The Republican War on Science
Meteorite Debris
August 26, 2005
The Republican War on Science
by Chris Mooney
BUZZFLASH REVIEWS
America has long prided itself on its dynamic industrial and
scientific innovation. We boasted of our investment in research to
produce new technology, products and medical breakthroughs, because we
were a country always moving forward. Born of a revolution that
rejected the stultifying constraints of Monarchist governments, we
were unleashed to invent a future without constraints.
So historians, in a few years, may look back on the era of right wing
Republican rule and wonder how we became saddled with a government
that is intent on moving the nation backwards instead of forwards.
It's as if you were a passenger in a car speeding down the expressway
at 60 miles per hour and suddenly the driver threw the gear into
reverse.
In this fascinating dissection of the "The Republican War on Science,"
author Chris Mooney skillfully explores what is behind the GOP attempt
to turn a country on the cusp of innovation backwards into the Middle
Ages of skepticism about science and evolution. Mooney guides the
reader through this unfathomable undertaking that is an organized
Republican effort to undo our national heritage of innovation and
scientific advancements.
There are really two main forces at work in the Republican right,
which has reached its pinnacle of power in the reign of George W.
Bush, Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay. On the one hand, you have the
extremist religious "base" that supports Bush no matter what his
latest egregious failure or betrayal is. To them, science is an enemy
because it, ipso facto, deals with discoveries, research and
explanations of life and the world that conflict with literal
interpretations of the Bible. Forget about the canard of "Intelligent
Design," which is just another Frank Luntz euphemism -- in this case
for creationism. The religious right fully endorses the war on science
because science is born of human research, and human research
inevitably comes into conflict with the fundamentalist interpretation
of divine intent.
The second major camp behind Bush's war on science is the corporate
world, particularly the depletable natural resources companies who are
championed by Dick Cheney. They believe that science gets in the way
of their pillaging and plundering the environment for a quick profit.
If science proves, as it has, that global warming is accelerating
rapidly, then what good is it? It will only lead these companies --
headed by big Republican contributors -- to a short-term reduction in
profits. Or so they believe.
In Bush's world, as with the war in Iraq and economic forecasts,
science is only of value when the books are cooked on research so as
to support a specific Bush policy that either endears him to the
fringe religious right or to the "loot and pollute" corporations.
In a tragically ironic way, these two Bush groups of supporters
synergistically support each other. Because if the earth's environment
is truly being destroyed by unfettered industrial pillaging, it might
only hasten the Armageddon so ardently anticipated by the holy
rollers. Who cares what happens to our planet, if "good Christians"
will soon meet in heaven?
Bush is certainly a man with a lot of wars on his hands. But Mooney's
book reminds us that the Iraq War shouldn't overshadow the severe
damage that the Busheviks are doing to America's extraordinary
heritage of scientific accomplishment. With a few more years, they
will grind it into dust.
This is an Administration that wants us to return to a period before
the Age of Enlightenment, which some might call the "Dark Ages."
--
Remove YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
Sunday: A day given over by Americans to wishing that they themselves
were dead and in Heaven, and that their neighbors were dead and in
Hell.
-Mencken
Greywolf
"Meteorite Debris" <epicurus1@YOUR_SHOESoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d7a4fa31...@news.optusnet.com.au...
I agree wholeheartedly. And it makes my blood boil. I just wonder what
would happen if a whole army of 'intellectuals" were to get up off their
duffs
and started a blistering attack on the bible. And I mean in the mainstream
media. And I mean a 'take no prisoners' attack. What would the religious
right do then? They could act smug about it, I suppose. But the sheer weight
of evidence showing what a bunch of hooey it is, and a no-nonsense assault
showing to what depths the 'faithful' have been conned *may* cause some of
these idiots to back off on their assault on science. In a true 'cultural
war,' the
religious right would surely lose. They don't have 'truth' on their side.
Science
does.
Greywolf
Jim Austin
> http://www.buzzflash.com/reviews/05/08/rev05080.html
>
> August 26, 2005
>
> The Republican War on Science
> by Chris Mooney
<Snip> The article.
Republican war on science?
Consider the liberal stance on science:
Liberals are pragmatists. Philosophically pragmatists are among the
first to challenge the validity of scientific conclusions. Pragmatists
deny cause and effect in principle. They hold that certainty, including
scientific certainty, is impossible to us lowly mortals.
The cutting edge of liberal thinking is post-modernism that holds that
all knowledge is ethnocentric, and that conclusions of Western science
is no more valid than the ravings of primitive witch doctors.
Liberals do not distinguish between serious scientists, those who
engage in scientific research, and pop scientists who write popular
literature and/or create documentaries for public TV. They generally
quote the latter and ignore the former. Given their pragmatism, one is
just as good as the other and the latter is generally easier to
understand.
Many liberals hold to a doctrine of "political correctness" whereby
scientific conclusions can be evaluated by their conformance to a
political ideology.
Since the time of Rousseau, left wing political thought has held that
science is bad, that technology is bad, that industrialization is bad,
that affluence and prosperity are bad, that innocence is to be found in
primitive existence.
This view often gets expressed in movies like "Jurassic Park" where the
character played by Jeff Goldblum refers to scientific discovery as the
"rape of the natural world."
The environmental movement is the current expression of this view.
Indeed, they've decided that humanity itself is bad for the planet.
"The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted
with a hearty 'Good riddance!", said environmentalist Paul Taylor in
"Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics."
The opposite viewpoint is that science, technology, industrialization
and abundance are good things, that human life on this Earth is a
value. That view appears to get a better reception among Republicans
than Democrats.
Kate
>Meteorite Debris wrote:
>
>> http://www.buzzflash.com/reviews/05/08/rev05080.html
>>
>> August 26, 2005
>>
>> The Republican War on Science
>> by Chris Mooney
>
><Snip> The article.
>
>Republican war on science?
>
>Consider the liberal stance on science:
>
>Liberals are pragmatists. Philosophically pragmatists are among the
>first to challenge the validity of scientific conclusions. Pragmatists
>deny cause and effect in principle. They hold that certainty, including
>scientific certainty, is impossible to us lowly mortals.
>
>The cutting edge of liberal thinking is post-modernism that holds that
>all knowledge is ethnocentric, and that conclusions of Western science
>is no more valid than the ravings of primitive witch doctors.
>
>Liberals do not distinguish between serious scientists, those who
>engage in scientific research, and pop scientists who write popular
>literature and/or create documentaries for public TV. They generally
>quote the latter and ignore the former. Given their pragmatism, one is
>just as good as the other and the latter is generally easier to
>understand.
LOL you think so, eh? Unfortunately Conservatives can't distinguish
between science and what they made up in their own head because it
feels good and smart people piss them off.
>
>Many liberals hold to a doctrine of "political correctness" whereby
>scientific conclusions can be evaluated by their conformance to a
>political ideology.
So sorry -it's the other way around. Liberal political correctness is
usually based on science. It's just annoying because it tends to be
anal, but unfortunately, it's usually right.
>
>Since the time of Rousseau, left wing political thought has held that
>science is bad, that technology is bad, that industrialization is bad,
>that affluence and prosperity are bad, that innocence is to be found in
>primitive existence.
>
>This view often gets expressed in movies like "Jurassic Park" where the
>character played by Jeff Goldblum refers to scientific discovery as the
>"rape of the natural world."
>
>The environmental movement is the current expression of this view.
>Indeed, they've decided that humanity itself is bad for the planet.
>"The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted
>with a hearty 'Good riddance!", said environmentalist Paul Taylor in
>"Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics."
>
>The opposite viewpoint is that science, technology, industrialization
>and abundance are good things, that human life on this Earth is a
>value. That view appears to get a better reception among Republicans
>than Democrats.
Uh, good for what and who?
If you actually look at science, it's really bad for human life, and
that's what liberals value - not how much money we can make off it
today (don't wanna think about the future and my kids) which is always
the most popular among Republicans.
t1gercat
Jim Austin wrote:
> Meteorite Debris wrote:
>
> > http://www.buzzflash.com/reviews/05/08/rev05080.html
> >
> > August 26, 2005
> >
> > The Republican War on Science
> > by Chris Mooney
>
> <Snip> The article.
>
> Republican war on science?
>
> Consider the liberal stance on science:
>
> Liberals are pragmatists. Philosophically pragmatists are among the
> first to challenge the validity of scientific conclusions. Pragmatists
> deny cause and effect in principle. They hold that certainty, including
> scientific certainty, is impossible to us lowly mortals.
You've managed, in one concise statement, to form the most elegant
expression of utter confusion, misinformation, prejudice and stupidity
I've ever read. This is really remarkable.
>
> The cutting edge of liberal thinking is post-modernism that holds that
> all knowledge is ethnocentric, and that conclusions of Western science
> is no more valid than the ravings of primitive witch doctors.
Utter crap. Post modernist flakes certainly exist, but this is like
saying the cutting edge of conservative thought can be found in the
dynamics of the Aryan Nation movement. Besides, post modernism is
hardly cutting edge; it's been around for at least 40 years.
>
> Liberals do not distinguish between serious scientists, those who
> engage in scientific research, and pop scientists who write popular
> literature and/or create documentaries for public TV. They generally
> quote the latter and ignore the former. Given their pragmatism, one is
> just as good as the other and the latter is generally easier to
> understand.
Sorry, Spanky, but the confusion of pop science with real science is as
much or more a conservtive fault as a liberal enthusiasm. The
bookstores are literally stuffed with the crapola of motivational gurus
and self-help "exoerts." Few of them are liberal; many more fall in the
caste of Dr. Laura.
>
> Many liberals hold to a doctrine of "political correctness" whereby
> scientific conclusions can be evaluated by their conformance to a
> political ideology.
No, this is utter nonsense. The Pugs are much more prone to bending
fact to poitical expedience. By the way, where are those WMDs, anyway?
>
> Since the time of Rousseau, left wing political thought has held that
> science is bad, that technology is bad, that industrialization is bad,
> that affluence and prosperity are bad, that innocence is to be found in
> primitive existence.
Rousseau???? What an ignorant shit you are. Read Bloom's comments on
Rousseau to comprehend his influence on conservative thought. Bloom,
by the way is a conservative philosopher. He authored CLOSING OF THE
AMERICAN MIND.
>
> This view often gets expressed in movies like "Jurassic Park" where the
> character played by Jeff Goldblum refers to scientific discovery as the
> "rape of the natural world."
Uh... a movie? How about Damien III where Jesus kills the devil? It's
just as relevant. Or how about movies like "Madam Curie," or "Dr.
Ehrlich's Magic Bullet?"
>
> The environmental movement is the current expression of this view.
> Indeed, they've decided that humanity itself is bad for the planet.
Yeah, we all know how well industrialists took care of the enviornment
before the enviornmental movement began.
> "The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted
> with a hearty 'Good riddance!", said environmentalist Paul Taylor in
> "Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics."
Paul Taylor speaks for himself and a clutch of nutcases when he says
things like that. I suppose the world was much better before the
enviornmental movement, when Cleveland's river caught fire and there
were no live fish in Lake Erie.
>
> The opposite viewpoint is that science, technology, industrialization
> and abundance are good things, that human life on this Earth is a
> value. That view appears to get a better reception among Republicans
> than Democrats.
No, it doesn't. The Pugs value short term profits above everything,
believe in enviornmental exploitation, clear-cutting forests,
despoiling our rivers and lakes, fouling our air and killing our
wildlife.
Wexford
johac
"Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Meteorite Debris wrote:
>
> > http://www.buzzflash.com/reviews/05/08/rev05080.html
> >
> > August 26, 2005
> >
> > The Republican War on Science
> > by Chris Mooney
>
> <Snip> The article.
>
> Republican war on science?
>
> Consider the liberal stance on science:
>
> Liberals are pragmatists. Philosophically pragmatists are among the
> first to challenge the validity of scientific conclusions. Pragmatists
> deny cause and effect in principle. They hold that certainty, including
> scientific certainty, is impossible to us lowly mortals.
Science doesn't deal in certainty. It provides evidence and data from
which scientists construct hypotheses and theories. Any theory is
subject to overthrow if new facts are discovered which contradict it.
Only religious conservatives believe in 'eternal truths'.
>
> The cutting edge of liberal thinking is post-modernism that holds that
> all knowledge is ethnocentric, and that conclusions of Western science
> is no more valid than the ravings of primitive witch doctors.
Bullshit! I'm a liberal, and like many other thinkers on the right and
the left, I think that post-modernism is pure horse crap.
>
> Liberals do not distinguish between serious scientists, those who
> engage in scientific research, and pop scientists who write popular
> literature and/or create documentaries for public TV. They generally
> quote the latter and ignore the former. Given their pragmatism, one is
> just as good as the other and the latter is generally easier to
> understand.
Nonsense. How come it's the big conservative corporations who dress up
an actor in a white coat and put him or her in front of a camera to lie
and defend the company's interests or sell it's worthless dangerous
products?
>
> Many liberals hold to a doctrine of "political correctness" whereby
> scientific conclusions can be evaluated by their conformance to a
> political ideology.
Nonsense. If the data support the theory, it is valid, whether the
conclusion is popular or not.
>
> Since the time of Rousseau, left wing political thought has held that
> science is bad, that technology is bad, that industrialization is bad,
> that affluence and prosperity are bad, that innocence is to be found in
> primitive existence.
Utter nonsense. What makes you think liberals want to live in caves?
>
> This view often gets expressed in movies like "Jurassic Park" where the
> character played by Jeff Goldblum refers to scientific discovery as the
> "rape of the natural world."
>
> The environmental movement is the current expression of this view.
> Indeed, they've decided that humanity itself is bad for the planet.
> "The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted
> with a hearty 'Good riddance!", said environmentalist Paul Taylor in
> "Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics."
I'll grant that there are extremists on the left, but they don't speak
for me. There are plenty of extremists on the right too. They espouse
ideas such as, there is no global warming, a little mercury won't hurt,
screw the Alaskan wildlife, we need the oil, etc.
>
> The opposite viewpoint is that science, technology, industrialization
> and abundance are good things, that human life on this Earth is a
> value. That view appears to get a better reception among Republicans
> than Democrats.
More nonsense. Liberals desire the gifts of science and technology too.
But thinking people do not seek the destruction of the planet either. A
balance needs to be struck.
In case you're wondering, I'm a scientist and a liberal, and with all
due respect, I don't think that you know what the hell you are talking
about.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
johac
Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@YOUR_SHOESoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
Great article! I've seen a number like it in recent days. Hopefully,
people are finally catching on.
maff
Meteorite Debris wrote:
> http://www.buzzflash.com/reviews/05/08/rev05080.html
>
> August 26, 2005
>
> The Republican War on Science
> by Chris Mooney
>
Chris Mooney
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+%22Chris+Mooney%22&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+%22Chris+Mooney%22&sa=N&tab=nw
Apostate
WHOOT!
<joins conga line>
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
Jim Austin
Projection.
Actually, there has been a reaction to science from right and left.
The right reacted to the conclusions of science.
The left reacted to the results of science.
> >Many liberals hold to a doctrine of "political correctness" whereby
> >scientific conclusions can be evaluated by their conformance to a
> >political ideology.
>
> So sorry -it's the other way around. Liberal political correctness is
> usually based on science. It's just annoying because it tends to be
> anal, but unfortunately, it's usually right.
No. Political correctness has been based on post-modernism, which is
hostile to science.
Political correctness holds that one culture is as good as another.
Thus they refer to as "racist" anybody who criticizes another culture,
particularly a culture that spawns terrorism.
> >Since the time of Rousseau, left wing political thought has held that
> >science is bad, that technology is bad, that industrialization is bad,
> >that affluence and prosperity are bad, that innocence is to be found in
> >primitive existence.
