When knowledge is suppressed we all lose.

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Ok... one more time.
If you are presenting actual evidence, I have never called you a denialist.
since I have already looked into your questions, and found a place that has gone to all the trouble to compile all the known arguments, present the data, and follow it up with an open discussion by all sides where it is openly debated, where you can find the data to answer your questions and more... I am guilty of nothing resembling oppressionism.

I only am calling people denialists whose entire argument rests on rhetorical tactics.

I have stated over and over and over from the begining,
Skepticism is integral to science.

Skeptics are willing to consider evidence and not just hide behind rhetoric.
I gave you mountains of evidence to consider.

If you find something not addressed in detail already in the information I pointed out, I'll happily consider it as well.

I started out as a staunch climate skeptic, but the more I studied into it, the more undeniable AGW has become, and I am now damn near convinced. I wish it wasn't so, but I refuse to stick my head in the sand, or restrict myself to only look at the tiny portion of the available data which I could use to pretend AGW might not be happening.

I always have the tendency to want to believe the conspiracy theories, but digging deeper generally makes it impossible for me to fool myself into doing so.

Once more...

Skepticism is integral to science.
I have the utmost respect for open minded truth seeking skeptics... after all I am one.

 

[CrazyCooter]

please point out where i have been impolite anywhere in this thread.


please explain why you cannot clearly see the difference in these two words :
politics |ˈpäləˌtiks|
plural noun [usu. treated as sing. ]
the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, esp. the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.



science |ˈsīəns|
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Head,

I don't wish to discuss politics but what of political science?

Political science being "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of 'the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area.'"

Do you think knowledge is suppressed in order to better govern populations?

If knowledge is suppressed to better govern populations, is this being applied scientifically or haphazardly?

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Elitist mentality motherfuckers. I can't stand 'em. Big problems in every society in which they inhabit. Truth is, most all of them are dumb fucks that fool nobody but themselves.

I understand. But aren't you one of those individuals?

I don't know who you think you are, but basically...fuck you.
You have got some serious issues there, asshole.
Perfect example of the typical elitist mentality motherfuckers I was describing.

Wouldn't it seem elitist to hand out who has issues and who doesn't?... especially when you say things like this:

Culling many of these stupid fucks, who have been unfortunately placed in positions of power, will begin in short order.
America is far to exceptional to allow such shit to go on for too long. And it has had about enough of these people's shit.

I have a problem with the progressive left as a collective whole.
Arguing the ills of unions with you is futile. Your have no clues.

It all boils down to the progressive left using this issue to further their misguided agendas.
Fucking idiots have no idea about creating jobs, or securing anything American.

Same caliber of loons was just months ago predicting the doom of the Gulf of Mexico and all of it's neighboring inhabitants. Fucking idiots. Or was that just the B team of scientists showing how fucking utterly wrong they can collectively be? Is it that the A team are the ones who work only with the speculative, non-provable stuff?

I advocate global warming, because the world thrives when it is warm, and dies off when it's cold. Dipshits even disregard history and will tell you that it's much better cold. Again, fucking idiots.

Anyone who backs our public education system at all either has no children in it, or has something to gain by backing such a disaster. It sure isn't for the welfare and benefit of our kids.

On second thought, I must be mistaken...

Your bigotry is absolutely sickening. YOU and your bigoted way of thinking are a big part of our societies problems today.

It adds up to you fuckers having gone completely mad.

I'd hate to see how hypocritical your definition of "sane" is.

It becomes tiresome to see you go on some inane rant accusing people of doing the exact same thing you do.

Judge not... it gets old.


PS... I don't know if you've noticed, but you have your very own fan club rubbing nuts and such.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Head,

I don't wish to discuss politics but what of political science?

Political science being "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of 'the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area.'"

Do you think knowledge is suppressed in order to better govern populations?

If knowledge is suppressed to better govern populations, is this being applied scientifically or haphazardly?

Dictionary definition:

Political Science
noun
the branch of knowledge that deals with systems of government; the analysis of political activity and behavior.

Can't talk political science without talking politics.


political science is not really science.
it is an application of scientific principles to political endeavors.

and even if one could bend the definition of the physical and natural world, enough to include the man made philosophies of politics... We could discuss science perfectly well for ages and ages any never mention and knowledge related to politics.

