The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science

[ebacon]

Coal, oil, and natural gas are just called fossil fuels. In actuality they are sublytwingd snarkofats.

 

[ebacon]

I'd say "is larger than". To say "swamps out" implies that the contribution of CO2 is insignificant, which isn't really accurate.
-harry

Harry,

Here's a science question. Looking at that chart it appears that CO2 concentration inherently rises quickly after dropping to a threshold of about 180 ppm. What is in the geothermic model that predicts global warming now instead of a harder fall, e.g. proportional feedback, to colder temperatures?

Sorry if this question has already been asked and answered. My brain is conditioned for Ohm's law and Federal law, but it needs more repetition to comprehend this warming stuff. I recall there being a fear of stalling a current in the Atlantic but if that's the case then why didn't the current stall before. AFAIK the Atlantic Ocean has been there in more or less the same dimensions for the duration of that chart.

 

[somorris]

In my mind there is no doubt that the CO2 in the atmosphere is high and rising compared to historic levels. This can be measured. Whether or not that means global warming is another question entirely. Nobody really knows. But, I also think it is our responbilibity to be good stewards of what we have been given, so let's all stop arguing and start taking good care of our planet.

 

[John Collins]

I hate to get involved in political discussions on the message board, but that is what this entire topic is about. I have most of the "Climate Science" websites bookmarked on my computer. They are in my folder that I place all Political sites. For the most part, Liberals and Democrats believe in man made global warming and Conservatives and Republicans do not. The climate is constantly changing and the earth is in a long term warming trend from the previous ice age. It has been both warmer and cooler than it has been most recently with the Medieval Warm Period, the 1930's, and the little ice age. Most people don't know that CO2 is a trace gas with current levels under 10%, no 1%, no 1/10 of 1%, no under 4/100ths of 1 percent of the atmosphere. Of the CO2 in the atmosphere, only 3 % is due to man with the biggest contributor coming from the oceans as they warm, which is why CO2 levels increase following increases in temperature rather than temperature increases following the increase in CO2.

No body argues that the earth has been in a long term warming trend, although there has been no statistically significant warming of the earth since 1995 and since 1998 the earth has been on a very slight cooling trend. Nobody argues that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but without positive feedback, there is no doomsday scenario. Positive feedback has never been proven, it is an article of faith by the AGW proponents. Their models say it is so and they claim they have a consensus. However, none of the models correctly predict the current climate nor do they match historical records.

One formulation of the scientific method involves the following steps: Observation/Research; Hypothesis; Prediction; Experimentation; and Conclusion. In order for the Hypothesis to be tested, a prediction must be made that is verifiable. If the prediction is found to be false, the scientist must adjust the hypothesis to account for the new facts as the original hypothesis is proved false or they must abandon their hypothesis. Without a falsifiable prediction, the hypothesis is not scientific, as it cannot be tested. This is the case with the model predictions. One can predict that the stock market DOW will reach 14,000 by Monday. This can be tested on Monday. If the prediction is that the DOW will reach $1,000,000 on Jan 31, 2300, this is an untestable prediction, at least in our lifetimes. This is the type of prediction the models present us, that is there is no way of testing the model. Ask yourself, what fact, if proven false will disprove the AGW Hypothesis. There is none. It is strictly an article of faith.

Consensus arguments are not scientific arguments, they are strictly appeals to authority. A single fact that disproves a scientific Hypothesis trumps a million scientists that support a given theory, otherwise the earth is still flat, the Sun revolves around the earth, and so many other consensus opinions that have been proven false.

As things stand today, AGW theory resembles a religious belief system and is not a true science.

 

[mantakos]

... For the most part, Liberals and Democrats believe in man made global warming and Conservatives and Republicans do not...

And this is a topic as interesting as the science.

In general, when it comes to environmentalism, we usually find ourselves with business and money lined up on one side and quality of life (most often for the poor), aesthetics, and ethics lined up on the other side. True to form, liberals take the pro-environmentalism side while conservatives take up the con side.

