Those who have anti-science views, know the least but think they know the most

[Bells]

What exactly have I posted that is wrong?
Be specific.. with quotes and context.

It has been quoted, addressed and responded to repeatedly by several posters.

And you just keep demanding more and more, while refusing to actually pay any attention to what we are telling you, and you keep repeating the same paranoid and incorrect claims over and over again.

It is called trolling.

You do this in most threads that you participate in.

You are literally, and I mean literally, the living embodiment of what this thread was initially trying to discuss before you got involved.

Maybe that is why you decided to troll it. Perhaps it was hitting too close to home for you.

You want to know which posts you posted here that was wrong?

Start here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...they-know-the-most.162261/page-2#post-3595612

And just about every post you made in this thread since then.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It has been quoted, addressed and responded to repeatedly by several posters.

And you just keep demanding more and more, while refusing to actually pay any attention to what we are telling you, and you keep repeating the same paranoid and incorrect claims over and over again.

It is called trolling.

You do this in most threads that you participate in.

You are literally, and I mean literally, the living embodiment of what this thread was initially trying to discuss before you got involved.

Maybe that is why you decided to troll it. Perhaps it was hitting too close to home for you.

You want to know which posts you posted here that was wrong?

Start here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...they-know-the-most.162261/page-2#post-3595612

And just about every post you made in this thread since then.

So demonstrating the relationship between human science and the failure of human science is upsetting you... Sorry about that...
I posted in response to Iceaura's post:

I agree with the general thrust of what you have posted.
Science has an enormous credibility problem IMO.
Of course it is not the "science" per see but the scientists to be more precise.
Science has yet to own up to the disaster of Climate change, micro plastic pollution and other massive issues. for without science we would not have these problems. Of course we would not have the luxuriant albeit temporary lifestyle we have either...
But in the consumers mind science has created these problems and hopefully science will fix them...

In the religious mind, science has been playing God and doing it really badly...

Given the degree of intellectual competency of the average person is it little wonder that a general anti -science POV prevails?

• Ozone depletion = science.
• Climate change = science.
• GMO = science.
• Cancer = science.
• Cold war (nukes) = science
• Mass shootings = science
• Mass surveillance = science
• Eugenics ( gene editing) = science
• Racial pseudoscience ( white supre-mism -racism) = science
• just about any thing = science.

is the easy relationship the average ignoramus can draw...

but this thread is not about the failure or success of science, it is about the arrogance of humans who believe they are right when in fact they are wrong. Pro-science and anti science both share the same issue. IMO​

so what exactly is wrong with the above post?
What sentences and words have you ignored...?

 

[Bells]

So demonstrating the relationship between human science and the failure of human science is upsetting you... Sorry about that...

Way to take everything that I said completely out of context and applied to something else entirely.

Read what I said again.. What is annoying is your constant inane trolling, and your paranoid tirades and rants.

And not upsetting in the sense that you may believe, in that your views actually matter or are even marginally correct and you wrongly believe or have convinced yourself that we are upset at what you are saying. No. We are annoyed at your trolling. Can you spot the difference?

We are annoyed that you keep spouting the same incorrect utter bullshit over and over again, refusing to acknowledge anything factual, instead pushing the same incorrect and downright wrong arguments because you read a headline and completely misunderstood it and became paranoid.

We attempted to provide you with the correct information, repeatedly, to no avail.

Once more. "Human science" has not failed.

Science is not the cause of what ails us.

You blame science for everything, and then whine about people being too ignorant. Really, the irony..

Science does not have a credibility problem. People do. You, for example, have a massive credibility problem. Why? Because you argue from a standpoint of paranoia, often making rubbish up and trying to pass them off as fact.

Should we blame "science" for your issues? No. Because "science" is not to blame for your paranoia or your trolling.

so what exactly is wrong with the above post?
What sentences and words have you ignored...?

Do you know what is wrong with that post?

It comes from a position of utter stupidity.

No, it's not science. People do.

Blaming a subject, as broad as "science" is, for people's actions is stupid, dumb, ignorant, moronic.. So when you argue that "science has a lot to answer for", it is downright stupid.

And I am not even touching on the utter hypocrisy of your stance in this thread. You benefit from "science", you take drugs discovered and developed by scientists, you use a computer that would not exist without scientists, you probably have phones, a TV, fridge, fans, mattress that's not made out of hay and horse hair (because tailoring springs to match how humans lie down on a bed, to provide support and aid circulation was, yes, discovered by people with an understanding of the human body.. dastardly science again!), and so on and so forth..

