Trained To Be Fooled.

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
125,093
60,648
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
There is much truth in the old saw about Liberals....they snap to attention at the phrase 'studies show.....'

But, this great Liberal noted:
"Somehow liberals have been unable to acquire from birth what conservatives seem to be endowed with at birth: namely, a healthy skepticism of the powers of government to do good."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

But Moynihan didn't go nearly far enough. The need for that 'healthy skepticism' goes far further than the belief in government.....it needs to begin early and continue throughout life. We need more 'Show Me Missourians' in the body politic.

"There is very good reason to believe that much scientific research published today is false, there is no good way to sort the wheat from the chaff, and, most importantly, that the way the system is designed ensures that this will continue being the case."
Big Science is broken


1. ".....a must-read article in First Things magazine, in which William A. Wilson accumulates evidence that a lot of published research is false. But that's not even the worst part.

Advocates of the existing scientific research paradigm usually smugly declare that while some published conclusions are surely false, the scientific method has "self-correcting mechanisms" that ensure that, eventually, the truth will prevail. Unfortunately for all of us, Wilson makes a convincing argument that those self-correcting mechanisms are broken.

2. For starters, there's a "replication crisis" in science. This is particularly true in the field of experimental psychology, where far too many prestigious psychology studies simply can't be reliably replicated. But it's not just psychology. In 2011, the pharmaceutical company Bayer looked at 67 blockbuster drug discovery research findings published in prestigious journals, and found that three-fourths of them weren't right."
Ibid.




"The problem with science is that so much of it simply isn’t." Scientific Regress
 
3. It is essential to separate what has come to be called 'science' from what really is science....or, rather, 'scientism.'


Scientism belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints.


Philosopher Michael Devitt, to mention but one, continues to proclaim that “there is only one way of knowing, the empirical way that is the basis of science!” http://12tuesday.com/discuss-an-interesting-quote-from-michael-devitt/


" The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment.Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation.." Google






4. There is a tongue-in-cheek reference to what science has become, ...the term used is "SWAG."

It means a 'scientific wild ass guess."
It's meant to poke fun at folks who believe 'scientific' fact that are based on a confident and unquestioning belief,...sometimes called 'faith.'

Here's some examples of SWAG....

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Global Warming


What do these have in common?
All of 'em are of the modern fashion called 'science,' but are actually elements of a political agenda. One proof of that claim is that, to be a Liberal, one pretty much must accept them, e.g., 'the debate is over.'


a. But none of 'em are scientific....yet they are drooled over, praised,...accepted by the many infected with sciolism....
"A pretentious attitude of scholarship; superficial knowledgeability."
sciolism - definition of sciolism by The Free Dictionary
 
As opposed to getting your marching orders from "The Big Book of Myths and Fables".
 
Religion dominated society for many generations, yet it had no basis a scientific analogy..


What does this have to do with the previous post?
That we as humans have advanced further with science than we ever did with religion...Even though science has screwed up on several issues, it is still has given more stability in society than religion ever has..
 
3. It is essential to separate what has come to be called 'science' from what really is science....or, rather, 'scientism.'


Scientism belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints.


Philosopher Michael Devitt, to mention but one, continues to proclaim that “there is only one way of knowing, the empirical way that is the basis of science!” http://12tuesday.com/discuss-an-interesting-quote-from-michael-devitt/


" The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment.Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation.." Google






4. There is a tongue-in-cheek reference to what science has become, ...the term used is "SWAG."

It means a 'scientific wild ass guess."
It's meant to poke fun at folks who believe 'scientific' fact that are based on a confident and unquestioning belief,...sometimes called 'faith.'

Here's some examples of SWAG....

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Global Warming


What do these have in common?
All of 'em are of the modern fashion called 'science,' but are actually elements of a political agenda. One proof of that claim is that, to be a Liberal, one pretty much must accept them, e.g., 'the debate is over.'


a. But none of 'em are scientific....
How anyone could believe that those aren't scientific is beyond me. You obviously don't know what science is!
 