What's interesting about global warming is that libs and conservatives are a little confused about what the hell they're doing. Liberals, cluelessly true to form, try to sell this as a mother earth, gaia, polar bear and poor people (changing weather patterns, famine) issue. Conservatives, cluelessly true to form, take up the con side of that argument through reality alteration ("is not!!!!")

But both sides are idiots, because liberals should be selling this as an American economic issue, as changing sea levels and weather patterns are expensive, and conservatives should be perceiving this as an economic risk. Some in the insurance industry are taking this very seriously. But the little-brains on both sides of this issue are too busy doing the same-old same-old.

... The climate is constantly changing...

Okay, having been through these discussions a few times, I know that what always follows is a list of truthful statements that mean nothing. These are the kinds of things a lawyer says in his closing arguments to help sway the jury, but which, in terms of rational logic, actually prove nothing.

The premise is that we are generating greenhouse gases like CO2 and also deforesting and that has resulted in a measurable and significant change in the concentration of those gases in the atmosphere, that this increase in concentration will increase the greenhouse effect of those gases, thus encouraging overall warming. This change in climate will, of course, be layered on top of all the prior natural climate variation.

So the fact the "weather is always changing", that CO2 is only a small percentage of the atmosphere, etc, none of these prove a damn thing, because the premise of MMGW isn't dependent on any of these things being false. The idea that you can say "the atmosphere is mostly not CO2, so therefore changes to CO2 can't have any effect" is just a hunch. In fact, all these other statements are "hunch-worthy" premises. But the reason there is a thing called science is because our natural tendency toward hunches turns out to be unreliable, so we found a better way to figger stuff out.

When Mr. Wizard does his experiments, we're often surprised by the results, because the real world doesn't feel an obligation to be consistent with our hunches.

If you believe that any of those statements _proves_ something, then please "show your work". Take one of them and explain to us why it precludes the premise of MMGW.

You can't make a good argument out of piling up a really large number of bad arguments, but sometimes you can sway people that way.

... there has been no statistically significant warming of the earth since 1995 and since 1998 the earth has been on a very slight cooling trend...

When somebody gives this argument, the audience should nod and smile and know that they're being "worked". There's a reason why 1998 is chosen for this "proof", and you can see it in the chart, it's because that was an uncommonly warm year. But the trend upwards continues. Note from the chart that this argument worked a lot better a few years ago when the chart would have ended with a convincingly distinct downturn.

But, again, note that the "premise" is that man-made contribution layers on top of natural variation, so there will still be "this year colder than last year" and "this year warmer than last year". You can't prove the non-existence of a long-term trend by looking at short-term variation. The long-term trend continues.

Positive feedback has never been proven, it is an article of faith by the AGW proponents.

There are numerous positive and negative feedbacks. This is the "hard part" of this problem, actually, determining the response of such a complex system.

BTW, it's another popular piece of propaganda to argue against "doomsday scenario", because the premise isn't "doomsday" it's just "little bit warmer over time", so "doomsday" is something of a straw-man.

However, none of the models correctly predict the current climate nor do they match historical records.

How did you determine this?

Climate models are, of course, compared to historical trends. It is, of course, easy to come up with a model that matches history perfectly, yet fails to predict the future, so this conformance doesn't do much except fail to disprove the model, it certainly doesn't prove it.

One formulation of the scientific method involves the following steps: Observation/Research...

And this is the specious argument that effectively proves that it is impossible to predict the behavior of anything that you do not have control over. Per this logic, we cannot predict the future position of the moon, because that event occurs in the future, therefore we cannot verify it.

Consensus arguments are not scientific arguments...

The consensus is that the scientific argument is valid, it is not the scientific argument itself.

A single fact that disproves a scientific Hypothesis trumps a million scientists that support a given theory...

Certainly. And in this case there is consensus that no such disproving fact exists.

... and so many other consensus opinions that have been proven false.