> >
> >This view often gets expressed in movies like "Jurassic Park" where the
> >character played by Jeff Goldblum refers to scientific discovery as the
> >"rape of the natural world."
> >
> >The environmental movement is the current expression of this view.
> >Indeed, they've decided that humanity itself is bad for the planet.
> >"The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted
> >with a hearty 'Good riddance!", said environmentalist Paul Taylor in
> >"Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics."
> >
> >The opposite viewpoint is that science, technology, industrialization
> >and abundance are good things, that human life on this Earth is a
> >value. That view appears to get a better reception among Republicans
> >than Democrats.
>
> Uh, good for what and who?
Members of the species homo sapiens. Science has prolonged and enriched
human life.
> If you actually look at science, it's really bad for human life, and
> that's what liberals value - not how much money we can make off it
> today (don't wanna think about the future and my kids) which is always
> the most popular among Republicans.
This last statement, "bad for human life," confirms my notion that
liberals are hostile to science, precisely because it has prolonged and
enriched human life.
Jim Austin
> Jim Austin wrote:
> > Meteorite Debris wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.buzzflash.com/reviews/05/08/rev05080.html
> > >
> > > August 26, 2005
> > >
> > > The Republican War on Science
> > > by Chris Mooney
> >
> > <Snip> The article.
> >
> > Republican war on science?
> >
> > Consider the liberal stance on science:
> >
> > Liberals are pragmatists. Philosophically pragmatists are among the
> > first to challenge the validity of scientific conclusions. Pragmatists
> > deny cause and effect in principle. They hold that certainty, including
> > scientific certainty, is impossible to us lowly mortals.
>
> You've managed, in one concise statement, to form the most elegant
> expression of utter confusion, misinformation, prejudice and stupidity
> I've ever read. This is really remarkable.
Concerning what he's "ever read," that sounds like a personal problem.
> > The cutting edge of liberal thinking is post-modernism that holds that
> > all knowledge is ethnocentric, and that conclusions of Western science
> > is no more valid than the ravings of primitive witch doctors.
>
> Utter crap. Post modernist flakes certainly exist, but this is like
> saying the cutting edge of conservative thought can be found in the
> dynamics of the Aryan Nation movement. Besides, post modernism is
> hardly cutting edge; it's been around for at least 40 years.
Post-modernism has a protected place in liberal-dominated universities,
the same universities that ban politically incorrect thoughts.
> > Liberals do not distinguish between serious scientists, those who
> > engage in scientific research, and pop scientists who write popular
> > literature and/or create documentaries for public TV. They generally
> > quote the latter and ignore the former. Given their pragmatism, one is
> > just as good as the other and the latter is generally easier to
> > understand.
>
> Sorry, Spanky, but the confusion of pop science with real science is as
> much or more a conservtive fault as a liberal enthusiasm.
Scientists like Paul Erlich and the late Carl Sagan as well as others
featured in public television are pop scientists.
> The bookstores are literally stuffed with the crapola of motivational
> gurus and self-help "exoerts." Few of them are liberal; many more fall in
> the caste of Dr. Laura.
I don't regard Dr. Laura as any sort of scientist.
> > Many liberals hold to a doctrine of "political correctness" whereby
> > scientific conclusions can be evaluated by their conformance to a
> > political ideology.
>
> No, this is utter nonsense. The Pugs are much more prone to bending
> fact to poitical expedience. By the way, where are those WMDs, anyway?
No. Liberals hold the edge on bending facts to fit their agenda.
> > Since the time of Rousseau, left wing political thought has held that
> > science is bad, that technology is bad, that industrialization is bad,
> > that affluence and prosperity are bad, that innocence is to be found in
> > primitive existence.
>
> Rousseau???? What an ignorant shit you are. Read Bloom's comments on
> Rousseau to comprehend his influence on conservative thought. Bloom,
> by the way is a conservative philosopher. He authored CLOSING OF THE
> AMERICAN MIND.
I've read Rousseau. That's enough to let me know about his thinking.
Perhaps this t1gercat should pull his head out of his ass and do some
reading.
> > This view often gets expressed in movies like "Jurassic Park" where the
> > character played by Jeff Goldblum refers to scientific discovery as the
> > "rape of the natural world."
>
> Uh... a movie?
Yes.
> How about Damien III where Jesus kills the devil?
How about it?
> It's just as relevant.
Only to the extent the characters make comments that have political
implications.
> Or how about movies like "Madam Curie," or "Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet?"
How about it?
Movie producer Steven Spielberg and novelist Michael Crichton are both
liberals. They both produced a movie, "Jurassic Park," where the
characters make statements that imply a hostility to science.
> > The environmental movement is the current expression of this view.
> > Indeed, they've decided that humanity itself is bad for the planet.
>
> Yeah, we all know how well industrialists took care of the enviornment
> before the enviornmental movement began.
Liberals believe the environment was better off before human beings
appeared.
> > "The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted
> > with a hearty 'Good riddance!", said environmentalist Paul Taylor in
> > "Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics."
>
> Paul Taylor speaks for himself and a clutch of nutcases when he says
> things like that.
Taylor, et al, are consistent exponents of environmentalist beliefs.
> I suppose the world was much better before the enviornmental movement,
> when Cleveland's river caught fire and there were no live fish in Lake
> Erie.
The world will be considerably worse off if the environmentist campaign
of deindustrialization succeeds.
> > The opposite viewpoint is that science, technology, industrialization
> > and abundance are good things, that human life on this Earth is a
> > value. That view appears to get a better reception among Republicans
> > than Democrats.
>
> No, it doesn't. The Pugs value short term profits above everything,
> believe in enviornmental exploitation, clear-cutting forests,
> despoiling our rivers and lakes, fouling our air and killing our
> wildlife.
This is the environmentalist characterization of industrialization.
They want to do away with all that.
Jim Austin
> In article <1125111384.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Meteorite Debris wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.buzzflash.com/reviews/05/08/rev05080.html
> > >
> > > August 26, 2005
> > >
> > > The Republican War on Science
> > > by Chris Mooney
> >
> > <Snip> The article.
> >
> > Republican war on science?
> >
> > Consider the liberal stance on science:
> >
> > Liberals are pragmatists. Philosophically pragmatists are among the
> > first to challenge the validity of scientific conclusions. Pragmatists
> > deny cause and effect in principle. They hold that certainty, including
> > scientific certainty, is impossible to us lowly mortals.
>
>
> Science doesn't deal in certainty. It provides evidence and data from
> which scientists construct hypotheses and theories. Any theory is
> subject to overthrow if new facts are discovered which contradict it.
> Only religious conservatives believe in 'eternal truths'.
This, of course, is pragmatism.
Mostly with scientific theories, new facts show that previous theories
thought to be general are in fact limited in its application.
Thus Newtonian physics, once thought to apply to 100 percent of
existance, is now known to apply only to 99 percent, with Einsteinian
phyisics applying to the Newtonian world and facts not consistent
therewith, that is with 99.99 percent of existance.
> > The cutting edge of liberal thinking is post-modernism that holds that
> > all knowledge is ethnocentric, and that conclusions of Western science
> > is no more valid than the ravings of primitive witch doctors.
>
>
> Bullshit!
I'm not all that interested in Hachmann's culinary proclivities.
> I'm a liberal, and like many other thinkers on the right and
> the left, I think that post-modernism is pure horse crap.
Post-modernism more consistently applies what pragmatists believe.
> > Liberals do not distinguish between serious scientists, those who
> > engage in scientific research, and pop scientists who write popular
> > literature and/or create documentaries for public TV. They generally
> > quote the latter and ignore the former. Given their pragmatism, one is
> > just as good as the other and the latter is generally easier to
> > understand.
>
> Nonsense. How come it's the big conservative corporations...
Conservative corporation? Most corporations are run by limousine
liberals and penthouse prolitariates.
> ...who dress up an actor in a white coat and put him or her in front of a
> camera to lie and defend the company's interests or sell it's worthless
> dangerous products?
The question assumes facts not in evidence.
> > Many liberals hold to a doctrine of "political correctness" whereby
> > scientific conclusions can be evaluated by their conformance to a
> > political ideology.
>
> Nonsense. If the data support the theory, it is valid, whether the
> conclusion is popular or not.
That is true, but that's not the way practitioners of political
correctness see it.
> > Since the time of Rousseau, left wing political thought has held that
> > science is bad, that technology is bad, that industrialization is bad,
> > that affluence and prosperity are bad, that innocence is to be found in
> > primitive existence.
>
> Utter nonsense. What makes you think liberals want to live in caves?
Liberals oppose the construction of new housing. Liberals oppose new
construction per se. "Developers" is a pejorative term to the liberal
contingent.
Liberals oppose the generation of new power. Liberals oppose drilling
for more oil. Liberals oppose construction of new oil refineries.
I'm sure that limousine liberals and penthouse proletariates would
prefer their good homes and standard of living. They just begrudge it
to the rest of us.
> > This view often gets expressed in movies like "Jurassic Park" where the
> > character played by Jeff Goldblum refers to scientific discovery as the
> > "rape of the natural world."
> >
> > The environmental movement is the current expression of this view.
> > Indeed, they've decided that humanity itself is bad for the planet.
> > "The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted
> > with a hearty 'Good riddance!", said environmentalist Paul Taylor in
> > "Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics."
>
> I'll grant that there are extremists on the left, but they don't speak
> for me. There are plenty of extremists on the right too. They espouse
> ideas such as, there is no global warming, a little mercury won't hurt,
> screw the Alaskan wildlife, we need the oil, etc.
Spoken like a true extremist on the left.
> > The opposite viewpoint is that science, technology, industrialization
> > and abundance are good things, that human life on this Earth is a
> > value. That view appears to get a better reception among Republicans
> > than Democrats.
>
> More nonsense. Liberals desire the gifts of science and technology too.
They desire it for themselves, but begrudge it to the rest of us.
> But thinking people do not seek the destruction of the planet either. A
> balance needs to be struck.
Liberals, like one of my previous critics, believe that science is bad
for people, that science per se is destructive of the planet.
> In case you're wondering, I'm a scientist and a liberal, and with all
> due respect, I don't think that you know what the hell you are talking
> about.
Sounds like a personal problem. If Hachmann's scientific methodology is
like what he shows in his post, then he is a lousy scientist.
> John Hachmann aa #1782
>
> "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
> -Voltaire
Is that why liberals go around rationalizing, minimizing, sanitizing
atrocities committed by terrorists and leftist dictatorships?
Apostate
>johac wrote:
>
>> In case you're wondering, I'm a scientist and a liberal, and with all
>> due respect, I don't think that you know what the hell you are talking
>> about.
>
>Sounds like a personal problem. If Hachmann's scientific methodology is
>like what he shows in his post, then he is a lousy scientist.
Yeah, that's a good argument, when confronted with your ignorance: "people
who know stuff are ruining everything for the rest of us."
>
>> John Hachmann aa #1782
Jim Austin
> On 27 Aug 2005 15:57:36 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >johac wrote:
> >
> >> In case you're wondering, I'm a scientist and a liberal, and with all
> >> due respect, I don't think that you know what the hell you are talking
> >> about.
> >
> >Sounds like a personal problem. If Hachmann's scientific methodology is
> >like what he shows in his post, then he is a lousy scientist.
>
> Yeah, that's a good argument, when confronted with your ignorance: "people
> who know stuff are ruining everything for the rest of us."
So far, I've only been confronted with Hachmann's ignorance.
> >> John Hachmann aa #1782
Kate
Uh, no, not hardly. More, like you are making wild silly nonsensical
statements that you can't back up and somewhere you heard the word
projection directed at you and now you are trying to use it in a
sentence.
>
>Actually, there has been a reaction to science from right and left.
>
>The right reacted to the conclusions of science.
>
>The left reacted to the results of science.
Sounds like you don't know anything about science.
>
>> >Many liberals hold to a doctrine of "political correctness" whereby
>> >scientific conclusions can be evaluated by their conformance to a
>> >political ideology.
>>
>> So sorry -it's the other way around. Liberal political correctness is
>> usually based on science. It's just annoying because it tends to be
>> anal, but unfortunately, it's usually right.
>
>No. Political correctness has been based on post-modernism, which is
>hostile to science.
No, political correctness is always with us.
>
>Political correctness holds that one culture is as good as another.
>Thus they refer to as "racist" anybody who criticizes another culture,
>particularly a culture that spawns terrorism.
No, political correctness terms someone who abuses another person on
the basis of their race or culture as racist.
Let me guess - you are feeling a bit racist and don't like being
criticized for it.
>
>> >Since the time of Rousseau, left wing political thought has held that
>> >science is bad, that technology is bad, that industrialization is bad,
>> >that affluence and prosperity are bad, that innocence is to be found in
>> >primitive existence.
>> >
>> >This view often gets expressed in movies like "Jurassic Park" where the
>> >character played by Jeff Goldblum refers to scientific discovery as the
>> >"rape of the natural world."
>> >
>> >The environmental movement is the current expression of this view.
>> >Indeed, they've decided that humanity itself is bad for the planet.
>> >"The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted
>> >with a hearty 'Good riddance!", said environmentalist Paul Taylor in
>> >"Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics."
>> >
>> >The opposite viewpoint is that science, technology, industrialization
>> >and abundance are good things, that human life on this Earth is a
>> >value. That view appears to get a better reception among Republicans
>> >than Democrats.
>>
>> Uh, good for what and who?
>
>Members of the species homo sapiens. Science has prolonged and enriched
>human life.
OK, yes it has. It's allowed us to use greater knowledge so we don't
make stupid decisions, including the use of science to fuck up our
world.
Unfortunately it doesn't also give us the wisdom and restraint not to
go hog wild when we get some power because of it.
Face it. You just want to go hog wild and don't like it when someone
smarter and wiser than you disapproves.
Poor baby. Not too mature, are you?
>
>> If you actually look at science, it's really bad for human life, and
>> that's what liberals value - not how much money we can make off it
>> today (don't wanna think about the future and my kids) which is always
>> the most popular among Republicans.
>
>This last statement, "bad for human life," confirms my notion that
>liberals are hostile to science, precisely because it has prolonged and
>enriched human life.
Sounds like you have your asshole confused with a hole in the wall and
are somehow trying to take it out on the smart people.
johac
"Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On the macro scale at speeds much lees than the speed of light Newton's
physics still works quite well.
>
> > > The cutting edge of liberal thinking is post-modernism that holds that
> > > all knowledge is ethnocentric, and that conclusions of Western science
> > > is no more valid than the ravings of primitive witch doctors.
> >
> >
> > Bullshit!
>
> I'm not all that interested in Hachmann's culinary proclivities.
Idiot.
>
> > I'm a liberal, and like many other thinkers on the right and
> > the left, I think that post-modernism is pure horse crap.
>
> Post-modernism more consistently applies what pragmatists believe.
I do not believe in post modernism just because ignorant sods like you
say so.
>
> > > Liberals do not distinguish between serious scientists, those who
> > > engage in scientific research, and pop scientists who write popular
> > > literature and/or create documentaries for public TV. They generally
> > > quote the latter and ignore the former. Given their pragmatism, one is
> > > just as good as the other and the latter is generally easier to
> > > understand.
> >
> > Nonsense. How come it's the big conservative corporations...
>
> Conservative corporation? Most corporations are run by limousine
> liberals and penthouse prolitariates.
Geez, you know even less about politics than you know about science
which isn't much.
>
> > ...who dress up an actor in a white coat and put him or her in front of a
> > camera to lie and defend the company's interests or sell it's worthless
> > dangerous products?
>
> The question assumes facts not in evidence.
Nonetheless they are facts. Read up on how the tobacco companies used to
try to sell their products on TV.
>
> > > Many liberals hold to a doctrine of "political correctness" whereby
> > > scientific conclusions can be evaluated by their conformance to a
> > > political ideology.
