I wasn't real popular at the "Sciencey" march yesterday

[mrkelley23]

With all due respect to Mr. Kelley, the photo shown above by BobJ confirms every stereotype of the Sciencey Marchers.

You don't think there might be a little confirmation bias going on there? What about that sign confirms the stereotypes, empirically speaking?

BiT, our founding fathers thought marches and other types of group activities were important enough that they enshrined the protection of them in the Constitution. I don't begrudge people the right to peaceably assemble, even if I don't participate. And it does have a demonstrable (sic!) effect on politics. And as one sign put it, "I can't believe I have to march for science." Regardless of what President Trump says about science in recent public statements, it is clear from his actions and his unscripted words that he is anti-science, anti-intellectual, and anti-facts. That's enough reason for a protest action, in my opinion.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

With all due respect to Mr. Kelley, the photo shown above by BobJ confirms every stereotype of the Sciencey Marchers.

You don't think there might be a little confirmation bias going on there? What about that sign confirms the stereotypes, empirically speaking?

BiT, our founding fathers thought marches and other types of group activities were important enough that they enshrined the protection of them in the Constitution. I don't begrudge people the right to peaceably assemble, even if I don't participate. And it does have a demonstrable (sic!) effect on politics. And as one sign put it, "I can't believe I have to march for science." Regardless of what President Trump says about science in recent public statements, it is clear from his actions and his unscripted words that he is anti-science, anti-intellectual, and anti-facts. That's enough reason for a protest action, in my opinion.

Wow what a lack of insight!

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/break ... foundation

[Bob78164]

Re: The American anti-vaxxers are probably not as physically concentrated as the (for example) Somali community in Minnesota. A Measles outbreak is more likely to spread in the concentrated immigrant communities.

Definitely not true here in California. There were stories in the Los Angeles Times pointing out that there were relatively large concentrations of unvaccinated kids among well-to-do communities in Orange County and in Malibu. --Bob

[BackInTex]

BiT, our founding fathers thought marches and other types of group activities were important enough that they enshrined the protection of them in the Constitution.

I never said they weren't constitutional or that the "protesters" didn't have a right to do it. Nor did I say all protests are of no value. But, we have become a "protest of the day" culture and they are typically developed, supported, and participated in by those on the left, along with the false arguments provided by the left's leadership.

[flockofseagulls104]

Everyone knows that these protests are all the same thing, attended by all the same people who get all the same notifications on their social media. It is all about protesting Trump. How about an investigation of Move On and all the related organizations?

[silverscreenselect]

How about an investigation of Move On and all the related organizations?

For what, promoting the exercise of free speech and free assembly?

[Bob78164]

Everyone knows that these protests are all the same thing, attended by all the same people who get all the same notifications on their social media. It is all about protesting Trump. How about an investigation of Move On and all the related organizations?

For what? Exercising their First Amendment rights to assemble and petition the government for the redress of grievances? --Bob

[BackInTex]

How about an investigation of Move On and all the related organizations?

For what, promoting the exercise of free speech and free assembly?

I don't think Flock is referring to a legal investigation. Perhaps a true journalistic investigation to determine their end-game. Soros is about money, not people. He has shown that over and over. Same with Buffet. Follow the money, as they say. Expose their motivations. I'd suspect most that are doing the protesting would find it "interesting".

[Jeemie]

I was equally unpopular with my sign; "Thank you science for Thalidomide".

The March for Science was worldwide. Here is a picture of the march in Minamisoma, Japan.

It doesn't have to be worldwide.

Only one country has people who revel in displaying their scientific ignorance.

[flockofseagulls104]

I was equally unpopular with my sign; "Thank you science for Thalidomide".

The March for Science was worldwide. Here is a picture of the march in Minamisoma, Japan.

It doesn't have to be worldwide.

Only one country has people who revel in displaying their scientific ignorance.

Anyone who believes that any science is 'settled' does not have a clue about what science is.
When some scientist or mathematician can produce an equation that explains how I am conscious of who I am, then I will entertain the notion that we have explained everything scientifically. Most of the people who participated in the marches are akin to the people in the middle ages who believed the world was flat and the sun circled the earth.