If you were a moral man, if you truly believed "science" enabled all that ails us or is to blame, then you'd be living in a cave, using a spear to kill possums and kangaroos, you'd be using stone tools and dressed in animal furs and smearing animal fat on your body for warmth in winter. Instead, you live in a house, surrounded by all that "science" enabled, while whining about it.

So next time you go to bed, and snuggle down under your blankets and doona, head resting on a memory foam pillow or maybe a tontine pillow designed to not affect those with allergies and designed specifically for how you sleep, remind yourself that you would not be there if not for "science" and frankly, shut up.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Way to take everything that I said completely out of context and applied to something else entirely.

Read what I said again.. What is annoying is your constant inane trolling, and your paranoid tirades and rants.

And not upsetting in the sense that you may believe, in that your views actually matter or are even marginally correct and you wrongly believe or have convinced yourself that we are upset at what you are saying. No. We are annoyed at your trolling. Can you spot the difference?

We are annoyed that you keep spouting the same incorrect utter bullshit over and over again, refusing to acknowledge anything factual, instead pushing the same incorrect and downright wrong arguments because you read a headline and completely misunderstood it and became paranoid.

We attempted to provide you with the correct information, repeatedly, to no avail.

Once more. "Human science" has not failed.

Science is not the cause of what ails us.

You blame science for everything, and then whine about people being too ignorant. Really, the irony..

Science does not have a credibility problem. People do. You, for example, have a massive credibility problem. Why? Because you argue from a standpoint of paranoia, often making rubbish up and trying to pass them off as fact.

Should we blame "science" for your issues? No. Because "science" is not to blame for your paranoia or your trolling.


Do you know what is wrong with that post?

It comes from a position of utter stupidity.

No, it's not science. People do.

Blaming a subject, as broad as "science" is, for people's actions is stupid, dumb, ignorant, moronic.. So when you argue that "science has a lot to answer for", it is downright stupid.

And I am not even touching on the utter hypocrisy of your stance in this thread. You benefit from "science", you take drugs discovered and developed by scientists, you use a computer that would not exist without scientists, you probably have phones, a TV, fridge, fans, mattress that's not made out of hay and horse hair (because tailoring springs to match how humans lie down on a bed, to provide support and aid circulation was, yes, discovered by people with an understanding of the human body.. dastardly science again!), and so on and so forth..

If you were a moral man, if you truly believed "science" enabled all that ails us or is to blame, then you'd be living in a cave, using a spear to kill possums and kangaroos, you'd be using stone tools and dressed in animal furs and smearing animal fat on your body for warmth in winter. Instead, you live in a house, surrounded by all that "science" enabled, while whining about it.

So next time you go to bed, and snuggle down under your blankets and doona, head resting on a memory foam pillow or maybe a tontine pillow designed to not affect those with allergies and designed specifically for how you sleep, remind yourself that you would not be there if not for "science" and frankly, shut up.

Ahh I see what you are not reading...thanks...I'll show you and post it again with the words highlighted and show in pink when I actually state a personal opinion on the matter

I agree with the general thrust of what you have posted.
Science has an enormous credibility problem IMO.
Of course it is not the "science" per see but the scientists to be more precise.
Science has yet to own up to the disaster of Climate change, micro plastic pollution and other massive issues. for without science we would not have these problems. Of course we would not have the luxuriant albeit temporary lifestyle we have either...
But in the consumers mind science has created these problems and hopefully science will fix them...

In the religious mind, science has been playing God and doing it really badly...

Given the degree of intellectual competency of the average person is it little wonder that a general anti -science POV prevails?

• Ozone depletion = science.
• Climate change = science.
• GMO = science.
• Cancer = science.
• Cold war (nukes) = science
• Mass shootings = science
• Mass surveillance = science
• Eugenics ( gene editing) = science
• Racial pseudoscience ( white supre-mism -racism) = science
• just about any thing = science.

is the easy relationship the average ignoramus can draw...

but this thread is not about the failure or success of science, it is about the arrogance of humans who believe they are right when in fact they are wrong. Pro-science and anti science both share the same issue. IMO

​

of course I am using the term Science as explained in the third line...and am implying the field of science ( which includes scientists) when I use it throughout.

Would AGW have occurred if we didn't have the enable-ment of science? Of course not...
or do you dispute this obvious point?
Do you disagree with the last Opinion? ( in pink)

 

[Quantum Quack]

If you were a moral man, if you truly believed "science" enabled all that ails us or is to blame, then you'd be living in a cave,

lol, no I am just like every one else, loving the modern life whilst it lasts...and I know that human science when applied unwisely leads to disaster...and accept it as part of the human condition. My hippie days ended about 30 years ago....lol

As far as I can tell, the only thing I have done wrong is hope for intelligent, respectful discussion...