> >
> > Nonsense. If the data support the theory, it is valid, whether the
> > conclusion is popular or not.
>
> That is true, but that's not the way practitioners of political
> correctness see it.
Political correctness has nothing to do with science.
>
> > > Since the time of Rousseau, left wing political thought has held that
> > > science is bad, that technology is bad, that industrialization is bad,
> > > that affluence and prosperity are bad, that innocence is to be found in
> > > primitive existence.
> >
> > Utter nonsense. What makes you think liberals want to live in caves?
>
> Liberals oppose the construction of new housing. Liberals oppose new
> construction per se. "Developers" is a pejorative term to the liberal
> contingent.
>
> Liberals oppose the generation of new power. Liberals oppose drilling
> for more oil. Liberals oppose construction of new oil refineries.
Making a lot of generalizations here, aren't we?
>
> I'm sure that limousine liberals and penthouse proletariates would
> prefer their good homes and standard of living. They just begrudge it
> to the rest of us.
More nonsense.
>
> > > This view often gets expressed in movies like "Jurassic Park" where the
> > > character played by Jeff Goldblum refers to scientific discovery as the
> > > "rape of the natural world."
> > >
> > > The environmental movement is the current expression of this view.
> > > Indeed, they've decided that humanity itself is bad for the planet.
> > > "The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted
> > > with a hearty 'Good riddance!", said environmentalist Paul Taylor in
> > > "Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics."
> >
> > I'll grant that there are extremists on the left, but they don't speak
> > for me. There are plenty of extremists on the right too. They espouse
> > ideas such as, there is no global warming, a little mercury won't hurt,
> > screw the Alaskan wildlife, we need the oil, etc.
>
> Spoken like a true extremist on the left.
>
> > > The opposite viewpoint is that science, technology, industrialization
> > > and abundance are good things, that human life on this Earth is a
> > > value. That view appears to get a better reception among Republicans
> > > than Democrats.
> >
> > More nonsense. Liberals desire the gifts of science and technology too.
>
> They desire it for themselves, but begrudge it to the rest of us.
>
> > But thinking people do not seek the destruction of the planet either. A
> > balance needs to be struck.
>
> Liberals, like one of my previous critics, believe that science is bad
> for people, that science per se is destructive of the planet.
If someone actually said that, which I doubt, all it proves is that that
one person was stupid,
>
> > In case you're wondering, I'm a scientist and a liberal, and with all
> > due respect, I don't think that you know what the hell you are talking
> > about.
>
> Sounds like a personal problem. If Hachmann's scientific methodology is
> like what he shows in his post, then he is a lousy scientist.
How would you know. Did you read popular science once? Did you watch an
episode of Nova?
Sorry, Junior, you get an F- for the course.
>
>
> Is that why liberals go around rationalizing, minimizing, sanitizing
> atrocities committed by terrorists and leftist dictatorships?
Name some.
--
johac
"Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Why don't you try to post something intelligent for a change?
--
duke
<epicurus1@YOUR_SHOESoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>http://www.buzzflash.com/reviews/05/08/rev05080.html
Gee, you aussies will bite on anything if you bite on this.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
t1gercat
> t1gercat wrote:
>
> > Jim Austin wrote:
> > > Meteorite Debris wrote:
> > >
> > > > http://www.buzzflash.com/reviews/05/08/rev05080.html
> > > >
> > > > August 26, 2005
> > > >
> > > > The Republican War on Science
> > > > by Chris Mooney
> > >
> > > <Snip> The article.
> > >
> > > Republican war on science?
> > >
> > > Consider the liberal stance on science:
> > >
> > > Liberals are pragmatists. Philosophically pragmatists are among the
> > > first to challenge the validity of scientific conclusions. Pragmatists
> > > deny cause and effect in principle. They hold that certainty, including
> > > scientific certainty, is impossible to us lowly mortals.
> >
> > You've managed, in one concise statement, to form the most elegant
> > expression of utter confusion, misinformation, prejudice and stupidity
> > I've ever read. This is really remarkable.
>
> Concerning what he's "ever read," that sounds like a personal problem.
NO, I'm basing it on 30 years of reading political tracts, mostly
conservative since they seem to produce their stuff with the most
exuberance.
>
> > > The cutting edge of liberal thinking is post-modernism that holds that
> > > all knowledge is ethnocentric, and that conclusions of Western science
> > > is no more valid than the ravings of primitive witch doctors.
> >
> > Utter crap. Post modernist flakes certainly exist, but this is like
> > saying the cutting edge of conservative thought can be found in the
> > dynamics of the Aryan Nation movement. Besides, post modernism is
> > hardly cutting edge; it's been around for at least 40 years.
>
> Post-modernism has a protected place in liberal-dominated universities,
> the same universities that ban politically incorrect thoughts.
All thought has a protected place in the University setting. That
protected place is embraced under the concept of Academic Freedom,
which is sacrosanct. As for "politically incorrect" thoughts,
universitites harbor intellectuals whose opinions vary widely. Some
members of the Harvard Arts faculty may have a liberal bent (Bloom
certainly didn't), but Harvard's business school is, if anything, hard,
pragmatic and thoroughly capitalist. Their engineers are basically
without politics, since engineering is so demanding a study that
diversions into political thought aren't done. Harvard Law has produced
many more sharks than doves. This is typical of the so'called "elitist"
schools.
I taught in an adjunct capcity for 19 years at several different
schools. I never, ever was chided, criticized or even talked-to about
anything I said in a classroom, and believe me, when the occasion arose
I didn't spare anyone my opinions, some of which certainly were not
Liberal mainstream. I'm also a member of The National Association of
Scholars, a society founded to assure that academic freedom is not to
be impinged upon by either the Right or the Left.
When you read about some alleged academic PC persecution, it's
invariably an anecdote garnered from one of the hundreds of academic
institutions in the United States, and it's often told in a one-sided
way, colored in inflammatory prose. These incidents -- if they actually
did occur -- are rare and are often related to other things, notably
poor teaching or real sexual harrassment. Playing the PC card, you must
realize, is a lot like playing the race card. If I'm a professor and
denied tenure because I'm really not much of a scholar, I can always
claim that I'm being persecuted for my political beliefs. If I've
treated my female students badly, or attemted to date them, was
rebuffed and took revenge on their grades, I can always claim a PC
persecution.
>
> > > Liberals do not distinguish between serious scientists, those who
> > > engage in scientific research, and pop scientists who write popular
> > > literature and/or create documentaries for public TV. They generally
> > > quote the latter and ignore the former. Given their pragmatism, one is
> > > just as good as the other and the latter is generally easier to
> > > understand.
> >
> > Sorry, Spanky, but the confusion of pop science with real science is as
> > much or more a conservtive fault as a liberal enthusiasm.
>
> Scientists like Paul Erlich and the late Carl Sagan as well as others
> featured in public television are pop scientists.
Most of the crap in the Self-help sections of any bookstore is pop.
What is your complaint about Erlich, that he made doomsday predictions
no one listened-to? What about Sagan? I found both of them to be a bit
overwrought and (at least in Erlich's case) pretentious, hysterical,
and grossly mistaken. The Right's notion that somehow corporate
capitalism will save the world, is just as stupid and more destructive
than anything published by Erlich, however. The Right has their own
stable of "scientists" who'll support anything they want, by the way.
For myself, I'd trust much more the contents of a peer reviewed journal
than anything a political hack might utter.
>
> > The bookstores are literally stuffed with the crapola of motivational
> > gurus and self-help "experts." Few of them are liberal; many more fall in
> > the caste of Dr. Laura.
>
> I don't regard Dr. Laura as any sort of scientist.
Good. Neither do I.
>
> > > Many liberals hold to a doctrine of "political correctness" whereby
> > > scientific conclusions can be evaluated by their conformance to a
> > > political ideology.
> >
> > No, this is utter nonsense. The Pugs are much more prone to bending
> > fact to poitical expedience. By the way, where are those WMDs, anyway?
>
> No. Liberals hold the edge on bending facts to fit their agenda.
Right. Where are those WMDs, by the way?
>
> > > Since the time of Rousseau, left wing political thought has held that
> > > science is bad, that technology is bad, that industrialization is bad,
> > > that affluence and prosperity are bad, that innocence is to be found in
> > > primitive existence.
> >
> > Rousseau???? What an ignorant shit you are. Read Bloom's comments on
> > Rousseau to comprehend his influence on conservative thought. Bloom,
> > by the way is a conservative philosopher. He authored CLOSING OF THE
> > AMERICAN MIND.
>
> I've read Rousseau. That's enough to let me know about his thinking.
> Perhaps this t1gercat should pull his head out of his ass and do some
> reading.
Yes, you have? What did you read? What was the context of the writing?
What influence, if any, did it have on American political thought?
>
> > > This view often gets expressed in movies like "Jurassic Park" where the
> > > character played by Jeff Goldblum refers to scientific discovery as the
> > > "rape of the natural world."
> >
> > Uh... a movie?
>
> Yes.
>
> > How about Damien III where Jesus kills the devil?
>
> How about it?
>
> > It's just as relevant.
>
> Only to the extent the characters make comments that have political
> implications.
>
> > Or how about movies like "Madam Curie," or "Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet?"
>
> How about it?
These were certainly films that depicted scientists as heros. There
were also others -- Pasteur -- for one. I don't expect much from
Hollywood. The mainstream media is grossly capitalist and it caters to
public taste. The problem with capitalism is that it invariably strives
for the lowest common demoninator, because that's where the profits
are. Today, violence, sex, romance, adventure, and magic are what the
public wants. You'll find science explored, and explained, much better
on Public Television.
>
> Movie producer Steven Spielberg and novelist Michael Crichton are both
> liberals. They both produced a movie, "Jurassic Park," where the
> characters make statements that imply a hostility to science.
Yeah, yeah, and every fundamentalist preacher who advocates old time
religion is immensely hostile to modern science. And all of them are
hard over Republicans. I vaguely remember Jurassic Park, and what I
remember of it implied that using science to engineer the resurrection
of long extinct creatures -- for profit and without any external
controls -- was both morally wrong and highly dangerous. By the way,
isn't that the essence of the Bushie complaint about stem cell
research?
>
> > > The environmental movement is the current expression of this view.
> > > Indeed, they've decided that humanity itself is bad for the planet.
> >
> > Yeah, we all know how well industrialists took care of the enviornment
> > before the enviornmental movement began.
>
> Liberals believe the environment was better off before human beings
> appeared.
?????? That's an odd thing to say. I suppose the earth functioned well
enough 100,000 years ago, long before humans had any impact. The
problem is that industrial civilization changes the enviornment. Every
creature makes some impact on the environment, but humans are capable
of making gross impacts, and the impacts we've made haven't all been
for the best. In the U.S., for example, deep tilling of soil has
grossly eroded our topsoil. Is that good? Is it good for the
environment? Good for people? Is it a "Liberal" issue or a public
issue that should have no politics connected to it? The same could be
said for overgrazing, meddling with river flows, CO2 build-up, and
mercury in our water supply. What is "Liberal" about public health and
the state of our natural resources?
>
> > > "The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted
> > > with a hearty 'Good riddance!", said environmentalist Paul Taylor in
> > > "Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics."
> >
> > Paul Taylor speaks for himself and a clutch of nutcases when he says
> > things like that.
>
> Taylor, et al, are consistent exponents of environmentalist beliefs.
Who is "et al?"
>
> > I suppose the world was much better before the enviornmental movement,
> > when Cleveland's river caught fire and there were no live fish in Lake
> > Erie.
>
> The world will be considerably worse off if the environmentist campaign
> of deindustrialization succeeds.
This is laughable. A very few radical nutcases believe in
deindustrialization and, to you, this is the epicenter of Liberal
thought. Of course, you've ignored the fact that a few radical nutcases
on the Right are very much believers in deindustrialization and the
dissolution of government. Following your logic, can I invoke the
"Freemen" movement as indicative of mainstream Republican politics? Are
the survivalists Bush-Cheney Republicans? Hardly.
The enviornmental movement is largely the product of very responsible
people of varying political outlooks who have worked their entire lives
to improve the environmental impact of industrial work. That's why
enviornmental legislation has long been bi-partisan and has persisted
for 30 years over several different changes of adminitration and a
massive change in Congress. Do you think acid rain is a good thing? Do
you think that despoiling rivers with dioxins, mercucy and other
harmful chemicals is good? Do you think that species extinction, the
clear-cutting of forests, uncontrolled strip mining and gross oil
spills are good things?
>
> > > The opposite viewpoint is that science, technology, industrialization
> > > and abundance are good things, that human life on this Earth is a
> > > value. That view appears to get a better reception among Republicans
> > > than Democrats.
> >
> > No, it doesn't. The Pugs value short term profits above everything,
> > believe in enviornmental exploitation, clear-cutting forests,
> > despoiling our rivers and lakes, fouling our air and killing our
> > wildlife.
>
> This is the environmentalist characterization of industrialization.
> They want to do away with all that.
Yes, they do.
Wexford
Jim Austin
I stated facts. Fortunately, facts do not require acknowledgement of
intellectally dishonest liberals.
> >Actually, there has been a reaction to science from right and left.
> >
> >The right reacted to the conclusions of science.
> >
> >The left reacted to the results of science.
>
> Sounds like you don't know anything about science.
I was talking history, something liberals like to ignore, that is when
they're not distorting it.
> >> >Many liberals hold to a doctrine of "political correctness" whereby
> >> >scientific conclusions can be evaluated by their conformance to a
> >> >political ideology.
> >>
> >> So sorry -it's the other way around. Liberal political correctness is
> >> usually based on science. It's just annoying because it tends to be
> >> anal, but unfortunately, it's usually right.
> >
> >No. Political correctness has been based on post-modernism, which is
> >hostile to science.
>
> No, political correctness is always with us.
No. It first popped up under Stalin who sent scientists to the gulag
who didn't sign on to his political hack Lysenko.
> >Political correctness holds that one culture is as good as another.
> >Thus they refer to as "racist" anybody who criticizes another culture,
> >particularly a culture that spawns terrorism.
>
> No, political correctness terms someone who abuses another person on
> the basis of their race or culture as racist.
No. It tries to insert race into a subject where it's irrelevant.
> Let me guess - you are feeling a bit racist and don't like being
> criticized for it.
I didn't criticize any race. But then I don't have to. Calling somebody
"politically incorrect" never had any sting. Thus liberals call
somebody racist when on a subject not involving race.
Thus in a community college in Orange County, some professor was
charged with racism when he denounced terrorists. Liberals invoke
racism when a caucasion criticizes other caucasions.
Liberal use of the term "racist" is dishonest to the core. But then an
honest liberal is a contradiction of terms.
> >> >Since the time of Rousseau, left wing political thought has held that
> >> >science is bad, that technology is bad, that industrialization is bad,
> >> >that affluence and prosperity are bad, that innocence is to be found in
> >> >primitive existence.
> >> >
> >> >This view often gets expressed in movies like "Jurassic Park" where the
> >> >character played by Jeff Goldblum refers to scientific discovery as the
> >> >"rape of the natural world."
> >> >
> >> >The environmental movement is the current expression of this view.
> >> >Indeed, they've decided that humanity itself is bad for the planet.
> >> >"The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted
> >> >with a hearty 'Good riddance!", said environmentalist Paul Taylor in
> >> >"Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics."
> >> >
> >> >The opposite viewpoint is that science, technology, industrialization
> >> >and abundance are good things, that human life on this Earth is a
> >> >value. That view appears to get a better reception among Republicans
> >> >than Democrats.
> >>
> >> Uh, good for what and who?
> >
> >Members of the species homo sapiens. Science has prolonged and enriched
> >human life.