Yes, I think on occasion some government entities play the role of the scientific denialist. Yes I think that on occasion some government entities use real scientific truths to push an agenda.

 

[CrazyCooter]

Head,

"I always have the tendency to want to believe the conspiracy theories, but digging deeper always makes it impossible for me to fool myself into doing so."

The labeling of ideas as "conspiracy theory" to negate its truthfulness seems like a denialist tactic.

Conspiracy: a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose

Theory: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

"If Harry Anslinger, DuPont, Hearst and their paid-for (know it or not, then as now) politicians had not outlawed hemp - under the pretext of marijuana (see Chapter 4, "Last Days of Legal Cannabis") - and suppressed hemp knowledge from our schools, researchers and even scientists, the glowing predictions in these articles would already have come true by now - and more benefits than anyone could then envision - as new technologies and uses continue to develop." -Jack Herer

What is your theory as to how and why cannabis was made illegal?

If it was a conspiracy, does your "conspiracy theory" make it any less true?

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

Ok... one more time.
If you are presenting actual evidence, I have never called you a denialist.
since I have already looked into your questions, and found a place that has gone to all the trouble to compile all the known arguments, present the data, and follow it up with an open discussion by all sides where it is openly debated, where you can find the data to answer your questions and more... I am guilty of nothing resembling oppressionism.

I only am calling people denialists whose entire argument rests on rhetorical tactics.

I have stated over and over and over from the begining,
Skepticism is integral to science.

Skeptics are willing to consider evidence and not just hide behind rhetoric.
I gave you mountains of evidence to consider.

If you find something not addressed in detail already in the information I pointed out, I'll happily consider it as well.

I started out as a staunch climate skeptic, but the more I studied into it, the more undeniable AGW has become, and I am now damn near convinced. I wish it wasn't so, but I refuse to stick my head in the sand, or restrict myself to only look at the tiny portion of the available data which I could use to pretend AGW might not be happening.

I always have the tendency to want to believe the conspiracy theories, but digging deeper always makes it impossible for me to fool myself into doing so.

Once more...

Skepticism is integral to science.
I have the utmost respect for open minded truth seeking skeptics... after all I am one.

Then do away with the Denialist label. There is no use for it. You don't have to stamp out something that doesn't really exist. Even if denialism does exist, who cares? What if one of them has a good idea that gets thrown out like the baby with the bathwater?

I already said I'll probably look further into the site. However it will take a while. The info is dense and voluminous. I don't mind admitting I am not familiar with all the technical terms. Judging by the twelve pages of responses to just one topic it would seem to be quite an undertaking to analyze it.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

denialism exists.
I'll do with out the denialist lable, as per your request.
But denialism exists, and I'll continue using that word.

Understanding the science surrounding a particular subject is indeed quite an undertaking.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

denialism exists.
I'll do with out the denialist lable, as per your request.

Denialism is still detrimental.

Is there denialism among mainstream scientists?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Head,

"I always have the tendency to want to believe the conspiracy theories, but digging deeper always makes it impossible for me to fool myself into doing so."

The labeling of ideas as "conspiracy theory" to negate its truthfulness seems like a denialist tactic.

Conspiracy: a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose

Theory: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

"If Harry Anslinger, DuPont, Hearst and their paid-for (know it or not, then as now) politicians had not outlawed hemp - under the pretext of marijuana (see Chapter 4, "Last Days of Legal Cannabis") - and suppressed hemp knowledge from our schools, researchers and even scientists, the glowing predictions in these articles would already have come true by now - and more benefits than anyone could then envision - as new technologies and uses continue to develop." -Jack Herer

What is your theory as to how and why cannabis was made illegal?

If it was a conspiracy, does your "conspiracy theory" make it any less true?

Of course actual conspiracies do exist, people are convicted of conspiracy every week.
when they do there is evidence, not merely rhetoric.
I don't have to fool myself in believing in real conspiracies.

