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

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by wegs, Aug 7, 2019.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,311
    Certainly it requires no significant education to be a creationalist. Nor does being ignorant of your ignorance require an education. Lol
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,489
    Science doesn't have a credibility problem; anti-science people have an ignorance problem.
     
    Bells likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,311
    Science does indeed have a credibility problem... and certainly anti-science folk are surely ignorant of the reality of the human world as well...

    btw ... how do you define anti-science?

    Being ignorant of your ignorance is one of the root properties of arrogance. Anti science people are not the only group guilty of arrogance. This whole thread is about arrogance..
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2019
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,489
    Depends on who you ask. Don't ask ignorant people about science.
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,311
    or the people, that are victims of it...
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,489
    One cannot be a 'victim' of anti-science.
    Being anti-science is an attitude, a stance, a decision.
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,311
    hee hee...
    so what do you want to discuss... you pick... anti science or credibility of science..or both?
    a victim of science would indeed have doubts about science...
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,311
    what a weird discussion...
    I post:
    you post
    I respond with
    and now you post in response to my post
    my gosh, what a merry go round that is...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,882
    Well, I guess you could be a victim of it... e.g. a toddler picking up measles because their parents were “anti-science”.
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,311
    Or a person dying from melanoma because the anti science crowd weren't loud enough! Or the human race goes extinct because science didn't do their job properly... blah blah blah....
    Don't get me wrong i think science is great and fundamentaly necessary, but its hard to argue the case sometimes...especially if it all comes to naught because we essentially stuffed up and did a hubble....
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,311
    Yeah it's a pity some people don't trust science.
     
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,311
    No big deal... netflix is full of reasons not to trust science... most of the science created zombie films are fun any way...
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,896
    ?? I've been a juror on several cases. One was a personal injury lawsuit. Really no morality in that case - just a question of who was going to make the most money.

    Science is often disturbing to people. I've dissected corpses, and that was, at times, really gross. Fortunately we don't decide "wow, that's really disturbing, so medical students shouldn't dissect corpses." Usually we make better decisions than that.

    Babies? Sometimes people have to make hard decisions. How about a selective reduction, so that two kids have an 80% chance to survive, instead of keeping the 3 children who would have a 50% chance of survival? If you based your decision of disturbing pictures of other selective reductions, you might not make the best decision. How about a CRISPR treatment for thanatophoric dysplasia, to raise the odds of a baby surviving from 1% to 80%? Probably a good decision - even if the remaining 20% results in very disturbing pictures.
     
  17. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,389
    I see why you have the word quack in your name... even if it is an insult to self respecting ducks.
     
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,311
    and the decision about who gets the most money is based on what value system?

    You see the problem is that your answer; that there is no morality in the personal injury lawsuit decision speaks volumes about how you would decide about selective reductions where by the hypothetical 20% thanatophoric dysplasia CRISPR failures that may have survived have to be euthanized to avoid long term financial compensation claims and man made abominations being added to the collective human society. Psychopathic indeed!

    The key distinction is that once CRISPR intervenes it becomes morally responsible for what would other wise be an amoral natural outcome.

    (a form of a Sophie's choice ethical dilemma that only has one unpleasant solution)

    Also, long term gene pool degradation is a serious problem. Personally, I prefer Darwinism, the brutal process of natural selection, when it comes to most of these things.

    As Doctor Suzuki famously said a while ago about genetic engineering, "If you can't fix it, don't break it"

    CRISPR validity TEST:

    If CRISPR treatments are unable to be fully reversed then you already know that geneticists have no idea what they are doing and are effectively playing Russian Roulette with the human gene pool.

    But it is true, Humans like to gamble as long as it is someone else who pays when the gamble fails...
    Well ...we gambled with fossil fuels, CFC's, antibiotics, so why not GMO's and genetic editing?


    Nuclear Energy Test:

    If you can not turn it off then make sure you don't turn it on
    ... ( Chernobyl, back ground radiation etc)
    After reading Leslie Corrice's web presentation ( I posted the link in post #55) one of the key factors that still haunts the nuclear industry is about waste management.
    so,
    "If you can't handle the nuclear waste correctly, don't make any"
    ====

    I am still waiting to see the "fall out" from that recent nuclear disaster in the Urals...keeping in mind that the Russian Nuke industry ( yes... that is science) has evolved massively since Chernobyl and the radiation ( type and mix) involved in the URAL's incident may be quite different and potentially more lethal than any thing the world has seen so far..
    Personally I wouldn't trust anything that the governments/media publishes out on this particular nasty.
    The history of that particular research facility and recent exotic radiation leaks is especially worrying.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2019
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,311
    take it up with the entertainment industry...
     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,311
    Reminds me of the fictional story ( or is it?) about a mad billionaire who decides that for the human race to survive over population, 75%(?) must be killed off. He invents a gene edited virus that takes out a subjectively selected group. ( of his choosing)
    Determined to play God because he acknowledges that "sometimes people have to make hard decisions".
     
  21. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,392
    the fact that jesus parents were not married
     
    Beer w/Straw likes this.
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,896
    You don't understand what thanatophoric dysplasia is, do you. Google it - then tell me that you'd prefer babies be born that way because it makes you feel better.

    If you like I will post some pictures of what you want. They will be disturbing, but if you really don't understand . . .
    Nope. If I do CPR on someone and break their ribs, they can't sue me later - because I did in fact save their life. Nor can their family sue me if I fail to save them - because I am doing the best I can to save them,

    (Well, of course, you could sue me if you like; you can sue for anything. See the above example for the sort of lack of morality that can be observed in the legal system on occasion.)
    So you prefer dead babies. Not really that defensible a position.
    Cardiac bypass operations cannot be fully reversed.
    Sex reassignment surgery cannot be fully reversed.
    Transplants cannot be reversed.

    Yet we still perform them.
    Are you saying that you'd prefer a world where we never had fossil fuels, refrigeration or antibiotics? Again, that's a lot of dead people you are wishing for. Didn't they write a science fiction story about a guy who wanted to kill off 75% of the population because he wanted to play God?
    If there is not much fallout, will you change your mind? Or is this more of a religious belief for you?
     
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,311
    I certainly don't want babies born in a worse state... do you?
    Any guarantees this wont happen with CRISPR? Nope!

    No, I prefer Darwinistic principles to manage evolution and not human gambling...
    Do you believe in natural evolution or are you a human creationist?
    ====
    There is no reason at all why a more wise scientific world could not guide human evolution rather that trample on it and effectively destroy it, like we have and are currently doing. But you got to know what you are doing to do that...
    ====
    true, they are not reversible which tells you something about scientists who claim to know what they are doing...

    well it depends on perspective... personally it's not going to effect me, climate change and stuff... long dead before the shit fan happens.. but if you are at all concerned about long term sustainability of the human race issues, then yes if that meant long term sustainability...certainly a more wise and less arrogant approach by science would be beneficial...

    You know about all those super bugs in hospitals don't you after all you have medical training don't you..What are the odds for a major epidemic of antibiotic resistant infections that makes small pox look like a common head cold...
    We are currently breeding our next global pandemic right now...and you know it, which makes you complicit just like it makes me and everyone else who knows, complicit in a moral trade off between immediacy and long term survival.

    Oh I really do hope my concerns are proven unfounded... truly...especially for all those unborn children that will be affected by a heavy dose of radiation...in the fall out zones and because of increased background rads globally...
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2019

Share This Page