 

[Bells]

Ahh I see what you are not reading...thanks...I'll show you and post it again with the words highlighted and show in pink when I actually state a personal opinion on the matter

Then we all read it correctly.

What you highlighted in pink, is wrong, incorrect, silly, ignorant and makes little to no sense for reasons stated repeatedly by several people, and which you still keep repeating.

And as for the last bit that you highlighted as your opinion:

but this thread is not about the failure or success of science, it is about the arrogance of humans who believe they are right when in fact they are wrong.

As we have repeatedly noted. You are the person with anti-scientific views who thinks he knows more than everyone else..

Would AGW have occurred if we didn't have the enable-ment of science? Of course not...

Leaving aside the stupidity of your 'science enabling' rubbish..

Yes. Just not at the accelerated rate that we have now.

Do you disagree with the last Opinion? ( in pink)

I agree that it applies to you.

lol, no I am just like every one else, loving the modern life whilst it lasts...and I know that human science when applied unwisely leads to disaster...and accept it as part of the human condition. My hippie days ended about 30 years ago....lol

As opposed to animal science?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Then we all read it correctly.

What you highlighted in pink, is wrong, incorrect, silly, ignorant and makes little to no sense for reasons stated repeatedly by several people, and which you still keep repeating.

What do you mean by several?
How is it wrong? Do you think I should accept your position as being correct with out explanation? Are you expecting me to call to your authority?
I am not interested in a back slapping talk fest.
This thread is about arrogance..... the title is self is arrogant. The Dunning-Kruger effect impacts on every one, scientists included.
Intellectual vanity, in other words.

As we have repeatedly noted. You are the person with anti-scientific views who thinks he knows more than everyone else..

how does that relate to the quote you posted?
Who is "we" exactly?
Do you think science is above criticism?
Do you think any one who criticizes mainstream views is anti-science?
Are you attempting to defend something that requires no defense?

Yes. Just not at the accelerated rate that we have now.

so that's a yes, period.
the AGW we are experiencing is enabled by Science... not that hard was it?

and all this fluff and flurry for nothing... ( an invite )

As opposed to animal science?

sorry please explain... you're not making any sense to any of us...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Lol I recall having this similar but more respectful discussion in an Ashram in Cape Byron NSW, with a group of Orange ( Osho ) followers in the mid 80's..Dunning-Kruger effect wasn't even formalized as a syndrome until after 2011'ish.

Osho 1931-1990.

Never met the man unfortunately. I believe he had a wicked humor...

 

[Bells]

What do you mean by several?
How is it wrong? Do you think I should accept your position as being correct with out explanation? Are you expecting me to call to your authority?
I am not interested in a back slapping talk fest.
This thread is about arrogance..... the title is self is arrogant. The Dunning-Kruger effect impacts on every one, scientists included.
Intellectual vanity, in other words.

You were provided with ample explanations and information.

Stop trolling.

how does that relate to the quote you posted?
Who is "we" exactly?
Do you think science is above criticism?

Firstly, as should have been blatantly obvious, science is a pretty broad term.

Your stance is akin to what are commonly known as anti-vaxxers. You bought into rhetoric you do not fully understand and you then ran with it.

What "science" is above criticism? How should "science" be criticised and why?

What did "science" do that was so bad to begin with?

Did "science" create all of these bad things like climate change, global warming, etc?

No it did not. Global warming, as one example, is something that happens naturally regardless. Humans have simply accelerated an already ongoing process. Is science to blame? No. It is not.

Did science make global warming happen or accelerate? No, 'science" did not.

Do you think any one who criticizes mainstream views is anti-science?
Are you attempting to defend something that requires no defense?

The reason you are "anti-science" is because of your reasoning. The leaps you take to get to the conclusion.

For example, you blame "science" for engines that used coal in the past. Because apparently scientists should have known the end result of burning coal.. I mean, what?

Let's take a quick look at your list as a prime example:

• Ozone depletion = science.

• Climate change = science.

• GMO = science.

• Cancer = science.

• Cold war (nukes) = science

• Mass shootings = science

• Mass surveillance = science

• Eugenics ( gene editing) = science

• Racial pseudoscience ( white supre-mism -racism) = science

• just about any thing = science.