This is the "people have been wrong in the past, therefore they are wrong about this" argument. This is, like the other arguments, perfectly true yet specious when applied as an argument.

But the biggest problem with this argument is that it is applied insincerely. For one, it applies to both sides, so you could just as easily use anti-MMGW proponents as your example of people being wrong. But, typically, the examples trotted out are more examples of "people being wrong" than "science being wrong", e.g. the example of people thinking the world is flat, a conclusion derived from hunches and not scientific method.

Nobody knows anything with perfection, this is a "do your best" business. But if you went to a doctor and he said you had cancer but that he believed that with surgery you'd have a good chance of surviving, you would intuitively understand how to proceed, that this would be a "best opinion based on best available information" decision, and you wouldn't be trotting out this "experts have been wrong in the past" thing.
-harry

 

[dmccormack]

Consensus arguments are not scientific arguments, they are strictly appeals to authority. A single fact that disproves a scientific Hypothesis trumps a million scientists that support a given theory, otherwise the earth is still flat, the Sun revolves around the earth, and so many other consensus opinions that have been proven false

THANK YOU!!!!!

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...

What's interesting about global warming is that libs and conservatives are a little confused about what the hell they're doing. Liberals, cluelessly true to form, try to sell this as a mother earth, gaia, polar bear and poor people (changing weather patterns, famine) issue. Conservatives, cluelessly true to form, take up the con side of that argument through reality alteration ("is not!!!!")

....

I don't understand why it's not couched as an economic or national security type of issue, which are things that I don't think that anyone can reasonably disagree with. I don't see how there's any dispute that we'd - with the potential exception of a few groups - be better off economically without oil, not to mention that it would also marginalize a part of the world that has presented us with ongoing problems.

I think both "sides" would agree with that. The only reason I can think of that it's continued to be a matter of "hippies v. everybody else" is because that there's a political benefit to both sides from it.

 

[Bravo3]

Ah, yes. I take it from your snotty, condescending remark that you were expecting something meatier, especially here in this peer-reviewed POA thread.
Were you expecting him to publish a thesis for you?

It's funny just how indoctrinated some folks can be. Personally, I take a more mature view: follow the money. It usually comes down to that.

The Gore-eans want us to live in grass huts and pay them massive carbon Tax tribute so they can fly in Gulfstreams and live in their McMansions to tell us all how naughty we've been.

 

[Bravo3]

Bought and paid-for "science" has become the norm in Make-a-Buck U.S.A.

I roll my eyes everytime some "respected" scientist or "major university" -- or, God help us, CNN -- parrots the man-made-global-warming party line. Just look at all the shills ("scientists") throughout history who've taken the cash and put their seal-of-approval on such quackery as fluoridated drinking water, vitamins as "expensive urine", depleted uranium safety, a particular brand of cigarettes being healthier versus another brand, toxic sludge being good for farmers, or homosexuality as a mental disorder--just as a few examples.

Funny thing, as Noam Chomsky has discussed, it's the educated "professionals" who tend to be the most indoctrinated. Essentially trained seals: hear, absorb, regurgitate, receive reward (diploma) and the most trusting of "official" sources for their information.

 

[Bravo3]

Okay, a bit off of topic here. In my opinion, part of the problem with scientists trying to explain anything to the average person is that they are too intelligent to communicate effectively. I recall reading that something like 15 point IQ seperation can cause serious communication problems.

Carry on....

Based upon years of personal research, I have determined that 88.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

BTW, my electrical engineer stepson has trouble explaining how to make a cup of coffee but I don't let our 15-point IQ separation come between us and a cold beer. :wink2:

 

[mantakos]

... I take a more mature view: follow the money...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_Global_500#2010_list​

-harry

 

[airbornejohnny]

 

[denverpilot]

I see Al Gore has YACCB about to be released. (Yet Another Crazy Climate Book).

