Lefties more simple minded...studies show this....

[NightFox]

If being more simple minded means liberals are more likely to accept a scientific consensus than conservatives, no argument.

Except science doesn't operate by "consensus", if it did we'd still be operating under the notion that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Anyone that believes that the modern meme of "settled science" carries any real meaning is indeed simple minded and obviously doesn't understand the methods and objectives of science.

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual" -- Galileo Galilei

Galileo Galilei? What the Hell did he know? That heretic should have been burned on the stake.

Amen Brother! not only burned at the stake but smothered in a tangy white wine sauce and eaten for lunch afterwards.....

 

[cnm]

Oh you're just a veritable fountain of specious arguments

But no arguments of any sort from you. The mark of a complex thinker of course.

 

[cnm]

Again you can believe you devolved from monkeys all you want

And I can believe in a God and was created all I want.

Absolutely. I can simple accept evidence and you can make up complex stories. It's great, eh?

 

[cnm]

Keyword being theory

Ouch. There's some of that complex thinking putting me in my place again. Will you accept a simple Wiki definition of a scientific theory or will you provide a complex one?

 

[NightFox]

Oh you're just a veritable fountain of specious arguments

But no arguments of any sort from you. The mark of a complex thinker of course.

***YAWN***
Already made and breathlessly awaiting something approximating a coherent rebuttal from your quarter. Perhaps you should go back and read the thread again, feel free to make use of Wikipedia if you require assistance with the multisyllabic words.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Again you can believe you devolved from monkeys all you want

And I can believe in a God and was created all I want.

Absolutely. I can simple accept evidence and you can make up complex stories. It's great, eh?

Where? And I am the one not making up story's or fudging data to support my beilefs

 

[Stephanie]

Again you can believe you devolved from monkeys all you want

And I can believe in a God and was created all I want.

Absolutely. I can simple accept evidence and you can make up complex stories. It's great, eh?

Where? And I am the one not making up story's or fudging data to support my beilefs

at times you can only pity some people. lol
it's a waste of time to argue with people like that. they are so zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[iolo]

Isn't it amazing how, as the right-wing weirdoes swing from their trees by their tails, grunting and squeaking, they remain convinced of their intellectual superiority!

 

[NightFox]

Isn't it amazing how, as the right-wing weirdoes swing from their trees by their tails, grunting and squeaking, they remain convinced of their intellectual superiority!

*SIGH*
Yet another Mensa candidate from the left that believes snarkiness is a valid substitute for an actual argument.....

 

[Iceweasel]

The thing is that the scientific associations of the USA have given the consensus on global warming, and indeed evolution. Complex thinkers find this too simple.

Scientific consensus

Scientific consensus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2]

On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.​

^^^^^^ LOL ...uses wikipedia to back up his shit.

 

[Iceweasel]

If you dismiss Wiki out of hand, you're making a similar mistake. They provide plenty of references to research. .

There's the problem, Sport. It's a quick sloppy way to go about it and a tool to try to win by athority, when it's source is wide open. If they have cited a legitimate source, go to the source and cite their evidence, not what someone says they say.

 

[iolo]

Isn't it amazing how, as the right-wing weirdoes swing from their trees by their tails, grunting and squeaking, they remain convinced of their intellectual superiority!

*SIGH*
Yet another Mensa candidate from the left that believes snarkiness is a valid substitute for an actual argument.....

Who needs argument when we have right-wing posters?

 

[NightFox]

Again you can believe you devolved from monkeys all you want

And I can believe in a God and was created all I want.

Absolutely. I can simple accept evidence and you can make up complex stories. It's great, eh?

Uh-huh, it's odd that you only appear to accept "evidence" that supports your existing conclusions and anything else is mocked and then discarded. Apparently confirmation bias is an integral part of the scientific method in your plane of existence unfortunately for you it's not in the one the preponderance of humanity exists in.

 

[NightFox]

Isn't it amazing how, as the right-wing weirdoes swing from their trees by their tails, grunting and squeaking, they remain convinced of their intellectual superiority!

*SIGH*
Yet another Mensa candidate from the left that believes snarkiness is a valid substitute for an actual argument.....

Who needs argument when we have right-wing posters?

Thank you for proving my point.

Run along now, I'm sure that poor valley girl would like her brain returned as soon as possible.

 

[iolo]

Aren't you weirdoes DIM!

 

[bripat9643]

You mean if they are more likely to confuse consensus AS science.

Ah, fairy stories, you complex thinker you.

Your beliefs are all fairy stories. Consensus isn't science. evolution isn't true because of a "scientific consensus. It's true because the evidence is irrefutable. The same goes for Enstein's laws of relativity.

Anyone who goes around bleating about the "consensus of science" only unmasks himself as an ignoramus.

 

[bripat9643]

The thing is that the scientific associations of the USA have given the consensus on global warming, and indeed evolution. Complex thinkers find this too simple.

Scientific consensus

Scientific consensus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2]

On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.​

That proves exactly nothing . . other than the fact that scientific societies are all government sycophants.

 

[bripat9643]

If being more simple minded means liberals are more likely to accept a scientific consensus than conservatives, no argument.

you just proved the point of the study. there is NO consensus in Science. at least that's what I was taught in school 40 years ago.

There's consensus about all sorts of things in science. It seems you need a refresher. The earth travels around the sun, instead of the other way around; the earth is billions of years old, rather than 6000; dinosaurs and humans did not wander the earth together; etc. Just because you don't agree with a certain point or points, doesn't mean there is no consensus.

Consensus doesn't make anything a scientific fact.

That's what you are too stupid to understand.

 

[bripat9643]

And here's something more in line with the complex thinking of conservatives...

Why almost all conservative Protestants believe in creation science:

Why most scientists support the theory of evolution


Their acceptance in creation science is based mainly on two fundamental beliefs:

One of the most fundamental assumptions held by conservative Protestants is that the Bible was inspired by God and thus is without error, as originally written. Since the book of Genesis clearly describes that God created the universe, then it must be true. No other possibility exists.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

That's obvious bullshit because most conservatives don't believe in creationism.

 

[bripat9643]

Here is some more simple minded stuff...

Why almost all scientists believe in evolution:

Why most scientists support the theory of evolution

It is impossible to prove that the theory of evolution is absolutely true. The theory maintains that plant evolution, animal evolution and the major geological changes to the earth unfolded over billions of years. Thus, the full theory cannot be demonstrated in the laboratory. Processes like the rise of mountains and erosion are simply too slow to be observed during one person's lifetime. Elements of the theory (e.g. species evolution of fruit flies in the laboratory and of Tilapia fish in East African lakes) have been observed. But nobody was on hand to observe what the world and its life forms looked like hundreds of millions of years ago.

However, sufficient evidence exists in support of evolution to convince 99.85% of America's earth and life scientists that the theory is valid. Evolution is the key unifying theory that unifies many different branches of science, from cosmology to biology. ​

Uh-Huh, tell me what was the "consensus" regarding evolution before Charles Darwin came along?

Consensus is always right, except when it's wrong.