which really get much media attention, maybe because they're both issues caused by science, and people like cheap food. But at the end of the day we're going to die from overcrowding . The population has doubled in the last 30 years. (Hence why science has to make horrible dangerous food to feed them all). Whether your fellow man believes in global warming is pretty irrelevant, and whether he believes in evolution is even less relevant to anything that matters. You're certainly not going to die from global warming! Your comment is the sort of "scientific fundamentalism" I was talking about.
- eanzenberg 12y ago
  First world countries are not overcrowded. Scientific progress (increase food production, improved medicine and care) is the reason you will probably live 30 years longer than if you were born 2 centuries ago.
  - reasonish 12y ago
    Those stats are faulty - the infant mortality rate 2 centuries ago was massive, which dragged the life expectancy down massively. Also, I don't think extending our life past 80 or so is a good idea. Quality of life is far more important than quantity. Define "overcrowded"... First world countries are more crowded than they were 30 years ago, and (IMHO) the quality of life has gone down. And as for your "increase food production"... We're force feeding chickens to be morbidly obese, pumping them full of anti-biotics so they don't get ill from living in squalid conditions. We're killing off the bee population with pesticides everywhere. These things are not good, and will only get worse as there are more people to feed.
    - eanzenberg 12y ago
      Sure it is.. if me at 40 is like today's 30, and me at 80 is like today's 50, then keep pushing the envelope.
jdefr89 12y ago
You're being a little dramatic. "People who do not believe in evolution are holding back progress" ... Honestly... The cool thing about science is that whether you think gravity is real or not you will still fall. Progress will always be made in due time..
- danpalmer 12y ago
  > in due time While the rest of the world leaps forward perhaps?
  - jdefr89 12y ago
    You mean the rest of the world doesn't have people that don't believe in evolution?
    - eivarv 12y ago
      Large scale evolution denialism in the western world is pretty much exclusive to the U.S. There are, of course, various smaller groups of believers and faith-based private schools that espouse creationism, but it is certainly not very prevalent.
- IgorPartola 12y ago
  I present to you Texas science textbooks and their treatment of the theory of evolution. Or shall we teach our future engineers that Pi is exactly 3 too? Ignorant people with influence is a terrible thing.
  - redblacktree 12y ago
    Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
- Retra 12y ago
  The cool thing about politics is that failure will always be made in due time. That is, if you don't take great care to educate people.

jjaredsimpson 12y ago

denying any truth is a flaw in thinking. it matters less materially than vaccination in that I don't have to worry about the spread of a disease which may infect me or my children. just because someones beliefs don't directly cause me harm, doesn't imply that those believes are immune from criticism. especially on correctness grounds.

tashon 12y ago

Although it's only one case, here's an NPR interview (http://www.npr.org/2015/03/10/392142452/florida-gov-scott-denies-banning-phrase-climate-change http://www.npr.org/2015/03/10/392142452/florida-gov-scott-de...) discussing the governor of Florida's policy to avoid the term 'climate change'. Not sure if denying usage of the term is equivalent to denying its existence, but hopefully it's something.

allemagne 12y ago

Global warming is another issue that affects everyone, so it does matter in the way you described. >Science is getting to be its own fundamental religion for many IMHO, who prescribe 'science' as the answer to everything If "not believing in evolution or global warming" isn't a real issue for society, I don't understand how "believing too much in science" can be a real issue. Senators and other powerful politicians deny global warming and evolution to demonstrably negative effects. I haven't seen any evidence that the /r/atheism-style fundamentalism is having any effect on the world besides being pompous and annoying. I'm also assuming that you're criticizing the vagueness of giving 'science' as an answer to big problems as some internet atheists might be wont to do. Otherwise I'm not sure what you're criticizing.