>
> OK, yes it has.
Which is why liberals oppose science.
> It's allowed us to use greater knowledge so we don't make stupid decisions,
> including the use of science to fuck up our world.
That would be creating industries.
> Unfortunately it doesn't also give us the wisdom and restraint not to
> go hog wild when we get some power because of it.
That means, Kate wants us to use non-scientific notions to regulate
science.
> Face it. You just want to go hog wild and don't like it when someone
> smarter and wiser than you disapproves.
That would be non-scientists considering themselves smarter and wiser
than scientists?
> Poor baby. Not too mature, are you?
Like other liberals, Kate considers name-calling mature.
> >> If you actually look at science, it's really bad for human life, and
> >> that's what liberals value - not how much money we can make off it
> >> today (don't wanna think about the future and my kids) which is always
> >> the most popular among Republicans.
> >
> >This last statement, "bad for human life," confirms my notion that
> >liberals are hostile to science, precisely because it has prolonged and
> >enriched human life.
Kate does not challenge this. Rather she regales us with standardized
liberal rhetoric.
> Sounds like you have your asshole confused with a hole in the wall and
> are somehow trying to take it out on the smart people.
I like it when liberals bare their scatologically obsessed souls. It
confirms my highest opinion of them.
Richard Smol
Wow, I take it you had a lot of practice juggling all those
straw men!
RS
Jim Austin
No. Certain politically incorrect thoughts have been banned from the
university setting.
> That protected place is embraced under the concept of Academic Freedom,
> which is sacrosanct.
Not any more. The liberal contingent has been moving from academic
freedom to enforcement of political correctness. Naturally, one finds
various college campuses at different stages of transition. One may
even find backwater colleges continuing to embrace free speech.
> As for "politically incorrect" thoughts, universitites harbor intellectuals
> whose opinions vary widely.
Not that widely. It usually ranges from moderate liberal to the extreme
left.
> Some members of the Harvard Arts faculty may have a liberal bent (Bloom
> certainly didn't), but Harvard's business school is, if anything, hard,
> pragmatic and thoroughly capitalist. Their engineers are basically
> without politics, since engineering is so demanding a study that
> diversions into political thought aren't done. Harvard Law has produced
> many more sharks than doves. This is typical of the so'called "elitist"
> schools.
>
> I taught in an adjunct capcity for 19 years at several different
> schools. I never, ever was chided, criticized or even talked-to about
> anything I said in a classroom, and believe me, when the occasion arose
> I didn't spare anyone my opinions, some of which certainly were not
> Liberal mainstream. I'm also a member of The National Association of
> Scholars, a society founded to assure that academic freedom is not to
> be impinged upon by either the Right or the Left.
They're not doing a very good job of it.
> When you read about some alleged academic PC persecution, it's
> invariably an anecdote garnered from one of the hundreds of academic
> institutions in the United States, and it's often told in a one-sided
> way, colored in inflammatory prose. These incidents -- if they actually
> did occur -- are rare and are often related to other things, notably
> poor teaching or real sexual harrassment.
No. They've been reported in newspapers across the United States. An
Orange County community college professor was hauled up on charges of
"racism" when he denounced Arab terrorists.
> Playing the PC card, you must realize, is a lot like playing the race card.
Practioners of PC do not make that distinction.
> If I'm a professor and denied tenure because I'm really not much of a
> scholar, I can always claim that I'm being persecuted for my political
> beliefs. If I've treated my female students badly, or attemted to date them,
> was rebuffed and took revenge on their grades, I can always claim a PC
> persecution.
I suppose that's possible, but not typical. Mostly, certain professors
have been charged with "racism" for speaking out on subjects not
involving race.
> > > > Liberals do not distinguish between serious scientists, those who
> > > > engage in scientific research, and pop scientists who write popular
> > > > literature and/or create documentaries for public TV. They generally
> > > > quote the latter and ignore the former. Given their pragmatism, one is
> > > > just as good as the other and the latter is generally easier to
> > > > understand.
> > >
> > > Sorry, Spanky, but the confusion of pop science with real science is as
> > > much or more a conservtive fault as a liberal enthusiasm.
> >
> > Scientists like Paul Erlich and the late Carl Sagan as well as others
> > featured in public television are pop scientists.
>
> Most of the crap in the Self-help sections of any bookstore is pop.
True, but most of the crap have little if any political implications.
> What is your complaint about Erlich, that he made doomsday predictions
> no one listened-to?
No. He made doomsday predictions that everybody listened to, but never
happened.
> What about Sagan?
He used his status as a scientist, an astronomer, to push his pacifist
agenda.
> I found both of them to be a bit overwrought and (at least in Erlich's case)
> pretentious, hysterical, and grossly mistaken. The Right's notion that
> somehow corporate capitalism will save the world, is just as stupid and more
> destructive than anything published by Erlich, however.
No. Capitalism has resulted in longer life and higher standard of
living. The use of corporations have been unmatched in massing capital
to create industries that hire persons and produce items making
possible the higher standard of living.
> The Right has their own stable of "scientists" who'll support anything they
> want, by the way. For myself, I'd trust much more the contents of a peer
> reviewed journal than anything a political hack might utter.
In terms of serious, hard science, I would go along with that.
> > > The bookstores are literally stuffed with the crapola of motivational
> > > gurus and self-help "experts." Few of them are liberal; many more fall in
> > > the caste of Dr. Laura.
> >
> > I don't regard Dr. Laura as any sort of scientist.
>
> Good. Neither do I.
>
> >
> > > > Many liberals hold to a doctrine of "political correctness" whereby
> > > > scientific conclusions can be evaluated by their conformance to a
> > > > political ideology.
> > >
> > > No, this is utter nonsense. The Pugs are much more prone to bending
> > > fact to poitical expedience. By the way, where are those WMDs, anyway?
> >
> > No. Liberals hold the edge on bending facts to fit their agenda.
>
> Right. Where are those WMDs, by the way?
Beats me.
Before the war, the U.S. had indications:
1. Iraq had produced and used chemical weapons in the past.
2. Iraq was less than completely cooperative with U.N. inspectors.
3. Saddam Hussein had a record of tyranny, aggression and support of
terrorist activities.
Such a record did not justify putting the most favorable construction
on facts known about Iraq.
Chemical weapons did exist, and much was never accounted for. They may
have been buried in the Iraqi desert, found its way to Syria or Iran.
> > > > Since the time of Rousseau, left wing political thought has held that
> > > > science is bad, that technology is bad, that industrialization is bad,
> > > > that affluence and prosperity are bad, that innocence is to be found in
> > > > primitive existence.
> > >
> > > Rousseau???? What an ignorant shit you are. Read Bloom's comments on
> > > Rousseau to comprehend his influence on conservative thought. Bloom,
> > > by the way is a conservative philosopher. He authored CLOSING OF THE
> > > AMERICAN MIND.
> >
> > I've read Rousseau. That's enough to let me know about his thinking.
> > Perhaps this t1gercat should pull his head out of his ass and do some
> > reading.
>
> Yes, you have?
Yes.
> What did you read?
"On Liberty," and "On the Orgins of Inequality."
> What was the context of the writing?
Rousseau was part of a reaction to the Age of Enlightenment. People
during the Enlightenment believed that the methods of rationality and
science could be appled to human problems. It resulted in democracy,
freedom, rights and capitalism.
The reaction, led by Rousseau, emphasized emotion, collectivism and
duties.
> What influence, if any, did it have on American political thought?
It made people regard "natural" as preferable to the "artificial,"
regard the untouched wilderness as preferable to human use and
development. People projected the concept of "noble savage" to Third
World savage barbarians. It resulted in a leftward pull on American
political thought.
> > > > This view often gets expressed in movies like "Jurassic Park" where the
> > > > character played by Jeff Goldblum refers to scientific discovery as the
> > > > "rape of the natural world."
> > >
> > > Uh... a movie?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > How about Damien III where Jesus kills the devil?
> >
> > How about it?
> >
> > > It's just as relevant.
> >
> > Only to the extent the characters make comments that have political
> > implications.
> >
> > > Or how about movies like "Madam Curie," or "Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet?"
> >
> > How about it?
>
> These were certainly films that depicted scientists as heros. There
> were also others -- Pasteur -- for one.
These were films of the 1930s and '40s.
> I don't expect much from Hollywood. The mainstream media is grossly
> capitalist and it caters to public taste.
Public taste tends toward heroism. Hollywood output tends to demean
heroism and glorifies bad guys. In many such movies, "Batman" comes to
mind, the bad guy is the one having the fun.
> The problem with capitalism is that it invariably strives for the lowest
> common demoninator, because that's where the profits are. Today, violence,
> sex, romance, adventure, and magic are what the public wants.
The public wants action, heroism, and yes, romance and adventure. Yes.
The public likes sex too. While the public like hetrosexual type sex,
Hollywood has been pushing homosexual sex, even though there is little
public demand for it.
> You'll find science explored, and explained, much better on Public Television.
This would be by pop scientists.
> > Movie producer Steven Spielberg and novelist Michael Crichton are both
> > liberals. They both produced a movie, "Jurassic Park," where the
> > characters make statements that imply a hostility to science.
>
> Yeah, yeah, and every fundamentalist preacher who advocates old time
> religion is immensely hostile to modern science.
True.
> And all of them are hard over Republicans.
Dishearteningly, yes.
In 1988, I did contemplate a nightmare race between Rev. Pat Robertson
and Rev. Jesse Jackson for the presidency.
> I vaguely remember Jurassic Park, and what I remember of it implied that
> using science to engineer the resurrection of long extinct creatures -- for
> profit and without any external controls -- was both morally wrong and highly
> dangerous.
The capitalist pushing for the engineering of dinosaurs wanted to make
his park available to everybody.
However, in the movie, the central characters made disparaging remarks
about science in general, one calling it the "rape of the natural
world."
> By the way, isn't that the essence of the Bushie complaint about stem cell
> research?
Not exactly. Bush incorrectly considers cells resulting from conception
as human life that deserves the protection of laws.
> > > > The environmental movement is the current expression of this view.
> > > > Indeed, they've decided that humanity itself is bad for the planet.
> > >
> > > Yeah, we all know how well industrialists took care of the enviornment
> > > before the enviornmental movement began.
> >
> > Liberals believe the environment was better off before human beings
> > appeared.
>
> ?????? That's an odd thing to say. I suppose the earth functioned well
> enough 100,000 years ago, long before humans had any impact. The
> problem is that industrial civilization changes the enviornment. Every
> creature makes some impact on the environment, but humans are capable
> of making gross impacts, and the impacts we've made haven't all been
> for the best.
Or as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) founder Ingrid
Newkirk said, human beings were "the biggest blight on the face of the
earth."
Others have referred to humans as a cancerous growth.
> In the U.S., for example, deep tilling of soil has grossly eroded our
> topsoil. Is that good?
Erosion is not good.
> Is it good for the environment? Good for people?
"No" to both.
> Is it a "Liberal" issue or a public issue that should have no politics
> connected to it?
It becomes liberal and political when farmers are denied water to
irrigate their crops because environmentalists claim some danger to
some fish.
> The same could be said for overgrazing, meddling with river flows, CO2 build-
> up, and mercury in our water supply. What is "Liberal" about public health and
> the state of our natural resources?
It becomes "liberal" when such become pretexts for an agenda of
deindustrialization.
> > > > "The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted
> > > > with a hearty 'Good riddance!", said environmentalist Paul Taylor in
> > > > "Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics."
> > >
> > > Paul Taylor speaks for himself and a clutch of nutcases when he says
> > > things like that.
> >
> > Taylor, et al, are consistent exponents of environmentalist beliefs.
>
> Who is "et al?"
Other environmentalists and animal rights activists like Ingrid Newkirk
and Freeman Wicklund of Compassionate Action for Animals who has
declared, "We need a drastic decrease in human population if we ever
hope to create a just and equitable world for animals."
> > > I suppose the world was much better before the enviornmental movement,
> > > when Cleveland's river caught fire and there were no live fish in Lake
> > > Erie.
> >
> > The world will be considerably worse off if the environmentist campaign
> > of deindustrialization succeeds.
>
> This is laughable. A very few radical nutcases believe in
> deindustrialization and, to you, this is the epicenter of Liberal
> thought.
Epicenter? No.
It does represent a consistant application of certain liberal beliefs.
> Of course, you've ignored the fact that a few radical nutcases
> on the Right are very much believers in deindustrialization...
None come to mind.
> ...and the dissolution of government.
There are a few libertarian anarchists. They believe in premises not
shared by Republicans, and thus not indicative of Republican agenda.
> Following your logic, can I invoke the "Freemen" movement as indicative of
> mainstream Republican politics?
I don't know. I've never heard of any "Freemen" movement.
> Are the survivalists Bush-Cheney Republicans? Hardly.
Survivalists believe America is doomed and thus prepare for personal
survival. If they were factually correct, I would support their
conclusions.
> The enviornmental movement is largely the product of very responsible
> people of varying political outlooks who have worked their entire lives
> to improve the environmental impact of industrial work. That's why
> enviornmental legislation has long been bi-partisan and has persisted
> for 30 years over several different changes of adminitration and a
> massive change in Congress. Do you think acid rain is a good thing?
Acid rain has been shown not to be a factor in killing fish in the
Great Lakes region. That's why I haven't heard much about acid rain in
decades.
> Do you think that despoiling rivers with dioxins, mercucy and other
> harmful chemicals is good?
The question assumes facts not in evidence.
> Do you think that species extinction, the clear-cutting of forests,
> uncontrolled strip mining and gross oil spills are good things?
I believe that mining a good thing, since it produces substances
necessary for industrialization.
I belive that cutting down trees is a good thing since it provides wood
for construction of building and other products, including paper.
I'm not interested in deindustrialization in order to protect the snail
darter. I don't believe in multiplying the number of species by giving
geographical names to the same animal in different locales and then
putting all of them on the endangered species list.
> > > > The opposite viewpoint is that science, technology, industrialization
> > > > and abundance are good things, that human life on this Earth is a
> > > > value. That view appears to get a better reception among Republicans
> > > > than Democrats.
> > >
> > > No, it doesn't. The Pugs value short term profits above everything,
> > > believe in enviornmental exploitation, clear-cutting forests,
> > > despoiling our rivers and lakes, fouling our air and killing our
> > > wildlife.
> >
> > This is the environmentalist characterization of industrialization.
> > They want to do away with all that.
>
> Yes, they do.
They want us all to live in caves.
> Wexford
Jim Austin
> In article <1125200522....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Apostate wrote:
> >
> > > On 27 Aug 2005 15:57:36 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >johac wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> In case you're wondering, I'm a scientist and a liberal, and with all
> > > >> due respect, I don't think that you know what the hell you are talking
> > > >> about.
> > > >
> > > >Sounds like a personal problem. If Hachmann's scientific methodology is
> > > >like what he shows in his post, then he is a lousy scientist.
> > >
> > > Yeah, that's a good argument, when confronted with your ignorance: "people
> > > who know stuff are ruining everything for the rest of us."
> >
> > So far, I've only been confronted with Hachmann's ignorance.
> >
>
> Why don't you try to post something intelligent for a change?
Fortunately, the intelligence level of my posts does not require the
acknowledgement of intellectually dishonest liberals.
<Snip> The rest.
Jim Austin
I'm not interested in Hachmann's intellectual status either.
> > > I'm a liberal, and like many other thinkers on the right and
> > > the left, I think that post-modernism is pure horse crap.
> >
> > Post-modernism more consistently applies what pragmatists believe.
>
> I do not believe in post modernism just because ignorant sods like you
> say so.
I'm not interested in the beliefs of hacks, quacks, shysters and
charlitans.
