Anyone notice that many people are scientifically illiterate

[RDKirk]

Why did so many people die during Hurricane Katrina. It was not the Hurricane, it as the levies breaking. It was bad Engendering. The Romans build bridges across rivers that exist today and we have bridges built across much smaller bodies of water that collapse. Climate Change...over 90% of scientist believe it to be real but many people say the 90% are all liars. A member of the U.S. senate held a snow ball in his hand as proof of Global Warming being fake. Or its real but were not making it speed up. When a disaster is coming people run, a scientist looks for a solution. Global warming is real, Storms are increasing number and in strength, famine and drought are at a all time high, were speeding up the process, the polar Ice is melting, at the speed its melting all costal cities will be under water in 100 years. What are all the people who say its fake gonna say then...oh wait nothing they will be dead and the mess will be left for our grandkids and there kids to fix. I am not a scientist, I got a C in biology but I can read and listen to the words of many of the most intelligent men and woman today and I supposed to ignore them and listen to senator who holds snowball in his hand.

You're mixing apples and oranges.

The Katrina issue has nothing to do with the premise of the thread. The layman (including politicians) could not know that the fault was in the levies rather than the force of the storm itself. Nobody knew for sure until the investigation afterward, and at that point all the experts involved were saying whatever covered their own okoles, so the layman was left with assorted conflicting "expert" opinions.

The situation with climate change is a furball of politics and science, but there are a few salients to note...most of which are political rugby balls.

1. Yes, the climate certainly is changing, and it's changing in a way that's going to make the environment more challenging for human civilization.. I don't think there is anybody worth listening to that believes otherwise. Even the DoD is currently operating on the reality of climate change (although they're being cautiously quiet about what they're doing in preparation).

2. The big political question is whether humanity causes the change and, if so, whether humanity can do anything about it. The first part of the question is really only of scientific interest. The second part of the question falls into politics: What would it take for humanity to do anything about the changing climate?

Some researchers believe we've gone over the tipping point, it's too late for humanity to stop the snowballing effect. All others who believe there is something humanity can do propose solutions that essentially humanity will not do.

China, India, the African and Pacific nations are not going to halt their industrial progress. Nor are they going to abandon their own available natural resources to purchase (read: go into further debt) high-technology solutions from the West. And there is a lot to be determined about whether those high-technology solutions don't create as much problem as they appear to solve...nobody's giving us the real science of the cost of the solutions (that's politics and big money both talking).

The US and most other idustrialized countries are not going to roll back to a 1900 technological standard. Ultimately the industrialized nations are not going to adhere to "carbon footprint" standards necessary to roll back climate change to the extent that any scientist thinks necessary to stop climate change.

And what if those who think the snowball has gotten to big to stop are correct? Would the world have technologically hobbled itself for decades for nothing? That's like twenty or thirty years of a Covid lockdown before discovering it didn't have a positive effect on curing the diseases.

So, when we face these two facts: The climate is changing and the world does not have the political will to stop it (if stopping it is even possible).

The real course of action: How do we set ourselves up to survive the change as gracefully as possible? As I've mentioned, the DoD is already working on that premise: It's going to happen, so how will we meet the challenge?

 

[AV1611VET]

Weird how confused by and opposed to the findings of tried n true investigative methods, but just love woo woo.

Welcome to the world of faith, where ignorance of science is assumed to be caused by adherence to faith.

Not everyone is cut out to be an Einstein.

There are cooks, musicians, painters, sculptors, ballerinas, playwrights, poets, politicians, judges, policemen, landscapers, and et aliis, who don't know the four laws of thermodynamics, the symbol for infinity, or what DNA stands for.

The world's just full of people who love their ignorance of science, isn't it?

 

[Mountainmike]

You don't seem to get it... you've lost all credibility by constantly bringing up unsubstantiated, clearly biased, and completely ridiculous claims. So of course at some point a reasonable person is going to reject them out of hand, just as they will the claims of a flat earther.

You seem to think that all of your various arguments about the supernatural amount to unassailable proof, when they lead to the exact opposite, a house of cards, held up by nothing but a lot of delusional claims.

So if you want to know why otherwise rational people reject what you perceive to be indisputable proof... look in the mirror... you're the reason.

You ridicule me for not reading books, but I think that you have the exact opposite problem, you've read so many books with the an eye toward confirmation bias, that you can't distinguish fact from fiction anymore. But that's cool, just don't be surprised if we don't take you seriously, we all have our crosses to bear.

You don’t get it. Or @Estrid

As a scientist you don’t have an opinion till you study the evidence.

instead You let your opinions drive the evidence are willing to consider
.I let the evidence , and study of it, drive my opinions.

And I study which you never do. You revel in knowing nothing about any of it.
You want an opinion without doing the hard yards to earn the right to one.

There is no such thing as extraordinary, there Is only what happens or not.
I get it your atheist faith blinds you.
It is all too common now. The modern lazy disease. Plagiarise an equally illinformed sceptic from wiki.

I have no vested interest in whether so called holy fire is real.
The evidence decides it for me. I express an opinion after study.
but then I am a scientist, you are not and it shows.

