Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (10375)	2/25/2012 9:49:17 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

To: koan who wrote (10375)	2/25/2012 11:19:23 AM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

That paragraph assumes the scientific community is overselling points and the rejection of the science is just responsible oversight. No it doesn't. I do think, and have said, that the points are being over sold, but the paragraph in question makes no such assumption. If they overselling of scientific claims where not happening, you would still reasonably have to agree that such overselling is inappropriate. Then you could make a 2nd argument about how the point is true, but irrelevant because it isn't happening. Instead you claimed the point is false, which is essentially to say that overselling of such claims is perfectly ok. And that opposing group think and dishonesty is "ant-science". That's a false claim, and if it was true than "anti-science" would be the only reasonable way to act, since science itself would be unreasonable. As for "the rejection of science", that's an irrelevance on your part. Having a different opinion on a scientific controversy, even having a minority opinion, is "the rejection of science". Science is about observation and experiment. It isn't properly about eliminating alternate theories from discussion and distorting data to make it seem as if it strongly and clearly supports your point rather than weakly and ambiguously supporting your point, or strongly supporting a less extreme claim. To the extent that scientist can caught up in policy battles, or in the belief that they are going to "save the world", you are much more likely to get exaggeration, distortion, and occasionally even outright fraud. yet the majority of conservatives do not believe in it A very questionable claim. Also one that is irrelevant to the specific point under discussion.