> > > > Liberals do not distinguish between serious scientists, those who
> > > > engage in scientific research, and pop scientists who write popular
> > > > literature and/or create documentaries for public TV. They generally
> > > > quote the latter and ignore the former. Given their pragmatism, one is
> > > > just as good as the other and the latter is generally easier to
> > > > understand.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. How come it's the big conservative corporations...
> >
> > Conservative corporation? Most corporations are run by limousine
> > liberals and penthouse prolitariates.
>
> Geez, you know even less about politics than you know about science
> which isn't much.
I think Hachmann must be looking in a mirror.
> > > ...who dress up an actor in a white coat and put him or her in front of a
> > > camera to lie and defend the company's interests or sell it's worthless
> > > dangerous products?
> >
> > The question assumes facts not in evidence.
>
> Nonetheless they are facts. Read up on how the tobacco companies used to
> try to sell their products on TV.
Hachmann's statement was about "big conservative corporations". The
objectionable antics of the tobacco industry does not support his
generalization about corporations. Most corporations do not sell
worthless, dangerous products.
Indeed, if this is an example of Hachmann's methodology that he applies
to his work as a scientist, then he is a hack, quack, shyster,
charlitan.
> > > > Many liberals hold to a doctrine of "political correctness" whereby
> > > > scientific conclusions can be evaluated by their conformance to a
> > > > political ideology.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. If the data support the theory, it is valid, whether the
> > > conclusion is popular or not.
> >
> > That is true, but that's not the way practitioners of political
> > correctness see it.
>
> Political correctness has nothing to do with science.
It shouldn't, but it does.
> > > > Since the time of Rousseau, left wing political thought has held that
> > > > science is bad, that technology is bad, that industrialization is bad,
> > > > that affluence and prosperity are bad, that innocence is to be found in
> > > > primitive existence.
> > >
> > > Utter nonsense. What makes you think liberals want to live in caves?
> >
> > Liberals oppose the construction of new housing. Liberals oppose new
> > construction per se. "Developers" is a pejorative term to the liberal
> > contingent.
> >
> > Liberals oppose the generation of new power. Liberals oppose drilling
> > for more oil. Liberals oppose construction of new oil refineries.
>
> Making a lot of generalizations here, aren't we?
I notice no challenge to my generalizations.
> > I'm sure that limousine liberals and penthouse proletariates would
> > prefer their good homes and standard of living. They just begrudge it
> > to the rest of us.
>
> More nonsense.
It will take more than a blank denial to refute my statements.
Unfortunately, that one stupid person speaks for liberals.
> > > In case you're wondering, I'm a scientist and a liberal, and with all
> > > due respect, I don't think that you know what the hell you are talking
> > > about.
> >
> > Sounds like a personal problem. If Hachmann's scientific methodology is
> > like what he shows in his post, then he is a lousy scientist.
There is no denial here. Rather:
> How would you know. Did you read popular science once? Did you watch an
> episode of Nova?
>
> Sorry, Junior, you get an F- for the course.
A grade from a hack professor is not controlling.
> > Is that why liberals go around rationalizing, minimizing, sanitizing
> > atrocities committed by terrorists and leftist dictatorships?
>
> Name some.
John Kerry, Jane Fonda, John Kenneth Galbraith, George McGovern, Jesse
Jackson, Jimmy Carter, Andrew Cockburn, the writers of "Nation"
magazine come to mind.
Jim Austin
Let's see.
A straw man argument is an argument one makes up for the opposition.
Since I referred to actual arguments made by the opposition, calling
them "straw men" will not make them go away.
Liberals have denigrated science, including some of my critics.
Those are facts.
Get over it.
maff
So you're going to sacrifice your life and money for the cause? Those
good old days when you can imprison, torture and murder scientists is
over.
"We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason
of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you
have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy
Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed
a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture:
namely that Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east
to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after
it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture.
Consequently, you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined
and promulgated by the sacred Canons and all particular and general
laws against such delinquents. We are willing to absolve you from them
provided that first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in our
presence you abjure, curse and detest the said errors and heresies, and
every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic
Church in the manner and form we will prescribe to you. Furthermore, so
that this grievous and pernicious error and transgression of yours may
not go altogether unpunished, and so that you will be more cautious in
future, and an example for others to abstain from delinquencies of this
sort, we order that the book Dialogue of Galileo Galilei be prohibited
by public edict. We condemn you to formal imprisonment in this Holy
Office at our pleasure. As a salutary penance we impose on you to
recite the seven penitential psalms once a week for the next three
years. And we reserve to ourselves the power of moderating, commuting,
or taking off, the whole or part of the said penalties and penances.
This we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, order and reserve by this or
any other better manner or form that we reasonably can or shall think
of. So we the undersigned Cardinals pronounce:
F. Cardinal of Ascoli
B. Cardinal Gessi
G. Cardinal Bentivoglio
F. Cardinal Verospi
Fr. D. Cardinal of Cremona
M. Cardinal Ginetti
Fr. Ant. s Cardinal of. S. Onofrio"
Galileo
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/1f9b608598ac3485
Enemies of Science & Knowledge
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1ab9960f58c6c4f3
>
> Get over it.
Kate
Cite
And I think you will find that liberals denigrate people for foolish
use of science, not science.
>
>Those are facts.
>
>Get over it.
I do accept facts. You like many conservatives make yours up when you
decide you don't like the real ones as you have amply illustrated in
this thread.
johac
"Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
You have revealed yourself for what you are. A common usenet troll.
Rather than argue intelligently, you post a slew of unsupported
assertions and loony tune conspiracy theories. When confronted, all you
do is hurl insults.
I do not believe in a afterlife. The time I have on this planet is all
I get. I intend to make the most of it. Life is just to short to argue
with fools.
<PLONK!>
Jim Austin
I cite Kate who in her August 26 post said, "If you actually look at
science, it's really bad for human life..."
> And I think you will find that liberals denigrate people for foolish
> use of science, not science.
No. The quote denigrated science.
> >Those are facts.
> >
> >Get over it.
>
> I do accept facts.
No. Kate misrepresents facts.
> You like many conservatives make yours up when you decide you don't like the
> real ones as you have amply illustrated in this thread.
No. Kate made up a fact when she said that liberals denigrated people,
not science. Her own earlier quote proved otherwise.
Jim Austin
Unresponsive and irrelevant.
If maff is trying to make that out as my attitude, then he's lying.
<Snip> The rest.
Jim Austin
No. It was Hachmann who started with the insults in his first response
with, "I don't think that you know what the hell you are talking
about." All this came after denying but not refuting anything I said.
Apparently this is what he considers proper scientific methodology.
> I do not believe in a afterlife.
Neither do I.
> The time I have on this planet is all I get. I intend to make the most of it.
> Life is just to short to argue with fools.
Apparently not, given the number of his posts.
More likely, this is the whine of a liberal who got his ass kicked.
<Snip> The rest.
t1gercat
Really? Name one.
>
> > That protected place is embraced under the concept of Academic Freedom,
> > which is sacrosanct.
>
> Not any more. The liberal contingent has been moving from academic
> freedom to enforcement of political correctness. Naturally, one finds
> various college campuses at different stages of transition. One may
> even find backwater colleges continuing to embrace free speech.
Oh, horseshit. Speech has never been freer on campus. The biggest enemy
to free speech are the whining right wing brats who don't like to hear
professors express opinions or divulge facts inconvenient to their
prejudices.
>
> > As for "politically incorrect" thoughts, universitites harbor intellectuals
> > whose opinions vary widely.
>
> Not that widely. It usually ranges from moderate liberal to the extreme
> left.
Find a "Liberal" business school or a "Liberal" law school or a
"Liberal" engineering school or a "Liberal" medical school. Then check
the number of students in those places versus the arts. I think you'll
find the overwhelming number of students are not pursuing studies that
are even remotely "Liberal" or that are taught with a "Liberal" cast.
>
> > Some members of the Harvard Arts faculty may have a liberal bent (Bloom
> > certainly didn't), but Harvard's business school is, if anything, hard,
> > pragmatic and thoroughly capitalist. Their engineers are basically
> > without politics, since engineering is so demanding a study that
> > diversions into political thought aren't done. Harvard Law has produced
> > many more sharks than doves. This is typical of the so'called "elitist"
> > schools.
> >
> > I taught in an adjunct capcity for 19 years at several different
> > schools. I never, ever was chided, criticized or even talked-to about
> > anything I said in a classroom, and believe me, when the occasion arose
> > I didn't spare anyone my opinions, some of which certainly were not
> > Liberal mainstream. I'm also a member of The National Association of
> > Scholars, a society founded to assure that academic freedom is not to
> > be impinged upon by either the Right or the Left.
>
> They're not doing a very good job of it.
I thing they're doing a very good job of it.
>
> > When you read about some alleged academic PC persecution, it's
> > invariably an anecdote garnered from one of the hundreds of academic
> > institutions in the United States, and it's often told in a one-sided
> > way, colored in inflammatory prose. These incidents -- if they actually
> > did occur -- are rare and are often related to other things, notably
> > poor teaching or real sexual harrassment.
>
> No. They've been reported in newspapers across the United States. An
> Orange County community college professor was hauled up on charges of
> "racism" when he denounced Arab terrorists.
Good, you proved my point. "A" professor -- out of tens of thousands --
was "hauled up on charges of racism when he denounced Arab terrorists."
Really? And what did the professor say? And to whom? And in what
context? You argue from anecdote. All I ever hear when I get involved
in a discussion of this nature are infammatory anecdotes told from a
single viewpoint.
>
> > Playing the PC card, you must realize, is a lot like playing the race card.
>
> Practioners of PC do not make that distinction.
How would you know?
>
> > If I'm a professor and denied tenure because I'm really not much of a
> > scholar, I can always claim that I'm being persecuted for my political
> > beliefs. If I've treated my female students badly, or attemted to date them,
> > was rebuffed and took revenge on their grades, I can always claim a PC
> > persecution.
>
> I suppose that's possible, but not typical. Mostly, certain professors
> have been charged with "racism" for speaking out on subjects not
> involving race.
Again, you're arguing from anecdote. Look, if professors were trembling
in fear of PC persecution, just how long do you think it would last?
Professors have their own strong unions and associations. If the
majority of them felt threatened by a PC witch hunt, believe me the
hunters would become the hunted. PC is a non-issue for most professors
on most campuses; it's hardly even talked-about. It's a big thing,
however, to the college Right who grossly exaggerate the influence of
PC on compus in order to create a persecution myth and to rally support
from outside the campus.
>
> > > > > Liberals do not distinguish between serious scientists, those who
> > > > > engage in scientific research, and pop scientists who write popular
> > > > > literature and/or create documentaries for public TV. They generally
> > > > > quote the latter and ignore the former. Given their pragmatism, one is
> > > > > just as good as the other and the latter is generally easier to
> > > > > understand.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, Spanky, but the confusion of pop science with real science is as
> > > > much or more a conservtive fault as a liberal enthusiasm.
> > >
> > > Scientists like Paul Erlich and the late Carl Sagan as well as others
> > > featured in public television are pop scientists.
> >
> > Most of the crap in the Self-help sections of any bookstore is pop.
>
> True, but most of the crap have little if any political implications.
>
> > What is your complaint about Erlich, that he made doomsday predictions
> > no one listened-to?
>
> No. He made doomsday predictions that everybody listened to, but never
> happened.
Who is everybody? Certainly not John Sonunu, Newt Gingrich, Bill
Frist, or any Bush.
>
> > What about Sagan?
>
> He used his status as a scientist, an astronomer, to push his pacifist
> agenda.
So? By "pacifist agenda" you mean pacifist viewpoint? Wasn't that his
right? John Sonunu, who was infinitely more powerful as a politician
and presidential adviser than Sagan, used his academic credentials in
Physics to deny global warming and to push a blatantly Republican
agenda. By the way, Sonunu is a product of one of those Liberal
unversities you despise.
>
> > I found both of them to be a bit overwrought and (at least in Erlich's case)
> > pretentious, hysterical, and grossly mistaken. The Right's notion that
> > somehow corporate capitalism will save the world, is just as stupid and more
> > destructive than anything published by Erlich, however.
>
> No. Capitalism has resulted in longer life and higher standard of
> living. The use of corporations have been unmatched in massing capital
> to create industries that hire persons and produce items making
> possible the higher standard of living.
Yes, of course. So what? Capitalism -- or our own dirty verison of it
-- has helped propel men upward. No denying that. A byproduct, however,
has been industrial pollution, the gross exploitation of non-renewable
resources, the loss of animal habitat and gross environmental
destruction. We must keep capitalism, but it has to be kept within
confines that make it responsible to the future, that keep our water
and air clean, our natural areas undamaged, and retain resources for
future generations. Why would anyone object to that?
Iraq posed no threat to us. It was poor; it's infrastructure was
decrepid and it's people mired in misery. Saddam Hussein was evil.
There are evil dictators all over the world. We can't get them all, and
even if we could get them, the harm that we'd do in trying would
probably out-evil the bad guys. At home, we lack adequate health care
for the old or indigent. Our own infastructure is declining, and we're
wallowing in trillions of dollars of debt. Our adventure in Iraq will
end in heartbreak and horror and will cost us, eventually, another 1/2
trillion.
Yes, and Russeau's notion of the "noble savage" was amalgamated with
American Protestantism to produce the myth of America as God's country.
According to this myth, we are a nation originally inhabited by rustics
whose spiritual nobility derived from their primitive state and from
their election by God to be part of a special land whose people would
rise above those of the iniquitous sink of old Europe. That part of
the American myth is still very much with us. The Pugs are very much in
tune with it and play it to its fullest any time they can. The problem
is that it pulls against the spirit of the enlightenment and against
our own constitution. The people who most ardently believe it are
fundamentalist Christians (I'd count 90% of the Baptists among them).
The tension that it creates between fundamental belief and our own
Constitution is deep and unrelenting. That's why the perpetrators of
the Myth are always probing the Constituional limits, trying to
insinuate religious practice in public schools, the teaching of
Intelligent Design as an alternative to science, and the teaching of
the Bible as if it were a great work of literature or history rather
than a spotty collection of primitive nonsense.
>
> > > > > This view often gets expressed in movies like "Jurassic Park" where the
> > > > > character played by Jeff Goldblum refers to scientific discovery as the
> > > > > "rape of the natural world."
> > > >
> > > > Uh... a movie?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > > How about Damien III where Jesus kills the devil?
> > >
> > > How about it?
> > >
> > > > It's just as relevant.
> > >
> > > Only to the extent the characters make comments that have political
> > > implications.
> > >
> > > > Or how about movies like "Madam Curie," or "Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet?"
> > >
> > > How about it?
> >
> > These were certainly films that depicted scientists as heros. There
> > were also others -- Pasteur -- for one.
>
> These were films of the 1930s and '40s.
>
> > I don't expect much from Hollywood. The mainstream media is grossly
> > capitalist and it caters to public taste.
>
> Public taste tends toward heroism. Hollywood output tends to demean
> heroism and glorifies bad guys. In many such movies, "Batman" comes to
> mind, the bad guy is the one having the fun.
This is really quite silly. There are plenty of movies where bad guys
are portrayed as utterly loathsome, too.
>
> > The problem with capitalism is that it invariably strives for the lowest
> > common demoninator, because that's where the profits are. Today, violence,
> > sex, romance, adventure, and magic are what the public wants.
>
> The public wants action, heroism, and yes, romance and adventure. Yes.
> The public likes sex too. While the public like hetrosexual type sex,
> Hollywood has been pushing homosexual sex, even though there is little
> public demand for it.
Really? I hadn't noticed. The only movie I've seen recently in which
homosexuality was implied was "Alexander," but, then, it would have
been difficult to make it without some reference to Alexander's
bi-sexuality.
>
> > You'll find science explored, and explained, much better on Public Television.