Only one solution is acceptable toyour atheist faith.
So you are confirmation Bias incarnate, right boot , wrong foot. So tramlined You can’t even see it,

Happy Christmas, even you,

 

[partinobodycular]

As a scientist you don’t have an opinion till you study the evidence.

.. and weighed its credibility. In your case it's not the evidence that's lacking, it's the credibility. You have a habit of extolling every source that agrees with you, and impugning every source that doesn't. As such everything that you say must be taken with a large dose of skepticism, because I never know if you're giving me the complete picture... in fact I sincerely doubt it.

And putting the onus on a fellow forum member to verify what you say before forming an opinion can only be pushed so far. After repeatedly finding your evidence to be questionable it becomes easier just to dismiss it out of hand. Which may not be the 'scientific' thing to do, but it is the human thing to do, and the last time that I checked... I'm human.

You let your opinions drive the evidence are willing to consider
.I let the evidence , and study of it, drive my opinions.

Ah, but I do let the evidence drive my opinions, except for me the evidence is filtered through a somewhat questionable source, and that's you. In a perfect world perhaps I would've read every book that you've read and then some, but then again maybe a perfect world doesn't need another version of you... instead what it needs is a grossly more ignorant version of you... and that's me.

But I'm sure that your opinions are formed in the same way that mine are... you've weighed the available evidence, filtered it through your personal biases, and then interpreted it accordingly. As to which of us has been more objective in that process, I think you'll find that it's not as clear cut as you think it is.

And I study which you never do. You revel in knowing nothing about any of it.
You want an opinion without doing the hard yards to earn the right to one.

It's not a question of 'if I study', it's more a question of 'what I study'. And among other things, what I study... is you, what you believe, and why you believe it. From my perspective, you believe in things that are very unlikely to be true... and that I find to be fascinating.

I'm a solipsist... I don't revel in knowing nothing... I revel in assuming nothing. That makes me far more objective than you'll ever be. I don't assume that you're right, and I don't assume that you're wrong, but what I know is that your arguments haven't been very convincing.

There is no such thing as extraordinary, there Is only what happens or not.

Hey, we agree.

I get it your atheist faith blinds you.

Sorry... not an atheist. For such an avid reader, one would've thought that you would've read my profile. But I guess we all make assumptions every once in a while.

I have no vested interest in whether so called holy fire is real.
The evidence decides it for me. I express an opinion after study.
but then I am a scientist, you are not and it shows.

Forgive me if I question your objectivity... and your honesty. Unlike you, I read your profile. As such its apparent that you have a strong inclination toward a belief in God. So much so that it likely undergirds everything else. And although it doesn't wed you to the idea of holy fire, it does make you susceptible to interpreting the evidence in it's favor.

That's the problem with having one overarching belief, it taints one's opinions about everything else. As a solipsist I have no such overarching beliefs. I'm agnostic about everything.

Only one solution is acceptable toyour atheist faith.
So you are confirmation Bias incarnate, right boot , wrong foot. So tramlined You can’t even see it,

My belief in epistemological solipsism would suggest that you're mistaken.

 

[Bradskii]

You cannot validate chemical abiogenesis. Yet you believe it without validation.
Why am I under any greater obigation? I have no interest in trying to persuade you!

You don't have to to persuade me. You reject any and all suggestions as to how abiogenesis started for lack of evidence. So put up your suggestion and let's examine it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You will never know about "lighting tricks" unless you study it. I will wager the scientist in you would have looked decades ago.....

Sounds like you need to talk to someone in cinematography. They understand hoe to do lighting tricks.

As for RC date. The AMS equipment failed validation, the area tested was suspect, the method used was incompetent , and violated agreed protocols, and inhomegenous data was provably fidded for a paper to support false conclusions.. There was no date.
Alas those who did it, assumed they knew what the answer would be . And when it went pearshaped they had to lie. So they even hid the data for 20 years. Meanwhile other dating methods, and forensic correspondence with other cloths , not to mention the shroud being provably seen elsewhere, show it is far far older. Even now the mark cannot be reproduced in all of its factors. It could not even be seen let alone reproduced in the medieaval era in which you think it was faked!

So I can only conclude it because you do not like the conclusion of rejecting the date,. do you not condemn the daters out of hand.
If it happened in your field, you would want the perpetrators hounded out of science and rightly so. I am angry about it, not because I do not like the conclusion, the data is the data, and we all have to accept it, but because I do not like scientific cheats. Outside the walls of this forum, I will wager you do not like them either.

But Happy Christmas Hans!!! Have a good one. Mine starts today thanks!

The last discussion of the RC dating and calibration ended without your claim being verified, so why would it change? (It would not. There is no discussion to have.)

 

[Mountainmike]

Sounds like you need to talk to someone in cinematography. They understand hoe to do lighting tricks.


The last discussion of the RC dating and calibration ended without your claim being verified, so why would it change? (It would not. There is no discussion to have.)

On the first point you assume lighting tricks without even looking at evidence .
Where did the scientist in you go?