[silverscreenselect]

Anyone who believes that any science is 'settled' does not have a clue about what science is.
When some scientist or mathematician can produce an equation that explains how I am conscious of who I am, then I will entertain the notion that we have explained everything scientifically. Most of the people who participated in the marches are akin to the people in the middle ages who believed the world was flat and the sun circled the earth.

And if people lived their lives on the basis that science might be wrong, we'd still be living in caves, huddling together for warmth.

It's one thing to question or reject a scientific theory in favor of a competing one (that's why we had the steady state vs. big bang argument for decades). It's another to question or reject scientific findings on the basis that they conflict with your religious or political beliefs and because science can never be "settled.".

[mrkelley23]

I was equally unpopular with my sign; "Thank you science for Thalidomide".

The March for Science was worldwide. Here is a picture of the march in Minamisoma, Japan.

It doesn't have to be worldwide.

Only one country has people who revel in displaying their scientific ignorance.

Anyone who believes that any science is 'settled' does not have a clue about what science is.
When some scientist or mathematician can produce an equation that explains how I am conscious of who I am, then I will entertain the notion that we have explained everything scientifically. Most of the people who participated in the marches are akin to the people in the middle ages who believed the world was flat and the sun circled the earth.

Forget science for a moment. Let's just analyze this post via logic and rhetoric. We start with a statement that is true but completely irrelevant (non sequitur). We then proceed to an outrageous demand that is completely unaligned with the topic being discussed (denying the antecedent). The third and final sentence is a textbook example of stereotyping a group with no real knowledge of the group(combination of hasty generalization with association fallacy).

If I were still teaching argumentation and debate, I would use flock's post as a training exercise.

[Bob78164]

Forget science for a moment. Let's just analyze this post via logic and rhetoric. We start with a statement that is true but completely irrelevant (non sequitur). We then proceed to an outrageous demand that is completely unaligned with the topic being discussed (denying the antecedent). The third and final sentence is a textbook example of stereotyping a group with no real knowledge of the group(combination of hasty generalization with association fallacy).

If I were still teaching argumentation and debate, I would use flock's post as a training exercise.

I should probably be depressed that each of these logical fallacies is sufficiently common to have a name. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

It doesn't have to be worldwide.

Only one country has people who revel in displaying their scientific ignorance.

Anyone who believes that any science is 'settled' does not have a clue about what science is.
When some scientist or mathematician can produce an equation that explains how I am conscious of who I am, then I will entertain the notion that we have explained everything scientifically. Most of the people who participated in the marches are akin to the people in the middle ages who believed the world was flat and the sun circled the earth.

Forget science for a moment. Let's just analyze this post via logic and rhetoric. We start with a statement that is true but completely irrelevant (non sequitur). We then proceed to an outrageous demand that is completely unaligned with the topic being discussed (denying the antecedent). The third and final sentence is a textbook example of stereotyping a group with no real knowledge of the group(combination of hasty generalization with association fallacy).

If I were still teaching argumentation and debate, I would use flock's post as a training exercise.

Well, thank you for that.

It amazes me that even President Obama has said that the 'science is settled' on the Climate Change question. Science is never settled completely. The whole basis for the scientific method is skepticism. And it seems that the man-made climate change proponents are totally in the business of discouraging any debate against their conclusions. Any problem with that opinion, Mr. Kelley?

[earendel]

Anyone who believes that any science is 'settled' does not have a clue about what science is.
When some scientist or mathematician can produce an equation that explains how I am conscious of who I am, then I will entertain the notion that we have explained everything scientifically. Most of the people who participated in the marches are akin to the people in the middle ages who believed the world was flat and the sun circled the earth.

Of course science doesn't "settle" anything - that's why scientists keep doing what they do.

[Jeemie]

I have mentioned my high-school biology teacher before-she recently retired after 40 plus years, but she still subs so my kids know her and stuff. She was in a group picture at a local Sciencey March, which is fine and I was not surprised. She also recently was on a dream trip to the Galapagos.