>
> This would be by pop scientists.
The people on NOVA are hardly pop scientists.
>
> > > Movie producer Steven Spielberg and novelist Michael Crichton are both
> > > liberals. They both produced a movie, "Jurassic Park," where the
> > > characters make statements that imply a hostility to science.
> >
> > Yeah, yeah, and every fundamentalist preacher who advocates old time
> > religion is immensely hostile to modern science.
>
> True.
>
> > And all of them are hard over Republicans.
>
> Dishearteningly, yes.
>
> In 1988, I did contemplate a nightmare race between Rev. Pat Robertson
> and Rev. Jesse Jackson for the presidency.
Kissinger once said of the Iran-Iraq war, it's a shame that both sides
can't lose.
>
> > I vaguely remember Jurassic Park, and what I remember of it implied that
> > using science to engineer the resurrection of long extinct creatures -- for
> > profit and without any external controls -- was both morally wrong and highly
> > dangerous.
>
> The capitalist pushing for the engineering of dinosaurs wanted to make
> his park available to everybody.
>
> However, in the movie, the central characters made disparaging remarks
> about science in general, one calling it the "rape of the natural
> world."
Maybe they did. I don't remember. All I remember is that the T-Rex
looked as if it were made of plastic.
>
> > By the way, isn't that the essence of the Bushie complaint about stem cell
> > research?
>
> Not exactly. Bush incorrectly considers cells resulting from conception
> as human life that deserves the protection of laws.
>
> > > > > The environmental movement is the current expression of this view.
> > > > > Indeed, they've decided that humanity itself is bad for the planet.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, we all know how well industrialists took care of the enviornment
> > > > before the enviornmental movement began.
> > >
> > > Liberals believe the environment was better off before human beings
> > > appeared.
> >
> > ?????? That's an odd thing to say. I suppose the earth functioned well
> > enough 100,000 years ago, long before humans had any impact. The
> > problem is that industrial civilization changes the enviornment. Every
> > creature makes some impact on the environment, but humans are capable
> > of making gross impacts, and the impacts we've made haven't all been
> > for the best.
>
> Or as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) founder Ingrid
> Newkirk said, human beings were "the biggest blight on the face of the
> earth."
Yeah, I know, but PETA is full of nutcases.
>
> Others have referred to humans as a cancerous growth.
>
> > In the U.S., for example, deep tilling of soil has grossly eroded our
> > topsoil. Is that good?
>
> Erosion is not good.
>
> > Is it good for the environment? Good for people?
>
> "No" to both.
>
> > Is it a "Liberal" issue or a public issue that should have no politics
> > connected to it?
>
> It becomes liberal and political when farmers are denied water to
> irrigate their crops because environmentalists claim some danger to
> some fish.
Who runs the country these days? If some perversion of good sense
prevailed, the Right should have corrected it by now.
>
> > The same could be said for overgrazing, meddling with river flows, CO2 build-
> > up, and mercury in our water supply. What is "Liberal" about public health and
> > the state of our natural resources?
>
> It becomes "liberal" when such become pretexts for an agenda of
> deindustrialization.
No one has an agenda of deindustrialization. The closest thing to that
is the capital -- machines and knowledge -- that American companies are
shipping over seas to take advantage of cheap labor.
>
> > > > > "The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted
> > > > > with a hearty 'Good riddance!", said environmentalist Paul Taylor in
> > > > > "Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics."
> > > >
> > > > Paul Taylor speaks for himself and a clutch of nutcases when he says
> > > > things like that.
> > >
> > > Taylor, et al, are consistent exponents of environmentalist beliefs.
> >
> > Who is "et al?"
>
> Other environmentalists and animal rights activists like Ingrid Newkirk
> and Freeman Wicklund of Compassionate Action for Animals who has
> declared, "We need a drastic decrease in human population if we ever
> hope to create a just and equitable world for animals."
Yeah, and they're radical nutcases with no political power and far
outside the mainstream of Liberal thought. Again, it's like quoting
the Aryan Nation and ascribing their ideas to the Republicans. It's
unfair and silly.
>
> > > > I suppose the world was much better before the enviornmental movement,
> > > > when Cleveland's river caught fire and there were no live fish in Lake
> > > > Erie.
> > >
> > > The world will be considerably worse off if the environmentist campaign
> > > of deindustrialization succeeds.
> >
> > This is laughable. A very few radical nutcases believe in
> > deindustrialization and, to you, this is the epicenter of Liberal
> > thought.
>
> Epicenter? No.
>
> It does represent a consistant application of certain liberal beliefs.
No it doesn't.
>
> > Of course, you've ignored the fact that a few radical nutcases
> > on the Right are very much believers in deindustrialization...
>
> None come to mind.
The American Freeman and a host of smaller groups and militias who see
both Liberals and industrialists as their common enemy.
>
> > ...and the dissolution of government.
>
> There are a few libertarian anarchists. They believe in premises not
> shared by Republicans, and thus not indicative of Republican agenda.
OK, fair enough.
>
> > Following your logic, can I invoke the "Freemen" movement as indicative of
> > mainstream Republican politics?
>
> I don't know. I've never heard of any "Freemen" movement.
Montana and Wyoming.
>
> > Are the survivalists Bush-Cheney Republicans? Hardly.
>
> Survivalists believe America is doomed and thus prepare for personal
> survival. If they were factually correct, I would support their
> conclusions.
They also subscribe to the theory (at least some of them) that the ZOG
(Zionist Operated Government) which is in league with industrialists
and bankers are out to get them. I know this nutty and depraved, and my
point is that invoking, say, PETA, as indicative of the spirit of
deindustrialization at the heart of American Liberalism is like
invoking any right wing nut group as the spirit that drives the
Conservative agenda. Both are false.
>
> > The enviornmental movement is largely the product of very responsible
> > people of varying political outlooks who have worked their entire lives
> > to improve the environmental impact of industrial work. That's why
> > enviornmental legislation has long been bi-partisan and has persisted
> > for 30 years over several different changes of adminitration and a
> > massive change in Congress. Do you think acid rain is a good thing?
>
> Acid rain has been shown not to be a factor in killing fish in the
> Great Lakes region. That's why I haven't heard much about acid rain in
> decades.
It's been a factor in killing trees and fish, but it has been reduced
by reduing the sulfur effluents from coal burning power plants. Some of
the most vile effects haven't been felt in the United States. Sweden
and Germany have been badly affected by it.
>
> > Do you think that despoiling rivers with dioxins, mercucy and other
> > harmful chemicals is good?
>
> The question assumes facts not in evidence.
>
> > Do you think that species extinction, the clear-cutting of forests,
> > uncontrolled strip mining and gross oil spills are good things?
>
> I believe that mining a good thing, since it produces substances
> necessary for industrialization.
Yes, but it has to be ordered, regulated and controlled so that the
short term benefits of the mine don't cause long term misery for
everyone.
>
> I belive that cutting down trees is a good thing since it provides wood
> for construction of building and other products, including paper.
Fine. But there are enough trees and enough farmed trees to do exactly
that. Forests don't have to be destroyed wholesale for short-term
gains.
>
> I'm not interested in deindustrialization in order to protect the snail
> darter. I don't believe in multiplying the number of species by giving
> geographical names to the same animal in different locales and then
> putting all of them on the endangered species list.
And where did the snail darter cause deindustrialization? If we can
industrialize, do it cleanly and preserve our species, then what is
wrong with that? As for the rest, stop reading propaganda tracts.
>
> > > > > The opposite viewpoint is that science, technology, industrialization
> > > > > and abundance are good things, that human life on this Earth is a
> > > > > value. That view appears to get a better reception among Republicans
> > > > > than Democrats.
> > > >
> > > > No, it doesn't. The Pugs value short term profits above everything,
> > > > believe in enviornmental exploitation, clear-cutting forests,
> > > > despoiling our rivers and lakes, fouling our air and killing our
> > > > wildlife.
> > >
> > > This is the environmentalist characterization of industrialization.
> > > They want to do away with all that.
> >
> > Yes, they do.
>
> They want us all to live in caves.
If we run out of oil, you'll wish you had a cave.
Wexford
Jim Austin
Name what? One politically incorrect thought or one university?
> > > That protected place is embraced under the concept of Academic Freedom,
> > > which is sacrosanct.
> >
> > Not any more. The liberal contingent has been moving from academic
> > freedom to enforcement of political correctness. Naturally, one finds
> > various college campuses at different stages of transition. One may
> > even find backwater colleges continuing to embrace free speech.
>
> Oh, horseshit.
I really don't need to know this guy's culinary proclivities.
> Speech has never been freer on campus. The biggest enemy to free speech
> are the whining right wing brats who don't like to hear professors express
> opinions or divulge facts inconvenient to their prejudices.
Those on the right are in no position to impose their prejudices on
college campuses. All reports indicate liberal enforcement of
politically correct speech.
> > > As for "politically incorrect" thoughts, universitites harbor intellectuals
> > > whose opinions vary widely.
> >
> > Not that widely. It usually ranges from moderate liberal to the extreme
> > left.
>
> Find a "Liberal" business school or a "Liberal" law school or a
> "Liberal" engineering school or a "Liberal" medical school.
There are plenty of liberal ivy league universities. Enforcement of
politically correct speech began in ivy league colleges. Then it begin
spreading to other colleges.
> Then check the number of students in those places versus the arts. I think you'll
> find the overwhelming number of students are not pursuing studies that
> are even remotely "Liberal" or that are taught with a "Liberal" cast.
I was talking about liberal professors, not liberal students. While
students may persue non-liberal studies, they are required to take
general education courses like philosophy, sociology, history, etc.
that are vulnerable to bias.
> > > Some members of the Harvard Arts faculty may have a liberal bent (Bloom
> > > certainly didn't), but Harvard's business school is, if anything, hard,
> > > pragmatic and thoroughly capitalist. Their engineers are basically
> > > without politics, since engineering is so demanding a study that
> > > diversions into political thought aren't done. Harvard Law has produced
> > > many more sharks than doves. This is typical of the so'called "elitist"
> > > schools.
> > >
> > > I taught in an adjunct capcity for 19 years at several different
> > > schools. I never, ever was chided, criticized or even talked-to about
> > > anything I said in a classroom, and believe me, when the occasion arose
> > > I didn't spare anyone my opinions, some of which certainly were not
> > > Liberal mainstream. I'm also a member of The National Association of
> > > Scholars, a society founded to assure that academic freedom is not to
> > > be impinged upon by either the Right or the Left.
> >
> > They're not doing a very good job of it.
>
> I thing they're doing a very good job of it.
What this guy thinks is not my problem.
> > > When you read about some alleged academic PC persecution, it's
> > > invariably an anecdote garnered from one of the hundreds of academic
> > > institutions in the United States, and it's often told in a one-sided
> > > way, colored in inflammatory prose. These incidents -- if they actually
> > > did occur -- are rare and are often related to other things, notably
> > > poor teaching or real sexual harrassment.
> >
> > No. They've been reported in newspapers across the United States. An
> > Orange County community college professor was hauled up on charges of
> > "racism" when he denounced Arab terrorists.
>
> Good, you proved my point. "A" professor -- out of tens of thousands --
> was "hauled up on charges of racism when he denounced Arab terrorists."
This would be one professor that the media bothered to report. I've
heard about other cases as well. They don't go away if the liberal
media doesn't report on it.
> Really? And what did the professor say?
Terrorism was evil.
> And to whom?
Classroom students.
> And in what context?
The aftermath of 9/11.
> You argue from anecdote. All I ever hear when I get involved
> in a discussion of this nature are infammatory anecdotes told from a
> single viewpoint.
Calling something anecdotal doesn't invalidate it.
> > > Playing the PC card, you must realize, is a lot like playing the race card.
> >
> > Practioners of PC do not make that distinction.
>
> How would you know?
I hear what they say. They refer to criticism of other cultures as
racism, even when the race of the culture is the same as that of the
critic.
> > > If I'm a professor and denied tenure because I'm really not much of a
> > > scholar, I can always claim that I'm being persecuted for my political
> > > beliefs. If I've treated my female students badly, or attemted to date them,
> > > was rebuffed and took revenge on their grades, I can always claim a PC
> > > persecution.
> >
> > I suppose that's possible, but not typical. Mostly, certain professors
> > have been charged with "racism" for speaking out on subjects not
> > involving race.
>
> Again, you're arguing from anecdote. Look, if professors were trembling
> in fear of PC persecution, just how long do you think it would last?
Most professors don't tremble because they hold politically correct
opinions.
> Professors have their own strong unions and associations. If the
> majority of them felt threatened by a PC witch hunt, believe me the
> hunters would become the hunted.
Not if believers in PC formed the majority.
> PC is a non-issue for most professors on most campuses; it's hardly even talked-
> about.
That's probably true. PC hasn't permeated the majority of campuses as
yet.
> It's a big thing, however, to the college Right who grossly exaggerate the
> influence of PC on compus in order to create a persecution myth and to rally
> support from outside the campus.
It's a big thing when right wing speakers get booed by leftists on
campus who want to prevent others from hearing what the speakers have
to say.
> > > > > > Liberals do not distinguish between serious scientists, those who
> > > > > > engage in scientific research, and pop scientists who write popular
> > > > > > literature and/or create documentaries for public TV. They generally
> > > > > > quote the latter and ignore the former. Given their pragmatism, one is
> > > > > > just as good as the other and the latter is generally easier to
> > > > > > understand.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, Spanky, but the confusion of pop science with real science is as
> > > > > much or more a conservtive fault as a liberal enthusiasm.
> > > >
> > > > Scientists like Paul Erlich and the late Carl Sagan as well as others
> > > > featured in public television are pop scientists.
> > >
> > > Most of the crap in the Self-help sections of any bookstore is pop.
> >
> > True, but most of the crap have little if any political implications.
> >
> > > What is your complaint about Erlich, that he made doomsday predictions
> > > no one listened-to?
> >
> > No. He made doomsday predictions that everybody listened to, but never
> > happened.
>
> Who is everybody? Certainly not John Sonunu, Newt Gingrich, Bill
> Frist, or any Bush.
I'm certain that Sonunu, Gingrich, Frist were very aware of Erlicy's
predictions.
> > > What about Sagan?
> >
> > He used his status as a scientist, an astronomer, to push his pacifist
> > agenda.
>
> So?
I was answering a question.
> By "pacifist agenda" you mean pacifist viewpoint?
Yes.
> Wasn't that his right?
Yes.
> John Sonunu, who was infinitely more powerful as a politician
> and presidential adviser than Sagan, used his academic credentials in
> Physics to deny global warming and to push a blatantly Republican
> agenda. By the way, Sonunu is a product of one of those Liberal
> unversities you despise.
There are a number of students who have sufficiently independent minds
to resist attempts at brainwashing.
> > > I found both of them to be a bit overwrought and (at least in Erlich's case)
> > > pretentious, hysterical, and grossly mistaken. The Right's notion that
> > > somehow corporate capitalism will save the world, is just as stupid and more
> > > destructive than anything published by Erlich, however.
> >
> > No. Capitalism has resulted in longer life and higher standard of
> > living. The use of corporations have been unmatched in massing capital
> > to create industries that hire persons and produce items making
> > possible the higher standard of living.
>
> Yes, of course. So what?
So t1gercat's statement about the "notion that somehow corporate
capitalism will save the world," is not stupid or destructive.
> Capitalism -- or our own dirty verison of it -- has helped propel men upward. No
> denying that. A byproduct, however, has been industrial pollution, the gross
> exploitation of non-renewable resources, the loss of animal habitat and gross
> environmental destruction.
No. All that's a byproduct of industrialization, whether it's achieved
by a capitalist or communist system. After the collapse of communism,
it was widely reported that communist rule was an environmental
disaster.
