Opposition to science in the US
- Thread starter Myles
- Start date
Again, science it's very important. It always has been. We're not going to ignore someone who chooses a scientific explanation. We respect science. We respect their right to their own beliefs. No one is ramming science down our throats. We love science.
I'm glad to see that you and, doubtless, most Americ ans respect the rights of others, to believe whatever they wish. It is enshrined in your constitution or your Bill of Rights. forgive my ignorance. You are right to be proud of your inheritance. I was not as lucky
Yes , I wished to address my remarks to Iconocephalon..... but I made a hash of it. Than you for giving me the opportunity to put things right
Unfortunately, the personal feelings of the moderator got in the way of you properly responding to my post.
What can I say ? Mistakes will happen ! But I do think you are being unfair to Sandy if what she said to is the basis of your criticism.
Atr you perhaps suggesting that she is being disingenuous ? If so, you should offer some evidence. I can only go on what she has told me on this thread and I approve of her fair , open-minded attitude.
Atr you perhaps suggesting that she is being disingenuous ? If so, you should offer some evidence. I can only go on what she has told me on this thread and I approve of her fair , open-minded attitude.
(Q) has a different perspective; as an atheist, he does not believe in ethical arguments in science.
HA! And you deleted my post. Hypocrite.
Since you continue to flame and move the argument to religion rather than focus on science, it seems the choice is between deleting all your posts or allowing the discussion to proceed.
Attacking the poster seems more important than discussing the topic. I am curious to see what one can learn from this, since your personal rational stance, which believes in ridicule rather than discussion, implies that it can be more productive.
Your post #15 has been undeleted and can now contribute to this discussion. By all means, let us continue to pick on individual posters rather than discuss what underlies this change in perspectives.
Attacking the poster seems more important than discussing the topic. I am curious to see what one can learn from this, since your personal rational stance, which believes in ridicule rather than discussion, implies that it can be more productive.
Your post #15 has been undeleted and can now contribute to this discussion. By all means, let us continue to pick on individual posters rather than discuss what underlies this change in perspectives.
Last edited:
Where do you live?
The first two are non-starters, while the latter IS productive.
I do not. She responded to my question in what I would regard as a honest, reputable way. Her original statement said something to the effect that science is fine as long as it is not put above God. That is her view and she is entitled to express it within the context of this thread.
It was I who suggested that ,if anyone attempted to ram science down her throat ,that she should tell him/her that just as she respected their right to take a scientific view of the world, so must they respect her right to her way of looking at things. Surely trhis is fair to all. So what has she said that you disagree with ?
I do not understand how you construe what she has said as being disingenuous. Please enlighten me
I live in the UK but I was born and educated in the Irish Republic. You could say anything you wanted as long as you did not criticize the Roman Catholic church. I found that impossible because I believe that society thrives on informed, unfettered debate.
Uh, sandy is a born-again Christian fundamentalist who disses science every chance she gets.
Have you not been reading her posts?
Sandy has denied being a "fundie", which I take to mean a born-again Fundamentalist Christian . I have to believe her because I find it impossible to believe otherwise. What sort of person would deny their religious beliefs ?
I would lose all respect for anyone who did such a thing . Sandy strikes me as being a sincere person unless you can show otherwise.
What posts are you referring to. Please give me some references.
Hello Miles,
I'd like to inject something into this discussion if I might.
After having lived in America all my life (60+ years), what I see isn't actually an opposition to science today as much as it is just simply being de-emphasized.
While it's true that America has long been a world leader in scientific technological advances, our educational processes are now turning out a smaller percentage of scientifically trained individuals than in the past.
There was a time when we were strongly focused on both trying to produce people with good, solid training in science and an economy based on industrial production (manufacturing), that has now shifted. Today, we continue to export (geographically out-sourcing) manufacturing and place ever more emphasis in developing a economy based on the service sector of business. The skills involved in todays market place no longer as much scientific training as they once did.
There are, of course, several exception to that - notably things like medical technicians and information technology related jobs. But even those, and particularly the latter, do not require a broad-based education in general science.
We Americans, and other large parts of the world, have become compartmentalized - specializing in a very narrow field of training. For example, someone working in Information Technology has no need for training in chemistry, biology or the physical sciences. And that's pretty much true for the medical technician as well. While the medical tech may use some very sophisticated equipment, they need only to know the procedures to follow and understanding exactly how/what the equipment actually does isn't required.
And those same general approaches apply very broadly throughout the major part of our current workforce in this country.
So, just to recap: it isn't that we've become opposed to science, it's that the focus has moved elsewhere. And that IS our loss!!
I'd like to inject something into this discussion if I might.
After having lived in America all my life (60+ years), what I see isn't actually an opposition to science today as much as it is just simply being de-emphasized.
While it's true that America has long been a world leader in scientific technological advances, our educational processes are now turning out a smaller percentage of scientifically trained individuals than in the past.
There was a time when we were strongly focused on both trying to produce people with good, solid training in science and an economy based on industrial production (manufacturing), that has now shifted. Today, we continue to export (geographically out-sourcing) manufacturing and place ever more emphasis in developing a economy based on the service sector of business. The skills involved in todays market place no longer as much scientific training as they once did.
There are, of course, several exception to that - notably things like medical technicians and information technology related jobs. But even those, and particularly the latter, do not require a broad-based education in general science.
We Americans, and other large parts of the world, have become compartmentalized - specializing in a very narrow field of training. For example, someone working in Information Technology has no need for training in chemistry, biology or the physical sciences. And that's pretty much true for the medical technician as well. While the medical tech may use some very sophisticated equipment, they need only to know the procedures to follow and understanding exactly how/what the equipment actually does isn't required.
And those same general approaches apply very broadly throughout the major part of our current workforce in this country.
So, just to recap: it isn't that we've become opposed to science, it's that the focus has moved elsewhere. And that IS our loss!!
Last edited by a moderator:
Bells
Staff member
As an atheist, I resent that comment. He does have a point. There is an opposition to particular fields of science in the US and it does stem from the religious groups. Opposition to teaching evolution and research using embryonic stem cells as well as cloning stem cells has become an 'us' versus 'them' debate. With a push to not teach evolution in schools (as one example), the US is denying students the ability to learn one of the founding principles of biology. The opposition to embryonic stem cell research could result in the US being left behind other countries and could, to the detriment of everyone, delay potential discoveries. You cannot discuss this topic without delving into the influence religious groups.
When Sandy says "we embrace science" (as one example), it should really be "we embrace science", but only up to a point, that point being where science cannot explain or study something that God has already explained. While we would not want to delve into the 'atheist' versus 'theist' argument in this, the sad fact is the two are intertwined in the very reason as to why certain fields of science are opposed to in the US and also elsewhere.
If you read this thread, you'll find even the atheist's incapacity to dissociate science and religion is an equal hindrance to science, in terms of both education and research.
Or do you feel that polarising the people is conducive to more interest in science or less?
Sorry Myles, I'm not about to go wading through that cache of bigoted, racist, hate-filled, bible thumped posts. You are free to click her profile and do so, if you wish.