On the second point you never looked ,if you had you would have seen what I said is true. The equipment failed validation the year before without investigation , and when the data failed homogeneity they panicked and fiddled it. So there was no measurement. There was a date gradient. You would be horrified if anyone in your field fiddled data the way they did.

Aside from that Forensic corespondence with older cloths proves it is not medieval, let alone a barrage of other evidence pointing at first century, I don’t have to prove any Of it to you, the evidence is there whether you like it or not,

Seriously hans, I have no doubt from other posts of yours you are a good scientist , but you seem to have lost the enquiring mind without which a scientist should pack up and go home.

When it comes to phenomena you do not like , you refuse even to look before judge.

 

[Estrid]

Sounds like you need to talk to someone in cinematography. They understand hoe to do lighting tricks.


The last discussion of the RC dating and calibration ended without your claim being verified, so why would it change? (It would not. There is no discussion to have.)

Woo woo changeth not.

 

[Mountainmike]

Happy christmas all.
Something I hope we can agree on.

 

[AV1611VET]

Happy christmas all.
Something I hope we can agree on.

And a Merry Christmas to you!

Jesus is the Reason for the Season!

 

[Hans Blaster]

On the first point you assume lighting tricks without even looking at evidence .

You described some sort of odd lighting effect in an old church(?). There was nothing to investigate. It sounds like something to be investigated by someone who understand how lighting effects work. It's not a scientific question.

Where did the scientist in you go?

I'm on travel, but as usual my location remains undisclosed.

 

[partinobodycular]

On the second point you never looked ,if you had you would have seen what I said is true.

For me personally, after several discussions with you, your credibility is gone, and the only way for you to get it back is for you to pick a subject and make a sound rational argument in defense of your position, without summarily dismissing all arguments to the contrary as uninformed and ignorant nonsense.

If you're going to treat us like uneducated idiots then don't expect us to give you much respect in return. If you're really as smart as you seem to think you are, then we'll figure it out, you don't have to keep telling us.

 

[Mountainmike]

For me personally, after several discussions with you, your credibility is gone, and the only way for you to get it back is for you to pick a subject and make a sound rational argument in defense of your position, without summarily dismissing all arguments to the contrary as uninformed and ignorant nonsense.

If you're going to treat us like uneducated idiots then don't expect us to give you much respect in return. If you're really as smart as you seem to think you are, then we'll figure it out, you don't have to keep telling us.

The conversations actually concluded , You are not scientific enough or well read enough or have studied enough to judge anyone.
Have you read a single science book this last year? Or papers? I have read many tens of both on all manner of subjects. It is what scientists do. It starts with insatiable curiousity and an enquiring mind open to evidence which every way it points.

 

[Mountainmike]

You described some sort of odd lighting effect in an old church(?). There was nothing to investigate. It sounds like something to be investigated by someone who understand how lighting effects work. It's not a scientific question.

I'm on travel, but as usual my location remains undisclosed.

But You have no idea what i Described, or the three investigations done, the professors involved , where it happened the results , Or anything else, or the nature scope and scale of active controls against fraud.

So your comment is a-priori prejudice based only on the connection with a church Building .

The Chinese found that moss from the north wall of a church yard cured many ills.
It would be a thousand years before penicillin was isolated.
But I can only conclude you would not have investigated because of "healing" connected with "the church"

Had you been the first to see a bluish glow in fluid would you have called it a trick or odd lighting effect?
It would have cost you the Nobel prize given to Cherenkov! The blue light existed whether or not anyone could explain it.

Sadly I think you lost the enquiring mind , from which all good science flows.

And I’ve long since concluded that this forum doesn’t study evidence or science anyway,
it is the “ anti theist confirmation bias” forum.

 

[Estrid]

We trust there's nobody here so ill bred as
to demean themselves, or CF with
further response.

 

[Mountainmike]

We trust there's nobody here so ill bred as
to demean themselves, or CF with
further response

I notice you havent responded to the happy christmas in my post #389.
That kind of ill breeding you mean?

 

[partinobodycular]

The conversations actually concluded , You are not scientific enough or well read enough or have studied enough to judge anyone.

Then I guess that you and Cassandra will be left to bemoan your fates alone. Good luck and Merry Christmas.

 

[Mountainmike]

Good luck and Merry Christmas.

Reciprocated - let’s leave it there .

 

[USincognito]

That is an important point.

Not long ago, I heard "America's Scientist" Neil deGrasse Tyson say to Ben Shapiro that if a scientific pursuit appears to work against a progressive social policy, then that scientific pursuit should be abandoned. Shapiro and I both said, "What?" and Tyson repeated it for clarity. He believes science should be politically curtailed.

More recently, Neil deGrasse Tyson was speaking to comedian Bill Maher. Maher bemoaned that stand-up comics can't go to college campuses anymore because students are too easily offended. Tyson remarked that a comedian should take stock of what offends his audience and write his comedy so that it does not offend the audience. Maher and I both said, "What?" and Tyson repeated it for clarity. So, Tyson not only believes science should be curtailed for politics, but that free speech itself should be curtailed for politics.

And that Marine's name was... Albert Einstein.

 

[Divide]

Good night Mary-Ellen, G'nite Jim-Bob, G'nite John Boy!