Apple, being that he's on their Board of Directors (arguably one of the least "green" businesses on the planet) carefully put it out in an e-mail to all iTunes customers that it was their "pick of the month" a few days ago.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... Money money money.

 

[mantakos]

I see Al Gore has YACCB about to be released. (Yet Another Crazy Climate Book).... Money money money.

Publishers sell bibles. Therefore, there is no God. QED.
-harry

 

[steingar]

Bought and paid-for "science" has become the norm in Make-a-Buck U.S.A.

As are ignoramouses.

I roll my eyes everytime some "respected" scientist or "major university" -- or, God help us, CNN -- parrots the man-made-global-warming party line.

Since you are SO wise, please tell us what other scientists you roll your eyes at when they report data? Do you do this for drug discovery, or novel microchips? See, peer review works roughly the same across disciplines. It is far from perfect, but it is a long, long way from pay to play.

Just look at all the shills ("scientists") throughout history who've taken the cash and put their seal-of-approval on such quackery as fluoridated drinking water,

How old are you? Do you have all your teeth? Didn't used to be very common in adult humans. I know, everyone has nice clear white teeth in the movies, but that's the movies, where there is sound in space and living dinosaurs and stuff

vitamins as "expensive urine",

What?

depleted uranium safety,

Similarly, What? The normal isotope of uranium is non-radioactive and dense as hell. What are you talking about?

a particular brand of cigarettes being healthier versus another brand,

All things being equal, filtered cigarettes are "healthier", as the filters do screen out some of the toxic smoke products. Of course, nothing is equal when it comes to smokers.

toxic sludge being good for farmers,

I'm afraid I'm going to need to see a reference for this. Sounds like something published on 4/1/11.

or homosexuality as a mental disorder--just as a few examples.

While calling it a "mental disorder" is quite judgemental, it is abundantly clear that in many cases it is no more a choice than skin color. Brains of homosexuals are structured differently, and its hormonal etiology in men has some reasonable data behind it.

Funny thing, as Noam Chomsky has discussed, it's the educated "professionals" who tend to be the most indoctrinated. Essentially trained seals: hear, absorb, regurgitate, receive reward (diploma) and the most trusting of "official" sources for their information.

Noam Chomsky was somewhat mistaken in this regard. Scientists are often the most skeptical, its actually what we're trained to do. Sorry you don't like it, and sorry you don't "agree" with the conclusions of the scientific community. Obviously your data acquisition and critical analysis is much more advanced.

 

[EdFred]

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

 

[steingar]

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

I stick up for my colleagues, who richly deserve it. Too bad if you don't like it.

 

[mantakos]

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

There's a lot of "you says the thing I don't want to be true, therefore what you says is wrong" going on.
-harry

 

[barnstorm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty33v7UYYbw

 

[ebacon]

Whatever's going on the quoted text make some of the posts resemble old greenbar tractor feed paper. IMO that style of writing is painful to read. It looks more like two VIC-20s fighting in the Matrix than two humans communicating, or at least trying to.

Hiiiiyah!

 

[steingar]

Whatever's going on the quoted text make some of the posts resemble old greenbar tractor feed paper. IMO that style of writing is painful to read. It looks more like two VIC-20s fighting in the Matrix than two humans communicating, or at least trying to.

Hiiiiyah!

I thought it made things more clear, though it may be visually unappealing.

 

[EdFred]

I stick up for my colleagues, who richly deserve it. Too bad if you don't like it.

And see there's the issue, not all of them do. But you defend all of them as if they do. Sort of like the cops that defend the scumbag cops just because they put on a badge.

 

[wabower]

Including the Cold Fusion guys?

I stick up for my colleagues, who richly deserve it. Too bad if you don't like it.