I'm always willing to dig fully into all the available evidence, and have never dismissed and concept without damn good reason.

drug prohibition was both racially and financially motivated, and politics were used to accomplish their goals. If Nixon had not denied the valid science in the report on marijuana which he commissioned (and the trashed when his agenda was not supported), marijuana might be legal today.

Science wasn't used to illegalize cannabis... The rhetorical tactics of politicians was.

 

[gdtrfb]

Is there denialism among mainstream scientists?

seems like 'is denialism something mainstream science must currently deal with' is the question that might actually matter.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Is there denialism among mainstream scientists?

not really.
Scientists believe what the data demonstrates.
any scientists engaging in nothing but rhetorical tactics to try and prove a theory would quickly become unemployable.

seems like 'is denialism something mainstream science must currently deal with' is the question that might actually matter.

bingo.

and the answer is a big 10\4

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

not really.
Scientists believe what the data demonstrates.
any scientists engaging in nothing but rhetorical tactics to try and prove a theory would quickly become unemployable.



bingo.

and the answer is a big 10\4

Scientists observe data. "Believing in what the data demonstrates" has nothing to do with science. This is crucial. I expect you could instantly upgrade your intelligence by understanding it.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Scientists observe data. "Believing in what the data demonstrates" has nothing to do with science. This is crucial. I expect you could instantly upgrade your intelligence by understanding it.

you're incorrect. data definitely demonstrates things which scientists must believe.

In order to put a man on the moon, physicists must believe that gravity is acting to counter the upward thrust of the rocket, in order to make the calculations necessary to make the mission successful. For one example.


You really should think a bit before posting nonsense as an attempt at insulting my intelligence.

 

[CrazyCooter]

"Scientists believe what the data demonstrates.
any scientists engaging in rhetorical tactics to prove a theory would quickly become unemployable."

Don't governments and corporations do this?

I don't quite understand the point of this thread. If a person, or people, manipulate scientific data to end up at a predetermined destination, it seems you are saying this isn't science. If I deny the conclusions of the manipulated scientific data, I am not a denialist as I do not deny the science, only the conclusions.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

you said nothing I did not already understand.

Why did you state otherwise? I think this is getting to the crux of the matter.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Why did you state otherwise? I think this is getting to the crux of the matter.

Sorry, misread the first time.
I reread what you said, and edited my post to correct your silly assertion.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

"Scientists believe what the data demonstrates.
any scientists engaging in rhetorical tactics to prove a theory would quickly become unemployable."

Don't governments and corporations do this?

I don't quite understand the point of this thread. If a person, or people, manipulate scientific data to end up at a predetermined destination, it seems you are saying this isn't science. If I deny the conclusions of the manipulated scientific data, I am not a denialist as I do not deny the science, only the conclusions.

Governments and corporations do lots of underhanded things.
When Governments or corporations or anyone else is suppressing or obfuscating knowledge
with rhetorical tactic or censorship or any method, we all lose.


If you deny the conclusions based on nothing but rhetoric then it is denialism.
If you refute the conclusion using evidence then it is science.

Manipulating data is crime, not science.
It's hard to believe in conclusions which are not independently verified by multiple unrelated sources. Good thing nearly every scientist out there is trying to come up with a more accurate model or theory than his peers.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

you're incorrect. data definitely demonstrates things which scientists must believe.

In order to put a man on the moon, physicists must believe that gravity is acting to counter the upward thrust of the rocket, in order to make the calculations necessary to make the mission successful. For one example.

It has nothing to do with belief. They simply use the data observed about gravity and propulsion. They don't have to believe anything about what it demonstrates. A working understanding is more like it.

 

[minds_I]

Hello all,

PS...I think you are all phuquing stoned ans so full of shit your eyes are brown....

You (and you know whom I am speaking about) have escallated your points to obscurity and thus has transformed your positions into a pissing match.

The end result is you are wet and smelly.


Does it feel good?

minds_I

 

[CrazyCooter]

"Good thing every scientist out there is trying to come up with a more accurate model than his peers."

I suppose they are no longer scientists but there are humans working in research/science that just want to keep their jobs and get funding for their projects from people who use political rhetoric to get the conclusions they want using scientific data.

It is good to know I am not a denialist also. I am a skeptic who believes the line between science and political rhetoric has been blurred, often on purpose.
'