There is much truth in the old saw about Liberals....they snap to attention at the phrase 'studies show.....'

But, this great Liberal noted:
"Somehow liberals have been unable to acquire from birth what conservatives seem to be endowed with at birth: namely, a healthy skepticism of the powers of government to do good."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

There is a differeence between being skeptical and out right claiming something is a lie because you feel it is. Republicans let their skepticism determine that things are wrong for no other reason then they believe it.

So they see a study and instead of saying "Maybe this is wrong because..." they say "This is wrong because.....something about liberals" and nothing about the facts being wrong.
 
As opposed to getting your marching orders from "The Big Book of Myths and Fables".


So.....we can stipulate that you were irked by the posts...but were unable to find a single error of any kind.


Seems to be the pattern when those who live to be fooled, post.
 
Religion dominated society for many generations, yet it had no basis a scientific analogy..


What does this have to do with the previous post?
That we as humans have advanced further with science than we ever did with religion...Even though science has screwed up on several issues, it is still has given more stability in society than religion ever has..


And another one!

So.....we can stipulate that you were irked by the posts...but were unable to find a single error of any kind.


Seems to be the pattern when those who live to be fooled, post.
 
3. It is essential to separate what has come to be called 'science' from what really is science....or, rather, 'scientism.'


Scientism belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints.


Philosopher Michael Devitt, to mention but one, continues to proclaim that “there is only one way of knowing, the empirical way that is the basis of science!” http://12tuesday.com/discuss-an-interesting-quote-from-michael-devitt/


" The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment.Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation.." Google






4. There is a tongue-in-cheek reference to what science has become, ...the term used is "SWAG."

It means a 'scientific wild ass guess."
It's meant to poke fun at folks who believe 'scientific' fact that are based on a confident and unquestioning belief,...sometimes called 'faith.'

Here's some examples of SWAG....

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Global Warming


What do these have in common?
All of 'em are of the modern fashion called 'science,' but are actually elements of a political agenda. One proof of that claim is that, to be a Liberal, one pretty much must accept them, e.g., 'the debate is over.'


a. But none of 'em are scientific....
How anyone could believe that those aren't scientific is beyond me. You obviously don't know what science is!


Not a one is science.

Hence, you fit the title perfectly.

Appreciate your acquiescence.


Here...jot this down:

Science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And this....

" If a theory doesn’t make a testable prediction, it isn’t science.It’s a basic axiom of the scientific method, dubbed “falsifiability” by the 20th century philosopher of science Karl Popper. "
Does Science Need Falsifiability - The Nature of Reality The Nature of Reality PBS



I'd go with those definitions.
 
3. It is essential to separate what has come to be called 'science' from what really is science....or, rather, 'scientism.'


Scientism belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints.


Philosopher Michael Devitt, to mention but one, continues to proclaim that “there is only one way of knowing, the empirical way that is the basis of science!” http://12tuesday.com/discuss-an-interesting-quote-from-michael-devitt/


" The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment.Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation.." Google






4. There is a tongue-in-cheek reference to what science has become, ...the term used is "SWAG."

It means a 'scientific wild ass guess."
It's meant to poke fun at folks who believe 'scientific' fact that are based on a confident and unquestioning belief,...sometimes called 'faith.'

Here's some examples of SWAG....

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Global Warming


What do these have in common?
All of 'em are of the modern fashion called 'science,' but are actually elements of a political agenda. One proof of that claim is that, to be a Liberal, one pretty much must accept them, e.g., 'the debate is over.'


a. But none of 'em are scientific....
How anyone could believe that those aren't scientific is beyond me. You obviously don't know what science is!


Not a one is science.

Hence, you fit the title perfectly.

Appreciate your acquiescence.


Here...jot this down:

Science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And this....

" If a theory doesn’t make a testable prediction, it isn’t science.It’s a basic axiom of the scientific method, dubbed “falsifiability” by the 20th century philosopher of science Karl Popper. "
Does Science Need Falsifiability - The Nature of Reality The Nature of Reality PBS



I'd go with those definitions.
Religion is for people too stupid to understand science. There's no reason at all to engage with you.
 