A few years ago, I lent her my copy of David Quammen's "Song of the Dodo" which is built on the framework of Alfred Russell Wallace's career and focuses on the field of Island Biogeography and how evolution occurs on islands and so forth.

I never got the book back, but I did see it on her desk at school one day and I picked it up and paged through it, I have never seen a book with so many margin notes and underlining and so forth.

I have to kind of wonder at how "Sciencey" you are as a biology teacher, when an "anti-science" farmer gives you a foundational book that presents so many ideas that are apparently new enough and important enough to you that you have to ruin my damn book.

I fail to see how you arrived at the conclusion that the ideas were "new" to her simply because she notated the book.

[mrkelley23]

Anyone who believes that any science is 'settled' does not have a clue about what science is.
When some scientist or mathematician can produce an equation that explains how I am conscious of who I am, then I will entertain the notion that we have explained everything scientifically. Most of the people who participated in the marches are akin to the people in the middle ages who believed the world was flat and the sun circled the earth.

Forget science for a moment. Let's just analyze this post via logic and rhetoric. We start with a statement that is true but completely irrelevant (non sequitur). We then proceed to an outrageous demand that is completely unaligned with the topic being discussed (denying the antecedent). The third and final sentence is a textbook example of stereotyping a group with no real knowledge of the group(combination of hasty generalization with association fallacy).

If I were still teaching argumentation and debate, I would use flock's post as a training exercise.

Well, thank you for that.

It amazes me that even President Obama has said that the 'science is settled' on the Climate Change question. Science is never settled completely. The whole basis for the scientific method is skepticism. And it seems that the man-made climate change proponents are totally in the business of discouraging any debate against their conclusions. Any problem with that opinion, Mr. Kelley?

You know, flock, I'm looking all over for this supposed quote by President Obama. I find lots of columns by Mr. Obama's opponents: Krauthamer, Hannity, and the like, which quote him as saying this. But the statement he made in the State of the Union, the actual quotation, is "The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact." Slight difference, but an important one, especially in light of your argument.

But the biggest problem I have with your argument, when you are being relatively coherent and not being goaded by the Bobs, is this: the overall field of science is never settled, true. There are scientific assertions, which are so accepted by the community that they might as well be called scientific "facts." The existence of gravity, the speed of light limit, and so forth. But when science is used to promote policy, it is impossible to wait for what you want. If we wait until the science is settled, we'll be waiting forever, by your own definition. So what, then should we do about issues where science has a significant role to play? Should we not invent new drugs to fight cancer, because the science on cancer is not settled? Should we never send people or ships into space, or deep into the ocean, because the science is not settled?

In the case of climate change, there are some things that are as settled as they are ever likely to get in our lifetimes. The globe is warming. It (the warming) is almost certainly anthropogenic. But instead of having an open and lively debate about what to do about it, we are having an insane debate about whether it exists, because a small, vocal group of flat-Earthers are being given a platform in the name of "equal coverage." And before I get barraged by a certain Carolinian Wattfan, the self-appointed climate change "skeptics" have not advanced an alternate hypothesis that I have heard, other than the vapid, "Well, the Earth has always done this." A responsible scientist would propose alternate hypotheses, create experiments to test that hypothesis, and allow others to test their experiments.

Unfortunately, all of us will be dead by the time the full effects of the warming are known for sure.

[Bob Juch]

Unfortunately, all of us will be dead by the time the full effects of the warming are known for sure.

I hope so. I like it hot but 120 is pushing it. March was the hottest on record here.

[flockofseagulls104]

Forget science for a moment. Let's just analyze this post via logic and rhetoric. We start with a statement that is true but completely irrelevant (non sequitur). We then proceed to an outrageous demand that is completely unaligned with the topic being discussed (denying the antecedent). The third and final sentence is a textbook example of stereotyping a group with no real knowledge of the group(combination of hasty generalization with association fallacy).

If I were still teaching argumentation and debate, I would use flock's post as a training exercise.

Well, thank you for that.