 

[EdFred]

There's a lot of "you says the thing I don't want to be true, therefore what you says is wrong" going on.
-harry

Au contraire... the difference is the questioners say you can not be 100% sure because you have no control subject. The past is not, and can not be a control subject. Now if we had a second earth exactly the same as ours except uninhabited by humans at an L4 or L5 point in orbit, then we could see without any ambiguity and argument how much global warming humans are, or aren't causing. But, a bunch of scientist get together and say "this is absolutely, and without argument the way it is" and we are just supposed to roll over and believe it! Why? Because they said so. But oooooh noooooooo, if we question them at all, then we are the ones who are the cretins. Where's the testability? Where's the chance to falsify it? There isn't, and that's the problem. Data with no control, and we are just supposed to be good mindless sheep and believe it.

 

[steingar]

Including the Cold Fusion guys?

Funny thing about cold fusion, I'm a long way from convinced it really was bogus. There could be significant issues concerning the composition, amount and even shape of the platinum catalyst.

That said, I'm a long way from convinced it was for real. The one thing of which I am convinced is that Pons and Fleishman were very, very sloppy. More the pity if they were right.

 

[mantakos]

Including the Cold Fusion guys?

Somebody performs an experiment, others try to replicate it. If they fail, then it is determined that the earlier results were spurious, and they try to determine why. In the case of cold fusion this process occurred in the span of a few months.

This is how it's supposed to work.

Again, science is a process, one that depends on skepticism and verification. You're welcome to call that process into question, though I'd have to ask what better approach you have discovered so that we might all benefit from it along with you.
-harry

 

[wabower]

I thought the discussion was about why we don't believe. I think the problem for the non-scientists is that we are constantly bombarded with the results of some conclusive study published by some bunch of white-coats that later turns out to be pure crap. We (or at least I) can't sort out the wheat from the chaff, nor are we going to spend much time trying.

Then sometime later another bunch of white-coats concludes that the first bunch was wrong, and that it wasn't the eggs after all, the high choloesterol was attributable to some other factors that they forgot to islolate or examine. I mean, c'mon, how long did you guys run around yapping about Bernoulli until somebody decided maybe something else caused them to fly?

community

Somebody performs an experiment, others try to replicate it. If they fail, then it is determined that the earlier results were spurious, and they try to determine why. In the case of cold fusion this process occurred in the span of a few months.

This is how it's supposed to work.

Again, science is a process, one that depends on skepticism and verification. You're welcome to call that process into question, though I'd have to ask what better approach you have discovered so that we might all benefit from it along with you.
-harry

 

[steingar]

I thought the discussion was about why we don't believe. I think the problem for the non-scientists is that we are constantly bombarded with the results of some conclusive study published by some bunch of white-coats that later turns out to be pure crap. We (or at least I) can't sort out the wheat from the chaff, nor are we going to spend much time trying.

Then sometime later another bunch of white-coats concludes that the first bunch was wrong, and that it wasn't the eggs after all, the high choloesterol was attributable to some other factors that they forgot to islolate or examine. I mean, c'mon, how long did you guys run around yapping about Bernoulli until somebody decided maybe something else caused them to fly?

community

Sorry, I really am. Sometimes we do learn new things that disprove the old ones. That's why someone with hard data can overturn long-held consensus. That's why the comments about the science behind global warming are so bogus. If someone had hard data to overturn the consensus, they would do so, and the consensus would be overturned.

Science isn't static. That's the nature of the beast.

 

[mantakos]

... Now if we had a second earth exactly the same as ours except uninhabited by humans at an L4 or L5 point in orbit, then we could see without any ambiguity and argument how much global warming humans are, or aren't causing...

Yes, a planet in a petri dish would certainly be a helpful lab tool.

But you're setting the bar awfully high if you require a spare planet to claim any ability to know anything about how it works, which ignores the ability to make observations along with performing small-scale experiments to gain an understanding of processes.

Of course, if you truly set the bar that high, then your answer to very many questions must be "I don't know". Is "I don't know" the answer you're hearing from skeptics on this issue, or are they saying "I know, and it isn't"?

But, a bunch of scientist get together and say "this is absolutely, and without argument the way it is"...

That's not how science types talk, that's how politics types talk.