> We must keep capitalism, but it has to be kept within confines that make it
> responsible to the future, that keep our water and air clean, our natural areas
> undamaged, and retain resources for future generations. Why would anyone object to
> that?
I don't know that anybody does. However, liberals have used
environmental concerns to oppose generation of new electricity,
drilling for more oil, building new oil refineries, of construction of
buildings, etc. The environmental agenda is nothing short of
deindustrialization.
Incorrect.
Before the war, Iraq fired on U.S. and British planes enforcing no-fly
zones established after the first Gulf War.
Iraq supported international terrorism that threatened U.S. citizens
traveling abroad.
> It was poor; it's infrastructure was decrepid and it's people mired in misery.
> Saddam Hussein was evil.
Though not so evil that liberals would contemplate inconveniencing him.
> There are evil dictators all over the world. We can't get them all,...
Nor should we. However, when a dictator becomes a problem for the U.S.,
we should be prepare to stomp them.
> ...and even if we could get them, the harm that we'd do in trying would
> probably out-evil the bad guys.
That would be an argument for not trying to get evil dictators like
Adolf Hitler.
> At home, we lack adequate health care for the old or indigent. Our own
> infastructure is declining, and we're wallowing in trillions of dollars of debt.
This is a pacifist argument against any war because it would be costly.
> Our adventure in Iraq will end in heartbreak and horror and will cost us,
> eventually, another 1/2 trillion.
If true, that would be because the U.S. was not tough enough on
terrorists, not because the U.S. was too tough on terrorists.
No. That predated Rousseau.
> According to this myth, we are a nation originally inhabited by rustics
> whose spiritual nobility derived from their primitive state and from
> their election by God to be part of a special land whose people would
> rise above those of the iniquitous sink of old Europe.
I don't recall any fundamentalist asserting that U.S. nobility derived
from any primitive state. Rather they tend to regard "primitive" as
synonymous with "heathen."
This guy denounces beliefs that nobody holds to avoid confronting
actual beliefs.
> That part of the American myth is still very much with us. The Pugs are very
> much in tune with it and play it to its fullest any time they can.
No. This is an argument that liberals like to project on Republicans, a
straw man argument that allows liberals to avoid responding to actual
arguments.
> The problem is that it pulls against the spirit of the enlightenment
> and against our own constitution.
This would be the non-existant myth.
> The people who most ardently believe it are fundamentalist Christians
> (I'd count 90% of the Baptists among them).
This guy loses sight of Rousseau's supposed influence and goes into a
denunciation of fundamentalism, a denunciation I agree with.
> The tension that it creates between fundamental belief and our own
> Constitution is deep and unrelenting. That's why the perpetrators
> of the Myth are always probing the Constituional limits, trying to
> insinuate religious practice in public schools, the teaching of
> Intelligent Design as an alternative to science, and the teaching of
> the Bible as if it were a great work of literature or history rather
> than a spotty collection of primitive nonsense.
None of this can be traced to Rousseau.
> > > > > > This view often gets expressed in movies like "Jurassic Park" where the
> > > > > > character played by Jeff Goldblum refers to scientific discovery as the
> > > > > > "rape of the natural world."
> > > > >
> > > > > Uh... a movie?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > > How about Damien III where Jesus kills the devil?
> > > >
> > > > How about it?
> > > >
> > > > > It's just as relevant.
> > > >
> > > > Only to the extent the characters make comments that have political
> > > > implications.
> > > >
> > > > > Or how about movies like "Madam Curie," or "Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet?"
> > > >
> > > > How about it?
> > >
> > > These were certainly films that depicted scientists as heros. There
> > > were also others -- Pasteur -- for one.
> >
> > These were films of the 1930s and '40s.
> >
> > > I don't expect much from Hollywood. The mainstream media is grossly
> > > capitalist and it caters to public taste.
> >
> > Public taste tends toward heroism. Hollywood output tends to demean
> > heroism and glorifies bad guys. In many such movies, "Batman" comes to
> > mind, the bad guy is the one having the fun.
>
> This is really quite silly. There are plenty of movies where bad guys
> are portrayed as utterly loathsome, too.
That would be movies like "Silence of the Lambs," where a brutal serial
killer, Hannabal the Cannibal, is portrayed sympathetically.
> > > The problem with capitalism is that it invariably strives for the lowest
> > > common demoninator, because that's where the profits are. Today, violence,
> > > sex, romance, adventure, and magic are what the public wants.
> >
> > The public wants action, heroism, and yes, romance and adventure. Yes.
> > The public likes sex too. While the public like hetrosexual type sex,
> > Hollywood has been pushing homosexual sex, even though there is little
> > public demand for it.
>
> Really? I hadn't noticed.
Not my problem.
> The only movie I've seen recently in which homosexuality was implied
> was "Alexander," but, then, it would have been difficult to make it
> without some reference to Alexander's bi-sexuality.
I was thinking mostly TV series. There was one sitcom where the
protagonist, I forget her name, declared herself lesbian. It eventually
went off the air, though there are reruns on cable TV.
There's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," where one of the characters becomes
lesbian.
There's also "Spin City," "Soap," etc. I don't really care one way or
another, but I just notice that homosexual characters keeping appearing
on TV shows, even though there isn't any real public demand for them.
> > > You'll find science explored, and explained, much better on Public Television.
> >
> > This would be by pop scientists.
>
> The people on NOVA are hardly pop scientists.
I don't know about NOVA. While alive, Carl Sagan was involved in
creating documentaries for public TV, as well as David Attenborough. (I
rather liked his.)
> > > > Movie producer Steven Spielberg and novelist Michael Crichton are both
> > > > liberals. They both produced a movie, "Jurassic Park," where the
> > > > characters make statements that imply a hostility to science.
> > >
> > > Yeah, yeah, and every fundamentalist preacher who advocates old time
> > > religion is immensely hostile to modern science.
> >
> > True.
> >
> > > And all of them are hard over Republicans.
> >
> > Dishearteningly, yes.
> >
> > In 1988, I did contemplate a nightmare race between Rev. Pat Robertson
> > and Rev. Jesse Jackson for the presidency.
>
> Kissinger once said of the Iran-Iraq war, it's a shame that both sides
> can't lose.
During the Iran-Iraq war, the Reagan administration supported both
sides in an effort to create that very result.
> > > I vaguely remember Jurassic Park, and what I remember of it implied that
> > > using science to engineer the resurrection of long extinct creatures -- for
> > > profit and without any external controls -- was both morally wrong and highly
> > > dangerous.
> >
> > The capitalist pushing for the engineering of dinosaurs wanted to make
> > his park available to everybody.
> >
> > However, in the movie, the central characters made disparaging remarks
> > about science in general, one calling it the "rape of the natural
> > world."
>
> Maybe they did. I don't remember. All I remember is that the T-Rex
> looked as if it were made of plastic.
Watch the movie when it plays on TV.
> > > By the way, isn't that the essence of the Bushie complaint about stem cell
> > > research?
> >
> > Not exactly. Bush incorrectly considers cells resulting from conception
> > as human life that deserves the protection of laws.
> >
> > > > > > The environmental movement is the current expression of this view.
> > > > > > Indeed, they've decided that humanity itself is bad for the planet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, we all know how well industrialists took care of the enviornment
> > > > > before the enviornmental movement began.
> > > >
> > > > Liberals believe the environment was better off before human beings
> > > > appeared.
> > >
> > > ?????? That's an odd thing to say. I suppose the earth functioned well
> > > enough 100,000 years ago, long before humans had any impact. The
> > > problem is that industrial civilization changes the enviornment. Every
> > > creature makes some impact on the environment, but humans are capable
> > > of making gross impacts, and the impacts we've made haven't all been
> > > for the best.
> >
> > Or as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) founder Ingrid
> > Newkirk said, human beings were "the biggest blight on the face of the
> > earth."
>
> Yeah, I know, but PETA is full of nutcases.
True enough. However, PETA consistent applies certain premises believed
by liberals.
> > Others have referred to humans as a cancerous growth.
> >
> > > In the U.S., for example, deep tilling of soil has grossly eroded our
> > > topsoil. Is that good?
> >
> > Erosion is not good.
> >
> > > Is it good for the environment? Good for people?
> >
> > "No" to both.
> >
> > > Is it a "Liberal" issue or a public issue that should have no politics
> > > connected to it?
> >
> > It becomes liberal and political when farmers are denied water to
> > irrigate their crops because environmentalists claim some danger to
> > some fish.
>
> Who runs the country these days? If some perversion of good sense
> prevailed, the Right should have corrected it by now.
Unfortunately, the country is being run by chicken Republicans who are
easily intimidated by the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth by
liberals.
> > > The same could be said for overgrazing, meddling with river flows, CO2 build-
> > > up, and mercury in our water supply. What is "Liberal" about public health and
> > > the state of our natural resources?
> >
> > It becomes "liberal" when such become pretexts for an agenda of
> > deindustrialization.
>
> No one has an agenda of deindustrialization.
Actually, they do. In California during the reign of Grey Davis, state
regulators were trying to close down electric power generators, some
nuclear, some hydroelectric.
> The closest thing to that is the capital -- machines and knowledge -- that
> American companies are shipping over seas to take advantage of cheap labor.
And escape the hostile political atmosphere in this country.
> > > > > > "The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted
> > > > > > with a hearty 'Good riddance!", said environmentalist Paul Taylor in
> > > > > > "Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics."
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul Taylor speaks for himself and a clutch of nutcases when he says
> > > > > things like that.
> > > >
> > > > Taylor, et al, are consistent exponents of environmentalist beliefs.
> > >
> > > Who is "et al?"
> >
> > Other environmentalists and animal rights activists like Ingrid Newkirk
> > and Freeman Wicklund of Compassionate Action for Animals who has
> > declared, "We need a drastic decrease in human population if we ever
> > hope to create a just and equitable world for animals."
>
> Yeah, and they're radical nutcases with no political power and far
> outside the mainstream of Liberal thought.
Yesterday's absurdities tend to become today's entrenched, mainstream
liberal thought.
> Again, it's like quoting the Aryan Nation and ascribing their ideas to the
> Republicans.
No, because Republicans and the Aryan Nation do not hold shared
premises, not the way liberals and environmental nutcases do.
> It's unfair and silly.
Not really. Among the left, the extremists are the leaders. The
moderates are the followers.
> > > > > I suppose the world was much better before the enviornmental movement,
> > > > > when Cleveland's river caught fire and there were no live fish in Lake
> > > > > Erie.
> > > >
> > > > The world will be considerably worse off if the environmentist campaign
> > > > of deindustrialization succeeds.
> > >
> > > This is laughable. A very few radical nutcases believe in
> > > deindustrialization and, to you, this is the epicenter of Liberal
> > > thought.
> >
> > Epicenter? No.
> >
> > It does represent a consistant application of certain liberal beliefs.
>
> No it doesn't.
Yes, it does. It applies Rousseau's ideas that science is bad, that
technology is bad, that industrialization is bad, and that innocence is
to be found among primitives, that "communing with nature" is an
admirable goal, that untouched nature is beautiful and becomes
despoiled when touched by humans.
> > > Of course, you've ignored the fact that a few radical nutcases
> > > on the Right are very much believers in deindustrialization...
> >
> > None come to mind.
>
> The American Freeman and a host of smaller groups and militias who see
> both Liberals and industrialists as their common enemy.
I'm not a fan of private militias, but I don't recall any of them
opposing industries per se. They do, of course, denounce limousine
liberals and penthouse proletariates.
> > > ...and the dissolution of government.
> >
> > There are a few libertarian anarchists. They believe in premises not
> > shared by Republicans, and thus not indicative of Republican agenda.
>
> OK, fair enough.
>
> >
> > > Following your logic, can I invoke the "Freemen" movement as indicative of
> > > mainstream Republican politics?
> >
> > I don't know. I've never heard of any "Freemen" movement.
>
> Montana and Wyoming.
Details?
> > > Are the survivalists Bush-Cheney Republicans? Hardly.
> >
> > Survivalists believe America is doomed and thus prepare for personal
> > survival. If they were factually correct, I would support their
> > conclusions.
>
> They also subscribe to the theory (at least some of them) that the ZOG
> (Zionist Operated Government) which is in league with industrialists
> and bankers are out to get them.
That would be Nazis and/or neo-Nazis.
> I know this nutty and depraved, and my point is that invoking, say, PETA,
> as indicative of the spirit of deindustrialization at the heart of American
> Liberalism is like invoking any right wing nut group as the spirit that
> drives the Conservative agenda. Both are false.
Again, one must search for shared premises between extremists and
moderates. Liberals and nutty animal rights activists share Rousseau's
notion of the value of untouched wilderness.
> > > The enviornmental movement is largely the product of very responsible
> > > people of varying political outlooks who have worked their entire lives
> > > to improve the environmental impact of industrial work. That's why
> > > enviornmental legislation has long been bi-partisan and has persisted
> > > for 30 years over several different changes of adminitration and a
> > > massive change in Congress. Do you think acid rain is a good thing?
> >
> > Acid rain has been shown not to be a factor in killing fish in the
> > Great Lakes region. That's why I haven't heard much about acid rain in
> > decades.
>
> It's been a factor in killing trees and fish,...
This is the first time I've heard about acid rain killing trees.
> ...but it has been reduced by reduing the sulfur effluents from coal
> burning power plants. Some of the most vile effects haven't been felt
> in the United States. Sweden and Germany have been badly affected by it.
Asserted, not demonstrated.
> > > Do you think that despoiling rivers with dioxins, mercucy and other
> > > harmful chemicals is good?
> >
> > The question assumes facts not in evidence.
> >
> > > Do you think that species extinction, the clear-cutting of forests,
> > > uncontrolled strip mining and gross oil spills are good things?
> >
> > I believe that mining a good thing, since it produces substances
> > necessary for industrialization.
>
> Yes, but it has to be ordered, regulated and controlled so that the
> short term benefits of the mine don't cause long term misery for
> everyone.
I'll settle for general laws requiring restoration of mined property,
at least if it's government property.
> > I belive that cutting down trees is a good thing since it provides wood
> > for construction of building and other products, including paper.
>
> Fine. But there are enough trees and enough farmed trees to do exactly
> that. Forests don't have to be destroyed wholesale for short-term
> gains.
I don't recall anybody wanting to destroy forests.
Here again, it's extremists influencing moderates among the left. In
this case, it's the tree huggers who want to protect all trees and
accuse opponents of wanting deforestration.
> > I'm not interested in deindustrialization in order to protect the snail
> > darter. I don't believe in multiplying the number of species by giving
> > geographical names to the same animal in different locales and then
> > putting all of them on the endangered species list.
>
> And where did the snail darter cause deindustrialization?
So far, it hasn't. It's been used to prevent more industrialization.
> If we can industrialize, do it cleanly and preserve our species, then what is
> wrong with that?
Costly and serves as a pretext to prevent industrialization.
> As for the rest, stop reading propaganda tracts.
Perhaps t1gercat can follow that advise, and include the liberal media
in the category of propaganda tracts.
> > > > > > The opposite viewpoint is that science, technology, industrialization
> > > > > > and abundance are good things, that human life on this Earth is a
> > > > > > value. That view appears to get a better reception among Republicans
> > > > > > than Democrats.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it doesn't. The Pugs value short term profits above everything,
> > > > > believe in enviornmental exploitation, clear-cutting forests,
> > > > > despoiling our rivers and lakes, fouling our air and killing our
> > > > > wildlife.
> > > >
> > > > This is the environmentalist characterization of industrialization.
> > > > They want to do away with all that.
> > >
> > > Yes, they do.
> >
> > They want us all to live in caves.
>
> If we run out of oil, you'll wish you had a cave.
Running out of oil isn't the problem. It's restrictions on drilling and
refining that causes oil shortages.
maff
That's for the courts to decide.