It amazes me that even President Obama has said that the 'science is settled' on the Climate Change question. Science is never settled completely. The whole basis for the scientific method is skepticism. And it seems that the man-made climate change proponents are totally in the business of discouraging any debate against their conclusions. Any problem with that opinion, Mr. Kelley?

You know, flock, I'm looking all over for this supposed quote by President Obama. I find lots of columns by Mr. Obama's opponents: Krauthamer, Hannity, and the like, which quote him as saying this. But the statement he made in the State of the Union, the actual quotation, is "The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact." Slight difference, but an important one, especially in light of your argument.

But the biggest problem I have with your argument, when you are being relatively coherent and not being goaded by the Bobs, is this: the overall field of science is never settled, true. There are scientific assertions, which are so accepted by the community that they might as well be called scientific "facts." The existence of gravity, the speed of light limit, and so forth. But when science is used to promote policy, it is impossible to wait for what you want. If we wait until the science is settled, we'll be waiting forever, by your own definition. So what, then should we do about issues where science has a significant role to play? Should we not invent new drugs to fight cancer, because the science on cancer is not settled? Should we never send people or ships into space, or deep into the ocean, because the science is not settled?

In the case of climate change, there are some things that are as settled as they are ever likely to get in our lifetimes. The globe is warming. It (the warming) is almost certainly anthropogenic. But instead of having an open and lively debate about what to do about it, we are having an insane debate about whether it exists, because a small, vocal group of flat-Earthers are being given a platform in the name of "equal coverage." And before I get barraged by a certain Carolinian Wattfan, the self-appointed climate change "skeptics" have not advanced an alternate hypothesis that I have heard, other than the vapid, "Well, the Earth has always done this." A responsible scientist would propose alternate hypotheses, create experiments to test that hypothesis, and allow others to test their experiments.

Unfortunately, all of us will be dead by the time the full effects of the warming are known for sure.

Ben Shapiro comes closest to what I'm trying to say.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... s-religion

[Jeemie]

Ben Shapiro comes closest to what I'm trying to say.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... s-religion

Yes, Ben Shapiro sums up the "skeptics'" argument quite nicely, which is this..."leftist scientists are proposing global government solutions to global warming. We don't like government solutions, and so therefore global warming isn't happening".

"We don't like the proposed solutions to a problem, so therefore we're going to deny the problem even exists" is the very insane argument Mike was talking about.

If you don't like proposed solutions to a problem, you propose new ones. If two doctors are arguing over how to treat a broken leg, and one doctor wants to try a new type of pressure bandage instead of a cast, and the other doctor a cast should be used, that doctor doesn't say "Oh that's OK...The leg isn't broken after all". He says "I think we should use a cast instead. The bandage won't work because..."

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Unfortunately, all of us will be dead by the time the full effects of the warming are known for sure.

I hope so. I like it hot but 120 is pushing it. March was the hottest on record here.

Do you have a link to support that. I am curious as to where "here" is

[Bob78164]

I hope so. I like it hot but 120 is pushing it. March was the hottest on record here.

Do you have a link to support that. I am curious as to where "here" is

I think he's now in Arizona. --Bob

[christie1111]

Anyone who believes that any science is 'settled' does not have a clue about what science is.
When some scientist or mathematician can produce an equation that explains how I am conscious of who I am, then I will entertain the notion that we have explained everything scientifically. Most of the people who participated in the marches are akin to the people in the middle ages who believed the world was flat and the sun circled the earth.

Of course science doesn't "settle" anything - that's why scientists keep doing what they do.

That is why I have a career. Thank God. And yes, I said that last part on purpose, but I digress.

Scientists continually question what is 'known'. How would we have scientific progress if we did not?

What revolves around what? Is light a wave, particle or both? Even how to make a better body wash with better profit margins that make the customer happier.

But to stifle the ability of scientists to publish their work because you don't agree with it is a reason to march.

[BackInTex]

But to stifle the ability of scientists to publish their work because you don't agree with it is a reason to march.

How was their ability stifled, leading to the march?