But oooooh noooooooo, if we question them at all, then we are the ones who are the cretins.

Somebody called you a cretin?

I've never discouraged anybody from being skeptical on this issue, but I have argued with many who justify that skepticism with bad science (all the while decrying the imperfection of science) and bad logic (like "follow the money" past the billionaire energy industry and up to the multi-thousandaire researcher working at a University somewhere).

We may not know the right answer with perfection, but some answers can be easily proven to be wrong.

Where's the testability? Where's the chance to falsify it? There isn't, and that's the problem.

I don't claim to fully understand your argument, which seems to boil down to "all is unknowable". But the difficulty of gaining perfect knowledge doesn't absolve us of responsibility for living with the consequences, and so we act with the best information available.

You seem to be saying that the best information available is imperfect. You're using an argument that guarantees that no matter how much is learned, it will always be imperfect and thus inadequate. You have guaranteed that it will never be possible to ever take any action based on our understanding of the planet until we have a spare planet to use for testing.

But the problem is, of course, a decision to not act is still a decision. And on what information did you base that decision?
-harry

 

[mantakos]

... I think the problem for the non-scientists is that we are constantly bombarded with the results of some conclusive study published by some bunch of white-coats that later turns out to be pure crap...

Part of the problem is the media presentation of "pop science", which short-circuits the process by taking intermediate results and immediately broadcasting it without any explanation to put the results in context.

But it's hard to get around the fact that we're having this conversation over a network of routers built around high-speed custom semiconductors transmitting data over fiber-optic cables using lasers and things like erbium-doped fiber amplifiers, all the while discussing how guys in white coats don't know what they're talking about.
-harry

 

[ebacon]

I thought it made things more clear, though it may be visually unappealing.

It makes it more clear from a record keeping perspective, e.g. A said X then B replied Y, but it makes the story more difficult to follow for the reader. At least it does for me.

I'm not harping on you in particular for writing that way. Many people do it on teh webz. After reading hundreds of debate threads written in such a manner I have noticed that few, if any, of them converged to one or two true points of disagreement. Instead the writing style seems to multiply tit-for-tat issues where each issue is given equal weight. For example a first issue of whether a source is biased is given the same weight in the debate as a second issue of whether an alleged fact is even material to the issue being debated.




P.S. - No FF31, I am not providing links to teh hundreds of debate threads.

 

[wabower]

Again, I think you're focused on the wrong argument. I understand that my black iPhone is a couple of generations more advanced than the black phone in the little recessed area of the hallway of my home in the 1950's.

My solution, however, is much more simple than yours. If whatever is heralded as the next big breakthrough turns out to be the real deal, I buy one or take the pills. If not, I just keep playing golf. You guys got any new gyro-stabilized clubs coming out soon?

cell phone

Part of the problem is the media presentation of "pop science", which short-circuits the process by taking intermediate results and immediately broadcasting it without any explanation to put the results in context.

But it's hard to get around the fact that we're having this conversation over a network of routers built around high-speed custom semiconductors transmitting data over fiber-optic cables using lasers and things like erbium-doped fiber amplifiers, all the while discussing how guys in white coats don't know what they're talking about.
-harry

 

[flyersfan31]

Funny thing about cold fusion, I'm a long way from convinced it really was bogus. There could be significant issues concerning the composition, amount and even shape of the platinum catalyst.

That said, I'm a long way from convinced it was for real. The one thing of which I am convinced is that Pons and Fleishman were very, very sloppy. More the pity if they were right.

Sigh. I'm with you brother.

I don't know if it is IQ envy or not, but the anti-scientific mindset in this country is a real downer.

AFA climate? Dinosaurs might have shat and belched, but they didn't have blast furnaces and smelt aluminum, or whatever one does to make aluminum. One look at the sky over Gary, IN is all I need to see in order to accept that, indeed, man is having some impact on the environment. While I am not willing to turn off all the lights, stop the cars and buses, and live like a Cro-Magnon, I don't think it's unreasonable to cut back where we can. That's not so unreasonable. Is it?