You blame ozone depletion on science.. Because apparently "science" invented CFC's? Or "science" provided the means to invent CFC's? Or "science" fell under the broad term by which CFC's were discovered and then utilised by just about everyone for their spray cans and fridges back since the 1930's?

Because apparently the DuPont Company should have been able to look decades into the future to know of things that weren't discovered until the advent of satellites and high altitude aircraft and crafts to monitor the upper atmosphere.

How about climate change? Just science? The fact that the Earth has gone through a history of climate change is the fault of "science"? Or are you just blaming "science" because something something they enabled it because something something we get to use and do stuff that accelerated it?

GMO? What about it? A lot of the foods we eat has been altered in some way, shape or form.

Cancer is caused by "science" now?

And your list continues... Even mass shootings are caused or enabled by science? What?

Racial pseudoscience was not caused or created by science. Racists are known to adopt scientific terminology to make their racist ideology sound relevant.

And "just about anything = science"..

It is laughable.

so that's a yes, period.
the AGW we are experiencing is enabled by Science... not that hard was it?

That is not what I said.

Why are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said and quoted?

You are literally lying now.

Are you that desperate?

sorry please explain... you're not making any sense to any of us...

It was a joke in response to your ridiculous statements about "human science".

Human science, by the way, is actually sociology, anthropology, archaeology.

Frankly, right now I am surprised you aren't blaming ancient 'science' for the first hominid that discovered how to create fire for the fires in the Amazon.

Never met the man unfortunately. I believe he had a wicked humor...

Yeah, he as a peach..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneesh#1984_bioterror_attack

 

[billvon]

What exactly have I posted that is wrong?

Other than a dozen replies to me, your incorrect claims include:
"Given the dry state of those forest we stand a very good chance of losing them, if not this year the next or the one after."
"No big healthy forests with large old growth means an oxygen generation deficit globally..."
"It, oxygen levels dropping, is now though...and will become more so as wild fires continue...around the world...due to climate change. Further reducing oxygen generation and increasing CO2."

and just a note here:

Given the degree of intellectual competency of the average person is it little wonder that a general anti -science POV prevails?"

Yep. A good solution would be more education, so we have fewer people like you.

 

[iceaura]

Science has yet to own up to the disaster of Climate change, micro plastic pollution and other massive issues. for without science we would not have these problems.

You claim to be agreeing with me in general, but are posting things in fundamental disagreement with my basic pov.

But in the consumers mind science has created these problems and hopefully science will fix them...

The "consumers" (of what?) mind you describe there is in my posts a creation of partisan (Republican) political feeds. Not only is it (in my basic view) little or none of the fault of science or scientists per se, it is not even (imho) significantly the fault of politics in general - I lay it on one specific and identified political faction in the US.

The degree to which industrial capitalist corporations oppose public scientific inquiry, thereby influencing the emerging aristocracy of inherited power and wealth they produce when uncurbed and the communication and information channels of US society they dominate, seems to conflict with the worldview of many here and in similar forums - especially the post Reagan "bothside" crowd.

 

[iceaura]

GMO? What about it? A lot of the foods we eat has been altered in some way, shape or form.

That is a propaganda meme, invented and promulgated by the US corporate faction that also campaigns to deny AGW and its significance.

GMO hazard denial and the AGW hazard denial have common origins, financing, and political representation.

 

[wegs]

In some cases their negligence make them culpable sure...
take this beautiful beast as a simple example:
View attachment 2726
generic steam train image - off the web.

It may be true that due to the Dunning-Kruger effect the scientists and engineers who experimented, built and assessed coal fired steam engines didn't see what future they were engineering. But certainly their tremendous ingenuity went on to play a significant role in possibly our most significant artificial disaster. aka Climate crisis.

I am sure they were not concerned about where their science was taking us all. Money, greed, influence, progress being more important than what may happen merely a couple of centuries later.

Maybe the scientist paused for a bit when working on his pressure vessel and thought fleetingly that that smoke, what ever it consisted of ( they didn't know in those days), was going somewhere but hey that's someone else's problem isn't it.

Probably thought ignorance was bliss ...the Co2 produced from the science enabled iron works that made the engine itself would have been enormous.
So inadvertently(**) the scientist's science has enabled climate change because with out the science there would be no AGW.
Ask any clever indigenous person that has co-existed with nature for 40,000 years or so with out it, and they will tell you.
A classic case of the Dunning -Kruger effect.
Arrogance has no intellectual boundaries.

(**)Assuming no one would wish a human extinction event it must be deemed inadvertent or maybe I am being too generous?

Regardless of the issue of culpability, unwise human science did indeed enable climate change.

