The War On Science

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: jrod


Science is again being dominated for a political outcome.

THIS, Glend. And with the only right answer being the one in line
with the government, it sucks more all the time to be Voltaire.

a reply to: Astyanax

Please express your religious views somewhere else. We are talking about science on this thread.

Science is a language that expresses our environment, nothing more Astyanax. This is my last post in ATS. Goodbye.

a reply to: glend

I knew this thread was going to turn into a debate about global warming the moment the narrator mentioned it. It was a good video making a very important point but it's ok to disagree with parts of it. There's no reason to leave ATS because not everyone agrees with your opinion, even among scientists global warming is a very controversial topic. Global warming researchers may have a "vast consensus" among themselves but no such consensus exists among other types of scientists. I don't know about you but I find it hard to trust their consensus when they are paid to prove human caused global warming is real, they have every motive to conduct biased research. And furthermore, a scientific consensus is not equivalent to scientific evidence, the narrator should have been much more careful about the words he chose to use.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

There's no reason to leave ATS because not everyone agrees with your opinion

That' never concerns me. Astyanax words stirred an anger deep inside me, not at her, but at myself. I realized from that anger that we are just pushing our preconceived truths on one another without aiming for consensus (chest beating). Instead of wasting my time and everyone elses by pushing my preconceived truths I should be aiming for a greater truth. I will continue reading articles in ATS but will no longer contribute. Thanks for your thoughts Chaotic Order. Much Love.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
There's no reason to leave ATS because not everyone agrees with your opinion, even among scientists global warming is a very controversial topic. Global warming researchers may have a "vast consensus" among themselves but no such consensus exists among other types of scientists.

Care to provide sources that scientist are divided on climate change?

I hear this argument often from right wing politicians in USA, but those of course never require much of evidence to make their claims...

Here is what gets me, you guys who deny the science of AGW do not bring any science to the table, yet you will try to pass an opinion piece of a known fossil fuel shill as a legitimate scientific argument while ignoring what the thousands of actual climate scientists are telling us and ignoring the data that we are observing and then try to tell someone like me who actually has done a little research on the topic, that I am closed minded because I recongnize the BS that Richard Lindzen and friends are spewing and actually have evidence that shows they are quacks.

Human activity is indeed causing changes to this planet's climate. The evidence is overwhelming.

However the US, Canada, and Australia do have think tank groups like the Heartland Institute and the Smithsonian-Harvard Institute(which has no affiliation with the Smithsonian or Harvard but they want the layman to make the connection) that are actively engaging in a campaign to deceive the general public as to what the science actually says, and what is the major cause(burning fossil fuels).

originally posted by: derfreebie
a reply to: Klassified

Good pull, Klassified... and bumped. I feel like science has
been so co-opted at times by politicians it's turning into
the new religion. Something so deliberately twisted for
just the sake of control that basic credibility is going bankrupt.
Sorry about the rant: but when scientists depend more on
grants, the first to suffer might too often be the truth.
Oh well I's rather be called a truther than a liar.

Science, politics, and religion, have always come as a trio though, haven't they? We've had periods in history, science was stifled by either the church or politics, or both. And we've had periods where science has had an abundance of freedom and resources to explore the frontiers of physical existence in every way imaginable. It would seem we have come out of the latter period, and are heading back into the former.

Science has a bad habit of coming up with data that is "inconvenient" for governments and special interests. The public is caught in the middle, and understands little to nothing of the relationship between the three, historically and presently.

If polar ice caps are disappearing, then the cause has to be global warming.
On another note, yes there is a war on science, research spending is getting smaller by the day.

originally posted by: Hyperia
If you had a Choice, without repercussions, you would act as a monkey. Kill, steal, murder, pillage. It's part of nature being a primate.

You might. I wouldnt

As for a "war against science" I think it it more a case of a "war against science when science tells us something we would rather not believe to be true".

Humans like to think they are perfect. Are good. If science concurs, that is great. When science finds we are not, we get angry .... Just like a monkey ....

a reply to: AndyMayhew

This earth is the secret to the Universe. Everything else is just imagination.

When you reach that insight, you can lay a foundation based on what is here, our imagination has no boundaries.
Our bodies however, yeah you understand...

Science is a dogma, its time to enforce it.
I dont think this earth was built to hold seven billion homo sapiens. But it can sustain seven billion humans.

Political posturing, corporate takeovers, war-drum pounding, and derivative hedge betting.

That's the world we are now living in.

Science (which is always one of the first things to get cut) has been tossed into the back of the filing cabinet, yet again, to make room for the above noted prioritized ideologies, yet again.



Such is the history of mankind, time after time after time.

We are doomed to repeat our mistakes, ad infinitum.

I can't understand the point trying to be made from this thread.

Is It's purpose the advocacy of science's importance? idk

originally posted by: Blissful
I can't understand the point trying to be made from this thread.

Is It's purpose the advocacy of science's importance? idk

Science's importance outweighs religious dogma. Not one that I've read about even specifies who God is, as to where science is quite absolute in its findings.

Assuming the existence of an all loving, always benevolent, and one who allows freedom God, then I've no worry pertaining to the afterlife, as God I'm believing is always forgiving just as Jesus was.

Anyway, back to le science! It's not essential in any way to the survival and happiness to man (solely as a study (religion's an archaic empiricism anyway)).

What's cool about science is that it does allow us to improve our own lives through our own PERSONAL understanding of it. That's where the joy of science is found; THROUGH curiosity.

But like I said, the study of it isn't essential to people's lives. Can't blame the government for ignoring science when most of its people do the same thing.

E^2=p^2c^2 + m^2c^4

p=mv

Velocity is a vector quantity (meaning it has both a magnitude and a direction) while mass is how much space is being occupied.

Sociologically, people're likely to adhere to the MOST popular opinion. If Sally tells Tommy to like the color red and Tommy tells Joe that he and Sally both like the color red then Joe's gonna be like 'yeah, I like red too.' That's E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4. The direction of the populace (mv (relative, subjective v (although a thoughtform adheres to its own electromagnetic frequency and all electromagnetic fields affected by the waves have mass, wave propagation the waves'll equate to the combination and strength of all waves interacting with one another))) added to the speed and electromagnetic field of a thought.

Therefore, if more people got interested in science, and propagated that interest to other people's brains, it'd cause cause destructive interference wherein relation to the other people's ignorance and other thoughts, thus allowing a greater momentum due to the greater amount of space being occupied by those same electromagnetic frequencies.

Of course there's a hell of a lot waves of different frequency compilations going on in every person's brain. Meaning constructive and destructive frequencies'd interact differently with all of us.

Anyway, government's reason. E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4. Congressmen do act in accordance with their constituents. People like science? Congressman like reelection, congressman like science.

It's all about Truth.