 

[steingar]

Sigh. I'm with you brother.

I don't know if it is IQ envy or not, but the anti-scientific mindset in this country is a real downer.

I come from a culture with a built in respect for scholarship. It depresses the hell out of me. The saddest thing is the people who lead the world will be the smart ones, the ones who can come up with the great ideas and put them into practice. Americans really don't seem to get that these days. Makes me fearful for the long-term prospects for my beloved country.

AFA climate? Dinosaurs might have shat and belched, but they didn't have blast furnaces and smelt aluminum, or whatever one does to make aluminum. One look at the sky over Gary, IN is all I need to see in order to accept that, indeed, man is having some impact on the environment. While I am not willing to turn off all the lights, stop the cars and buses, and live like a Cro-Magnon, I don't think it's unreasonable to cut back where we can. That's not so unreasonable. Is it?

My only hope is really that the stuff runs out before we use it to ruin the planet.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Apple, being that he's on their Board of Directors (arguably one of the least "green" businesses on the planet)

Say WHAT?!?

Apple has done a TON to become more environmentally friendly - They're making their products out of easily recyclable materials (lots of glass and aluminum these days), removing toxic materials from their products, making their packaging smaller and more environmentally friendly...

So... They're sure as hell not "one of the least green businesses on the planet."

 

[dmccormack]

I come from a culture with a built in respect for scholarship. It depresses the hell out of me. The saddest thing is the people who lead the world will be the smart ones, the ones who can come up with the great ideas and put them into practice. Americans really don't seem to get that these days. Makes me fearful for the long-term prospects for my beloved country.

My only hope is really that the stuff runs out before we use it to ruin the planet.

Thank GOD this is a minority view and the "Smart People" aren't the only ones with authority and power. Please read the Federalist papers to understand the genius of conflicting "factions."

 

[barnstorm]

Thank GOD this is a minority view and the "Smart People" aren't the only ones with authority and power. Please read the Federalist papers to understand the genius of conflicting "factions."

I don't think cheer-leading for stupidity and ignorance is a good path.

The US is not only LAST in Science and Math education among the worlds leading nations we score BEHIND several 3rd world countries!

We have high unemployment yet many of my customers and large IT firms are IMPORTING talent because there are no US citizens well enough educated in Science and Math to fill the positions!

Twenty miles from me is a mockery 'museum' that succeeds in convincing people the universe is only 10,000 years old thanks to our citizens complete lack of understanding in scientific method, reasoning and logic lead skeptical thought.

The US population is FAT, happy and stupid (and happy is about to leave).

.

.

 

[steingar]

Twenty miles from me is a mockery 'museum' that succeeds in convincing people the universe is only 10,000 years old thanks to our citizens complete lack of understanding in scientific method, reasoning and logic lead skeptical thought.

One of the most ironic and utterly painful things to happen in my life. The curator of that museum was for a time a graduate of my program. We couldn't refuse admission or flunk her for her beliefs, and she was a marginally good student.

 

[flyersfan31]

Thank GOD this is a minority view and the "Smart People" aren't the only ones with authority and power. Please read the Federalist papers to understand the genius of conflicting "factions."

I, for one, am damn glad the guests on the Jerry Springer Show can share authority and power with smart people.

Dan, I think you're missing his point. The anti-education, anti-intellectual attitude that is so prevalent in our American society works against the progress of our great nation. We need to celebrate knowledge, not 40yrd dash times.

 

[Everskyward]

I, for one, am damn glad the guests on the Jerry Springer Show can share authority and power with smart people.

Dan, I think you're missing his point. The anti-education, anti-intellectual attitude that is so prevalent in our American society works against the progress of our great nation. We need to celebrate knowledge, not 40yrd dash times.

The part I find interesting and disturbing is that the anti-intellectuals aren't even smart enough to vote for people who might actually know a little bit more than they do. They want people just like them to run the country.