Fighting Science.

johnson1010 · Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:50 pm

A sad state of affairs.

http://www.wimp.com/sciencedenial/

Interbane · Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:13 am

I recommend that to Stahrwe. Thanks Johnson.

bleachededen · Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:32 pm

Wow. Thanks for sharing that.

johnson1010 · Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:26 pm

confronting your pre-dispositions.

http://www.wimp.com/skewedscience/

johnson1010 · Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:36 pm

" The function of science is not to support or contradict any belief, or dis-belief. Science is about capturing reality, and it recognizes any phenomenon that's supported by the weight of evidence."

johnson1010 · Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:04 am

Here's bill gates talking about vaccines, which ties in heavily to the first post.

http://www.wimp.com/vaccineslives/

Squelch · Sun Feb 20, 2011 12:40 pm


	johnson1010 wrote: A sad state of affairs./

It's only good to deny people the right to speak against science if you're really, absolutely sure that science has it 100% correct on the subject they're speaking against.

But scientists were really, absolutely sure that lobotomies were safe and beneficial.

They were really, absolutely sure that thalidomide was safe.

They were really, absolutely sure that agent orange was acceptable for widespread use.

In truth, can we ever be so sure that we have it right that we shouldn't tolerate any dissenting voices? I disagree with a lot of what Stahrwe says, but I'm damn glad he's here, because he keeps me from settling down in a nice cosy atmosphere of mutual self-congratulation with people who agree with me. I don't care how right we think we have it, especially on something as important as vaccines, we need people to question it because the consequences of being wrong are intolerable.

stahrwe · Mon Feb 21, 2011 10:40 am

One can add to the List:

Alar this product used to treat apples was falsely linked to cancer and ruined many farmers
The banning of DDT based on Rachel Carson's book and bad science is one of the greatest crimes against humanity in history.
Silicone Breast Impants ruined Dow Corning and was based on bad science.
The coming ice age predicted in the 70's/80's
Swine Flu
Global Warming
Eugenics in the United States Google it, Margaret Sanger, and human weeds.

these are the ones I can list from memory only

Interbane · Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:49 am


	Squelch wrote: In truth, can we ever be so sure that we have it right that we shouldn't tolerate any dissenting voices?

The fervor with which dissenting voices sometimes speak can cloud issues which are otherwise fairly certain. This isn't particularly a problem, since 'fairly certain' isn't certain. The problem is when the motive stems from conditions or biases which we know can blind a person to the truth. If a person isn't cognizant of their biases, we others are aware of how this bias is affecting the person's judgement, the reasons for quelling the right to speak are tangential to the issue. In other words, the problem is with the speaker, not what he's speaking.

Stahrwe, the list is far far longer than that. But why would you put Global Warming on there? Shouldn't the list be composed of items that you're certain are wrong? Global Warming is still under intense debate, although it appears it is a true phenomenon, even if not human caused.

It's part of my worldview that nothing is absolutely certain. Which puts me at a disadvantage with people such as Stahrwe. He has certainty. So he doesn't question the 'certain' things in his worldview as I do. He will defend a belief with brute force, rather than consider it may be false. I question everything I believe. If I admit this in a public forum, it would appear to a third party that I lack confidence in my belief, meanwhile a person with faith has full certainty.

Sometimes the debate can be lopsided from such factors. If a group of people are so certain they are correct that they ignore logic, use faulty reasoning, and ignore their own biases, then there is no helping them. If not silenced, they should at least be ignored.

stahrwe · Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:49 pm

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: In truth, can we ever be so sure that we have it right that we shouldn't tolerate any dissenting voices?

Interbane, who are you quoting.

Squelch · Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:24 am


	Interbane wrote: I question everything I believe.

Then you must, logically, question your own ideas in the areas in which you disagree with Stahrwe. Which means that you must allow the possibility that you could be wrong and he could be right.

Interbane · Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:06 pm


	Quote: Then you must, logically, question your own ideas in the areas in which you disagree with Stahrwe. Which means that you must allow the possibility that you could be wrong and he could be right.

Yes, that goes without saying and at the same time raises an ironic conundrum. In admitting any sort of uncertainty, a person who thrives on certainty such as Stahrwe would falsely get the impression that I am 'doubting' parts of my worldview. The word 'doubting' stays the same, but the context around it is drastically different.

On the other hand, the basis for disagreeing with Stahrwe has it's roots on a lower level of my belief system. Over the course of many years, my use of logic has shown inductively to always yield truthful results, if used properly. This is corroborated by the entire width and breadth of the intellectual community. When Stahrwe repeatedly and often commits logical fallacies, uses faulty logic, or non-sequitur arguments, there is not much room for uncertainty that he is wrong.

Dexter · Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:13 pm

Some people seem to think that defending science against religion equates to a claim that science is infallible.

Talk about a straw man -- has there ever been anyone in the history of the world who has held that view?

stahrwe · Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:39 pm


	Interbane wrote: On the other hand, the basis for disagreeing with Stahrwe has it's roots on a lower level of my belief system. Over the course of many years, my use of logic has shown inductively to always yield truthful results, if used properly. This is corroborated by the entire width and breadth of the intellectual community. When Stahrwe repeatedly and often commits logical fallacies, uses faulty logic, or non-sequitur arguments, there is not much room for uncertainty that he is wrong.

As Interbane was going along in life, he fell into a swamp of confusion and pulled himself out by his own hair into his pristine world of pure clean logic. Not exactly true, but I ask forgiveness for a sloppy application of an event in the life of Baron Munchhausen.

A sad reliance on logic and claim that it always yields truthful results, corroborated by the entire width and breadth of the intellectual community is clearly wrong. Perhaps he neglected to consider the heights. The Münchhausen Trilemma demonstrates it is impossible to prove any truth even in the fields of logic and mathematics. So, if Interbane always finds the truth with perfect certainty using logic, he must not understand logic. Additionally, one must understand that pure truth cannot be found using logic.

Interbane · Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:05 pm


	Quote: A sad reliance on logic and claim that it always yields truthful results, corroborated by the entire width and breadth of the intellectual community is clearly wrong. Perhaps he neglected to consider the heights. The Münchhausen Trilemma demonstrates it is impossible to prove any truth even in the fields of logic and mathematics. So, if Interbane always finds the truth with perfect certainty using logic, he must not understand logic. Additionally, one must understand that pure truth cannot be found using logic.

Here is a list of things that I didn't say which you included above:

That it's possible to prove the truth.
That I always find the truth.
That perfect certainty can be arrived at by using logic.
That pure truth can be found using logic.

It's simply the extent to which you misunderstand me. One or two misunderstandings I can deal with. Please don't reply to me until you think things through, it's almost as though you're committing libel against me using faulty reasoning. Stahrwe, please think.

:troll:

Forum rules

Fighting Science. Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!