A sad state of affairs.

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

I recommend that to Stahrwe. Thanks Johnson.

Wow. Thanks for sharing that.

confronting your pre-dispositions.


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

" 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."

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

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

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.

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

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.

Interbane wrote:

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.