3. It is essential to separate what has come to be called 'science' from what really is science....or, rather, 'scientism.'


Scientism belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints.


Philosopher Michael Devitt, to mention but one, continues to proclaim that “there is only one way of knowing, the empirical way that is the basis of science!” http://12tuesday.com/discuss-an-interesting-quote-from-michael-devitt/


" The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment.Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation.." Google






4. There is a tongue-in-cheek reference to what science has become, ...the term used is "SWAG."

It means a 'scientific wild ass guess."
It's meant to poke fun at folks who believe 'scientific' fact that are based on a confident and unquestioning belief,...sometimes called 'faith.'

Here's some examples of SWAG....

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Global Warming


What do these have in common?
All of 'em are of the modern fashion called 'science,' but are actually elements of a political agenda. One proof of that claim is that, to be a Liberal, one pretty much must accept them, e.g., 'the debate is over.'


a. But none of 'em are scientific....
How anyone could believe that those aren't scientific is beyond me. You obviously don't know what science is!


Not a one is science.

Hence, you fit the title perfectly.

Appreciate your acquiescence.


Here...jot this down:

Science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And this....

" If a theory doesn’t make a testable prediction, it isn’t science.It’s a basic axiom of the scientific method, dubbed “falsifiability” by the 20th century philosopher of science Karl Popper. "
Does Science Need Falsifiability - The Nature of Reality The Nature of Reality PBS



I'd go with those definitions.
Religion is for people too stupid to understand science. There's no reason at all to engage with you.


I notice you didn't try to make an argument that the examples I gave as not science, were.

You must be too stupid, huh?
 
Religion dominated society for many generations, yet it had no basis a scientific analogy..


What does this have to do with the previous post?
That we as humans have advanced further with science than we ever did with religion...Even though science has screwed up on several issues, it is still has given more stability in society than religion ever has..


And another one!

So.....we can stipulate that you were irked by the posts...but were unable to find a single error of any kind.


Seems to be the pattern when those who live to be fooled, post.
Not at all. I know what religion is used for, just as I know what science is used for...With humans participating in both fields, there will be flaws and fakers...
 
3. It is essential to separate what has come to be called 'science' from what really is science....or, rather, 'scientism.'


Scientism belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints.


Philosopher Michael Devitt, to mention but one, continues to proclaim that “there is only one way of knowing, the empirical way that is the basis of science!” http://12tuesday.com/discuss-an-interesting-quote-from-michael-devitt/


" The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment.Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation.." Google






4. There is a tongue-in-cheek reference to what science has become, ...the term used is "SWAG."

It means a 'scientific wild ass guess."
It's meant to poke fun at folks who believe 'scientific' fact that are based on a confident and unquestioning belief,...sometimes called 'faith.'

Here's some examples of SWAG....

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Global Warming


What do these have in common?
All of 'em are of the modern fashion called 'science,' but are actually elements of a political agenda. One proof of that claim is that, to be a Liberal, one pretty much must accept them, e.g., 'the debate is over.'


a. But none of 'em are scientific....
How anyone could believe that those aren't scientific is beyond me. You obviously don't know what science is!


Not a one is science.

Hence, you fit the title perfectly.

Appreciate your acquiescence.


Here...jot this down:

Science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And this....

" If a theory doesn’t make a testable prediction, it isn’t science.It’s a basic axiom of the scientific method, dubbed “falsifiability” by the 20th century philosopher of science Karl Popper. "
Does Science Need Falsifiability - The Nature of Reality The Nature of Reality PBS



I'd go with those definitions.
Religion is for people too stupid to understand science. There's no reason at all to engage with you.


I notice you didn't try to make an argument that the examples I gave as not science, were.

You must be too stupid, huh?
Anyone who thinks those things are not science is too uneducated to bother with. Ignorance at that level has no solution.
 

Forum List

Back
Top