Richard Smol
Of course someone using straw men would not likely admit that.
> Liberals have denigrated science, including some of my critics.
Well, your claim that liberals hate science is utterly ridiculous.
What is there to hate anyway? Science is simply a method of gaining
knowledge about the workings of the world.
RS
Jim Austin
Perhaps not. However, the burden of proof falls on those who assert
that an argument is a straw man, a burden Smol has not carried. He
asserts but does not demonstrate.
> > Liberals have denigrated science, including some of my critics.
>
> Well, your claim that liberals hate science is utterly ridiculous.
> What is there to hate anyway?
The results of science. Smol's good buddy Kate said, "If you actually
look at science, it's really bad for human life..."
> Science is simply a method of gaining knowledge about the workings of the
> world.
Another reason why liberals denigrate science.
Richard Smol
Jim Austin wrote:
> Richard Smol wrote:
>
> > Jim Austin wrote:
> > > A straw man argument is an argument one makes up for the opposition.
> > > Since I referred to actual arguments made by the opposition, calling
> > > them "straw men" will not make them go away.
> >
> > Of course someone using straw men would not likely admit that.
>
> Perhaps not. However, the burden of proof falls on those who assert
> that an argument is a straw man, a burden Smol has not carried. He
> asserts but does not demonstrate.
No, *you* have the burden of proof that the claims you claim
are "liberal" are indeed so. So far I haven't seen anything that
could be typically attributed to liberals.
> > > Liberals have denigrated science, including some of my critics.
> >
> > Well, your claim that liberals hate science is utterly ridiculous.
> > What is there to hate anyway?
>
> The results of science. Smol's good buddy Kate said, "If you actually
> look at science, it's really bad for human life..."
I certainly disagree with Kate on that account.. and again
there is nothing specifically liberal about that view.
> > Science is simply a method of gaining knowledge about the workings of the
> > world.
>
> Another reason why liberals denigrate science.
That statement is a non sequitur and ad hominem all in one. Do you
have any actual arguments?
RS
chibiabos
> Meteorite Debris wrote:
>
> > http://www.buzzflash.com/reviews/05/08/rev05080.html
> >
> > August 26, 2005
> >
> > The Republican War on Science
> > by Chris Mooney
>
> <Snip> The article.
>
> Republican war on science?
>
> Consider the liberal stance on science:
I'm curious. Are you and Terry related?
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
stoney
wrote:
>
>"Meteorite Debris" <epicurus1@YOUR_SHOESoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1d7a4fa31...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> http://www.buzzflash.com/reviews/05/08/rev05080.html
>>
>> August 26, 2005
>>
>> The Republican War on Science
>> by Chris Mooney
[]
>> Bush is certainly a man with a lot of wars on his hands. But Mooney's
>> book reminds us that the Iraq War shouldn't overshadow the severe
>> damage that the Busheviks are doing to America's extraordinary
>> heritage of scientific accomplishment. With a few more years, they
>> will grind it into dust.
>>
>> This is an Administration that wants us to return to a period before
>> the Age of Enlightenment, which some might call the "Dark Ages."
[]
>I agree wholeheartedly. And it makes my blood boil. I just wonder what
>would happen if a whole army of 'intellectuals" were to get up off their
>duffs and started a blistering attack on the bible. And I mean in the mainstream
>media.
Can't and won't happen.
> And I mean a 'take no prisoners' attack. What would the religious
>right do then?
Go on murderous rampages, of course.
> They could act smug about it, I suppose. But the sheer weight
>of evidence showing what a bunch of hooey it is, and a no-nonsense assault
>showing to what depths the 'faithful' have been conned *may* cause some of
>these idiots to back off on their assault on science.
No. *Reason* doesn't enter their universe.
>In a true 'cultural war,' the religious right would surely lose.
> They don't have 'truth' on their side. Science does.
Superstition has no culture, nor does it have any humanity. That's
what you're not thinking of. Forgetting that little fact can get you
very very dead.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
stoney
>On 27 Aug 2005 15:16:44 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Kate wrote:
>>
>>> On 26 Aug 2005 19:56:24 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[]
>>This last statement, "bad for human life," confirms my notion that
>>liberals are hostile to science, precisely because it has prolonged and
>>enriched human life.
>
>Sounds like you have your asshole confused with a hole in the wall and
>are somehow trying to take it out on the smart people.
Yes, the drooling cretin does. The sad thing is, I'm very sure he's
much more educated and smarter than Shrub is.
stoney
>In article <MPG.1d7a4fa31...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@YOUR_SHOESoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> http://www.buzzflash.com/reviews/05/08/rev05080.html
>>
>> August 26, 2005
>>
>> The Republican War on Science
>> by Chris Mooney
[]
>> Bush is certainly a man with a lot of wars on his hands. But Mooney's
>> book reminds us that the Iraq War shouldn't overshadow the severe
>> damage that the Busheviks are doing to America's extraordinary
>> heritage of scientific accomplishment. With a few more years, they
>> will grind it into dust.
>>
>> This is an Administration that wants us to return to a period before
>> the Age of Enlightenment, which some might call the "Dark Ages."
>
>Great article! I've seen a number like it in recent days. Hopefully,
>people are finally catching on.
Sadly, not.
Jim Austin
> On 27 Aug 2005 23:21:03 -0500, cob...@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote:
>
> >On 27 Aug 2005 15:16:44 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Kate wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 26 Aug 2005 19:56:24 -0700, "Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> []
>
> >>This last statement, "bad for human life," confirms my notion that
> >>liberals are hostile to science, precisely because it has prolonged and
> >>enriched human life.
No challenge here.
> >Sounds like you have your asshole confused with a hole in the wall and
> >are somehow trying to take it out on the smart people.
>
> Yes, the drooling cretin does. The sad thing is, I'm very sure he's
> much more educated and smarter than Shrub is.
And the Shrub is considerably smarter and more educated than stoney.
<Snip> The rest.
johac
stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 23:50:47 -0700, johac <jha...@ixpres.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <MPG.1d7a4fa31...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> > Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@YOUR_SHOESoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.buzzflash.com/reviews/05/08/rev05080.html
> >>
> >> August 26, 2005
> >>
> >> The Republican War on Science
> >> by Chris Mooney
>
> []
>
> >> Bush is certainly a man with a lot of wars on his hands. But Mooney's
> >> book reminds us that the Iraq War shouldn't overshadow the severe
> >> damage that the Busheviks are doing to America's extraordinary
> >> heritage of scientific accomplishment. With a few more years, they
> >> will grind it into dust.
> >>
> >> This is an Administration that wants us to return to a period before
> >> the Age of Enlightenment, which some might call the "Dark Ages."
> >
> >Great article! I've seen a number like it in recent days. Hopefully,
> >people are finally catching on.
>
> Sadly, not.
I know. But I can't help being the eternal optimist.
stoney
Of course it is. Sometimes they're fun to play with though.
[]
stoney
Understood.
Jim Austin
> Jim Austin wrote:
> > Richard Smol wrote:
> > > Jim Austin wrote:
> > > > A straw man argument is an argument one makes up for the opposition.
> > > > Since I referred to actual arguments made by the opposition, calling
> > > > them "straw men" will not make them go away.
> > > Of course someone using straw men would not likely admit that.
> > Perhaps not. However, the burden of proof falls on those who assert
> > that an argument is a straw man, a burden Smol has not carried. He
> > asserts but does not demonstrate.
> No, *you* have the burden of proof that the claims you claim
> are "liberal" are indeed so.
Smol retreats from the charge that I used straw man arguments.
> So far I haven't seen anything that could be typically attributed
> to liberals.
What Smol chooses not to see is his problem, not mine.
> > > > Liberals have denigrated science, including some of my critics.
> > > Well, your claim that liberals hate science is utterly ridiculous.
> > > What is there to hate anyway?
> > The results of science. Smol's good buddy Kate said, "If you actually
> > look at science, it's really bad for human life..."
> I certainly disagree with Kate on that account...
How reassuring.
> ...and again there is nothing specifically liberal about that view.
Actually, there is.
Liberal opinion ranges from disdain for science to hostility to
science. The disdain part is particularly frequent, the hostility part,
less so.
> > > Science is simply a method of gaining knowledge about the
> > > workings of the world.
> > Another reason why liberals denigrate science.
> That statement is a non sequitur...
A non sequitur is where a conclusion does not logically follow from an
asserted premise.
I've quoted various liberals denigrating science. It actually follows
that liberals denigrate science.
> ...and ad hominem all in one.
An ad hominem argument rejects another person's statement by attacking
the person rather than the statement, as in the person's wrong because
he doesn't have a degree.
I haven't done anything like that.
Smol throws terms terms like "straw man", "non sequitur," "ad hominem"
at me without any indication of understanding what they mean.
> Do you have any actual arguments?
Yes. That liberals refuse to so acknowledge does not make them go away.
Richard Smol
Jim Austin wrote:
> Richard Smol wrote:
>
> > Jim Austin wrote:
>
> > > Richard Smol wrote:
>
> > > > Jim Austin wrote:
> > > > > A straw man argument is an argument one makes up for the opposition.
> > > > > Since I referred to actual arguments made by the opposition, calling
> > > > > them "straw men" will not make them go away.
>
> > > > Of course someone using straw men would not likely admit that.
>
> > > Perhaps not. However, the burden of proof falls on those who assert
> > > that an argument is a straw man, a burden Smol has not carried. He
> > > asserts but does not demonstrate.
>
> > No, *you* have the burden of proof that the claims you claim
> > are "liberal" are indeed so.
>
> Smol retreats from the charge that I used straw man arguments.
You retreat from providing evidence that those claims
are indeed liberal. So my conclusion stands: they are straw men.
> > So far I haven't seen anything that could be typically attributed
> > to liberals.
>
> What Smol chooses not to see is his problem, not mine.
Of course you could try to address me directly instead of
by my last name. And I don't have a problem, since I didn't
state anything without evidence.
> > > > > Liberals have denigrated science, including some of my critics.
>
> > > > Well, your claim that liberals hate science is utterly ridiculous.
> > > > What is there to hate anyway?
>
> > > The results of science. Smol's good buddy Kate said, "If you actually
> > > look at science, it's really bad for human life..."
>
> > I certainly disagree with Kate on that account...
>
> How reassuring.
>
> > ...and again there is nothing specifically liberal about that view.
>
> Actually, there is.
>
> Liberal opinion ranges from disdain for science to hostility to
> science. The disdain part is particularly frequent, the hostility part,
> less so.
So where is the evidence for this "disdain" or "hostility" toward
science? Be specific.
> > > > Science is simply a method of gaining knowledge about the
> > > > workings of the world.
>
> > > Another reason why liberals denigrate science.
>
> > That statement is a non sequitur...
>
> A non sequitur is where a conclusion does not logically follow from an
> asserted premise.
Which is the case with your conclusions.
> I've quoted various liberals denigrating science. It actually follows
> that liberals denigrate science.
No, it means that *those* liberals denigrate science. Being hostile
towards science is not typically liberal. If you claim that there *is*
a link, then you will have to provide evidence that it exists. Put up
or shut up.
> > ...and ad hominem all in one.
>
> An ad hominem argument rejects another person's statement by attacking
> the person rather than the statement, as in the person's wrong because
> he doesn't have a degree.
>
> I haven't done anything like that.
Your ad hominem is dismissing people's claims since they are
"liberal". On top you add a faulty generalization by claiming
that liberals typically have a disdain for science.
> Smol throws terms terms like "straw man", "non sequitur," "ad hominem"
> at me without any indication of understanding what they mean.
Your refutation of my arguments is laughably poor.
> > Do you have any actual arguments?
>
> Yes. That liberals refuse to so acknowledge does not make them go away.
So far you haven't offered anything of substance, just a load of
sputtering and hand-waving.
RS
Jim Austin
> Jim Austin wrote:
> > Richard Smol wrote:
> >
> > > Jim Austin wrote:
> >
> > > > Richard Smol wrote:
> >
> > > > > Jim Austin wrote:
> > > > > > A straw man argument is an argument one makes up for the opposition.
> > > > > > Since I referred to actual arguments made by the opposition, calling
> > > > > > them "straw men" will not make them go away.
> >
> > > > > Of course someone using straw men would not likely admit that.
> >
> > > > Perhaps not. However, the burden of proof falls on those who assert
> > > > that an argument is a straw man, a burden Smol has not carried. He
> > > > asserts but does not demonstrate.
> >
> > > No, *you* have the burden of proof that the claims you claim
> > > are "liberal" are indeed so.
> >
> > Smol retreats from the charge that I used straw man arguments.
>
> You retreat from providing evidence that those claims
> are indeed liberal. So my conclusion stands: they are straw men.
I've provided the evidence. Smol omits them then says there wasn't any.
> > > So far I haven't seen anything that could be typically attributed
> > > to liberals.
> >
> > What Smol chooses not to see is his problem, not mine.
>
> Of course you could try to address me directly instead of
> by my last name. And I don't have a problem, since I didn't
> state anything without evidence.
He hasn't provided any evidence. He just makes arbitrary assertions.
> > > > > > Liberals have denigrated science, including some of my critics.
> >
> > > > > Well, your claim that liberals hate science is utterly ridiculous.
> > > > > What is there to hate anyway?
> >
> > > > The results of science. Smol's good buddy Kate said, "If you actually
> > > > look at science, it's really bad for human life..."
> >
> > > I certainly disagree with Kate on that account...
> >
> > How reassuring.
> >
> > > ...and again there is nothing specifically liberal about that view.
> >
> > Actually, there is.
> >
> > Liberal opinion ranges from disdain for science to hostility to
> > science. The disdain part is particularly frequent, the hostility part,
> > less so.
>
> So where is the evidence for this "disdain" or "hostility" toward
> science? Be specific.
I provided the quotes. Go back and read them.
> > > > > Science is simply a method of gaining knowledge about the
> > > > > workings of the world.
> >
> > > > Another reason why liberals denigrate science.
> >
> > > That statement is a non sequitur...
> >
> > A non sequitur is where a conclusion does not logically follow from an
> > asserted premise.
>
> Which is the case with your conclusions.
Smol doesn't understand logical inference.
> > I've quoted various liberals denigrating science. It actually follows
> > that liberals denigrate science.
>
> No, it means that *those* liberals denigrate science.
*Those* liberals weren't the only liberals I've heard denigrating
science. I hear it all the time.
> Being hostile towards science is not typically liberal.
Actually, it is.
> If you claim that there *is* a link, then you will have to provide evidence
> that it exists. Put up or shut up.
I did. Omiting it doesn't make it go away.
> > > ...and ad hominem all in one.
> >
> > An ad hominem argument rejects another person's statement by attacking
> > the person rather than the statement, as in the person's wrong because
> > he doesn't have a degree.
> >
> > I haven't done anything like that.
>
> Your ad hominem is dismissing people's claims since they are
> "liberal".
Dismissing a claim because of the ideology behind a claim isn't ad
hominem.
> On top you add a faulty generalization by claiming that liberals typically
> have a disdain for science.
I've heard enough liberals denigrate science to conclude that liberals
typcially disdain science.
That liberals tolerate post-modernism in universities while barring any
philosophy that consistently legitimizes rationality and science from
university philosophy courses indicates a histility to science.
> > Smol throws terms terms like "straw man", "non sequitur," "ad hominem"
> > at me without any indication of understanding what they mean.
>
> Your refutation of my arguments is laughably poor.
It will take more than laughter to refute my arguments.
> > > Do you have any actual arguments?
> >
> > Yes. That liberals refuse to so acknowledge does not make them go away.
>
> So far you haven't offered anything of substance, just a load of
> sputtering and hand-waving.
Again, acknowledgement by liberals isn't required.