Ironically if the human race becomes extinct because of science then one could claim that science itself is the most anti science group there is. Because after extinction where for art thou science?

But, can't we meet somewhere in the middle here, QQ?

Our ability to uncover new knowledge, analyze it, and potentially build a "better" world for ourselves ...isn't that what enables us to advance as a species? As a society?

Scientists could be labeled as arrogant greedy narcissists by and large, if they were also psychics, which they are not. Going with what you're upset about, don't you believe that science is a process? Without this process in place QQ, we wouldn't be further along as a species, would we? Despite the errors science sometimes makes, isn't it worth the progress that has been made?

No one would or should argue that science has limits. Of course, it does. But, imagine a life without the scientific process? The world can't just be about philosophy.

 

[gmilam]

But, can't we meet somewhere in the middle here, QQ?

He's a troll. He has no desire to be reasonable, let alone to meet in the middle.

 

[wegs]

He's a troll. He has no desire to be reasonable, let alone to meet in the middle.

He’s been a troll for 16 years? Lol I guess I’ve never seen him that way but maybe just as a contrarian.

 

[billvon]

Scientists could be labeled as arrogant greedy narcissists by and large, if they were also psychics, which they are not.

I'm not sure if that's even true.

Let's say James Watt knew that in 1776 that steam engines would lead to more use of coal, and then oil. And let's say he knew that about 200 years later those fuels would release so much CO2 that the climate was going to warm. What would be the moral thing to do? Would it be to do his work on steam engines, making them 4-5 times more efficient? That would save a lot of people from starvation (moving food around was problematic back then) and would open up continental and international trade (by making steamships and steam trains possible.) But it might lead to warming in 200 years.

Would it be to abandon his work on efficiency, and allow the much less efficient engines of the time to be used? That would result in 4-5 times the amount of coal burned, potentially causing climate change that much sooner. What's the "right" thing to do? You could make an argument in both directions, but the argument for improving efficiency is a strong one indeed.

 

[wegs]

I'm not sure if that's even true.

Let's say James Watt knew that in 1776 that steam engines would lead to more use of coal, and then oil. And let's say he knew that about 200 years later those fuels would release so much CO2 that the climate was going to warm. What would be the moral thing to do? Would it be to do his work on steam engines, making them 4-5 times more efficient? That would save a lot of people from starvation (moving food around was problematic back then) and would open up continental and international trade (by making steamships and steam trains possible.) But it might lead to warming in 200 years.

Would it be to abandon his work on efficiency, and allow the much less efficient engines of the time to be used? That would result in 4-5 times the amount of coal burned, potentially causing climate change that much sooner. What's the "right" thing to do? You could make an argument in both directions, but the argument for improving efficiency is a strong one indeed.

Hmm. Good points. Should scientists be held accountable for every potential outcome of their discoveries and inventions? If they knew of all potential dangers, I say yes. But, how could any scientist know all possible harmful outcomes, centuries into the future?

Is this what we mean by socially responsible science?

I think QQ is taking it a step further, though...and insinuating that scientists are purposely avoiding thinking about their ethical responsibilities to society at large. I'd imagine, some do. But, definitely not the majority.

 

[Quantum Quack]

But, can't we meet somewhere in the middle here, QQ?

Our ability to uncover new knowledge, analyze it, and potentially build a "better" world for ourselves ...isn't that what enables us to advance as a species? As a society?

Scientists could be labeled as arrogant greedy narcissists by and large, if they were also psychics, which they are not. Going with what you're upset about, don't you believe that science is a process? Without this process in place QQ, we wouldn't be further along as a species, would we? Despite the errors science sometimes makes, isn't it worth the progress that has been made?

No one would or should argue that science has limits. Of course, it does. But, imagine a life without the scientific process? The world can't just be about philosophy.

nice to see a reasonable and rational post. Thanks...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Hmm. Good points. Should scientists be held accountable for every potential outcome of their discoveries and inventions? If they knew of all potential dangers, I say yes. But, how could any scientist know all possible harmful outcomes, centuries into the future?

Is this what we mean by socially responsible science?

I think QQ is taking it a step further, though...and insinuating that scientists are purposely avoiding thinking about their ethical responsibilities to society at large. I'd imagine, some do. But, definitely not the majority.

Again ... you are on a roll..
socially responsible science..a bit like socially responsible government or socially responsible corporations.... a very good point...

 

[Quantum Quack]

He's a troll. He has no desire to be reasonable, let alone to meet in the middle.

any one who challenges your intellectual vanity is a troll so I guess that makes me a troll.