Maksutov wrote:Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:'____ Asymmetry Principle' states the amount of energy needed to refute ____ is an order of magnitude greater than that needed to produce it. ____ can be propagated quickly, but can be more difficult to disprove.
I.E., now known the Dr. Ford Anomaly.
- DocDoubtingThomas wrote:
False accusations are not the only problem in the US. By 2040 climate change is going to significantly impact the US economy. Why not talk about the problems that the Right denies? Radical feminists can be annoying, but the left is still much better than the right.
Hell, the right is still denying evolution and human equality. Don't expect a reasoned response from frightened snowflake men clutching guns and praising their cult icon Trump.They're too busy being triggered by women who are smarter than they are, Trump gives them a safe space.
Raises an interesting question. How does the left compare to the right when it comes to science?
Blah blah, evolution, blah blah. Hmm. True, there are some on the right that deny evolution. But, then, there seem to be plenty on the left who deny it as well... like in thinking that a woman is trapped inside a biological male body.
The Dr. Ford Anomaly, as doc puts it, is quite a thing, isn't it? Look at these bizarre comments from people like Mak. He speaks of Ford as though her claims are objectively true. Yet, where is the evidence? Her testimony? He simply believes her. He "feels" her truth, or something. Without even going into all the evidence that contradicts and refutes Ford, we already discussed all this, what is there to support her claims? Nothing. She might as well be claiming to have seen a unicorn. And you believe her, why, because she assumes a certain body language? She emotes in a certain way? #BelieveWomen is a statement of religious faith, which is the basis for every injustice at the height of every moral panic and mass hysteria in history.
Party of Science?
Not to mention what most people of common sense already know.
Whether it is throwing a ‘sickie’ to get time off work or making up an excuse to avoid doing something they do not want to do, the fairer sex is the most dishonest.
But while that may paint an unflattering picture, it is not all bad for women are also more likely to bend the truth so they do not hurt someone’s feelings.
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/li ... y-day-fibs
Ahhh, don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Sure, #BelieveWomen
Party of Science, haha.
We could also get into how incredibly sexist this is. Against men, obviously, but against women as well. The party that supposedly fights against sexism is the only one engaging in actual sexist behavior. Mak over here seems incapable of making a comment without injecting his sexism into it. Perhaps he suffers from gender dysforia, I dunno. Something is going on.
Then you've got all the other subjects. We could go down the whole list. Issue after issue after issue, the left is not on the side of truth and facts. It's on the side of feelings. Perceived injustices, class warfare, and various other appeals to emotion with zero regard for objectivity. It's on the side of tribalism and victimhood.
This is a pretty good piece.
My liberal friends sometimes ask me why I don’t devote more of my science journalism to the sins of the Right. It’s fine to expose pseudoscience on the left, they say, but why aren’t you an equal-opportunity debunker? Why not write about conservatives’ threat to science?
My friends don’t like my answer: because there isn’t much to write about. Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science. I know that sounds strange to Democrats who decry Republican creationists and call themselves the “party of science.” But I’ve done my homework. I’ve read the Left’s indictments, including Chris Mooney’s bestseller, The Republican War on Science. I finished it with the same question about this war that I had at the outset: Where are the casualties?
Causality, wuuut?
Some surveys show that Republicans, particularly libertarians, are more scientifically literate than Democrats, but there’s plenty of ignorance all around.
No surprise there.
The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices. In a classic study of peer review, 75 psychologists were asked to referee a paper about the mental health of left-wing student activists. Some referees saw a version of the paper showing that the student activists’ mental health was above normal; others saw different data, showing it to be below normal. Sure enough, the more liberal referees were more likely to recommend publishing the paper favorable to the left-wing activists. When the conclusion went the other way, they quickly found problems with its methodology.
Hmm, where have I seen this before?
The narrative that Republicans are antiscience has been fed by well-publicized studies reporting that conservatives are more close-minded and dogmatic than liberals are. But these conclusions have been based on questions asking people how strongly they cling to traditional morality and religion—dogmas that matter a lot more to conservatives than to liberals. A few other studies—not well-publicized—have shown that liberals can be just as close-minded when their own beliefs, such as their feelings about the environment or Barack Obama, are challenged.
Ya don't say?
The Left’s most rigid taboos involve the biology of race and gender, as the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker chronicles in The Blank Slate. The book takes its title from Pinker’s term for the dogma that “any differences we see among races, ethnic groups, sexes, and individuals come not from differences in their innate constitution but from differences in their experiences.” The dogma constricts researchers’ perspective—“No biology, please, we’re social scientists”—and discourages debate, in and out of academia.
Sacred cows. It's funny. On Terrestrial there is a thread with a quote from Gina Colvin theorizing that Nelson's obsession with the name change is about controlling the lingo to manipulate tribal allegiance. Huh. Leave it to a lefty to come up with that idea. Half of the lefty playbook is about Approved Speech.
And that brings us to the second great threat from the Left: its long tradition of mixing science and politics. To conservatives, the fundamental problem with the Left is what Friedrich Hayek called the fatal conceit: the delusion that experts are wise enough to redesign society. Conservatives distrust central planners, preferring to rely on traditional institutions that protect individuals’ “natural rights” against the power of the state. Leftists have much more confidence in experts and the state. Engels argued for “scientific socialism,” a redesign of society supposedly based on the scientific method. Communist intellectuals planned to mold the New Soviet Man. Progressives yearned for a society guided by impartial agencies unconstrained by old-fashioned politics and religion. Herbert Croly, founder of the New Republic and a leading light of progressivism, predicted that a “better future would derive from the beneficent activities of expert social engineers who would bring to the service of social ideals all the technical resources which research could discover.”
The new religion.
Whatever, I can't quote the whole piece. Read for yourself. The basic argument being, yeah, there are some science deniers on the right. However, they are actually pretty far and few between, and that kind of thinking has virtually no impact on much of anything. Whereas on the left we have the same lunatics, many of them with letters behind their name, and they have a real impact. From environmental BS, power generation, agriculture, food, vaccines, to the asinine gender debates. Men are evil. Especially white men. Bringing back the Salem Witch Trials. Oh, but republicans believe in god, hissssss! People on the left don't? I have a feeling there are actually more atheists on the right end of the spectrum at this point.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/real- ... 14782.html
