Stamp out anti-science in US politics

[Martinus]

It's a bit later than that. At the time, the rot has only began to settle in.

I was rather thinking about:



Incidentally, the victory of Vienna aside, the rule of Sobieski was pretty catastrophic for Poland. He won wars, but lost the peace with Russia and Turkey, depleted the treasury, failed to secure a dynasty and overall was a puppet of the Habsburg and the Bourbon parties. Not to mention, saving Austria so that Poland can be partitioned by it later was not exactly the best move in the long run.

He should have allied with France and Turkey instead.

[Valmy]

Incidentally, the victory of Vienna aside, the rule of Sobieski was pretty catastrophic for Poland. He won wars, but lost the peace with Russia and Turkey, depleted the treasury, failed to secure a dynasty and overall was a puppet of the Habsburg and the Bourbon parties. Not to mention, saving Austria so that Poland can be partitioned by it later was not exactly the best move in the long run.

He should have allied with France and Turkey instead.

But that Cavalry charge was the baddest ass moment in history.  Or maybe it just is in my imagination.

But yeah whenever some American whines about Euros not being grateful for WWII or whatever I always bring up Austria partitioning Poland less than 100 years later as an example of what sort of gratitude one can expect in international politics.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, I think the P-L Commonwealth analogy works quite well for the US.

Like the US, it was at its height a rather badass country, with substantial military prowess. Like the US, it had a rather advanced political system compared to its rivals during its golden age. Like the US, it was a relatively good place to live for ordinary people and had more checks and balances on its power than its rivals. Like the US, it was more often a "good guy" (or at least saw itself as such) compared to its rivals, and had a "manifest destiny" type of narrative to its myth.

What ruined it was: (i) fetish-like devotion of its body politic to "ancient privileges", making it eventually ungovernable, (ii) opposition of its body politic to taxation, making it unable to maintain its dominance, (iii) its political system, while being more "free" than that of its key rivals, was also much less efficient and effective, (iv) its antielitism, and (v) numerous wars.

I wonder when China will start influencing your presidential elections.

[Fate]

I wonder when China will start influencing your presidential elections.

According to the GOP, '92 or '96. 

[Razgovory]

Incidentally, I can think of only one political system in which the body politic was so virulently and ideologically anti-elitist - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The basic proverb "a petty noble in his household is equal to a king" was the fundament of this view, and uneducated, barely literate petty nobles looked down on internationally educated rich ones, who studies in Bologna, Paris or Cologne.

I don't think you understand that proverb correctly.

[Viking]

I wonder when China will start influencing your presidential elections.

John Huntsman 2012?

[derspiess]

I don't think it's anti-science to occasionally question something a group of scientists say.

There are be a number of things currently accepted as scientific fact that will be laughed at a century from now.

[Valmy]

I don't think it's anti-science to occasionally question something a group of scientists say.

There are be a number of things currently accepted as scientific fact that will be laughed at a century from now.

What was accepted as scientific fact a century ago that we laugh at today?  I mean we understand they are wrong but I generally do not mock people who came to conclusions based on the data available.  'Haha those Ancient Greeks were sure stupid to get the circumference of the earth off by a few miles'.

Presuming we are not talking about Social Sciences and pseudo-science stuff like Nazi racial theory.

But yeah all science should be questioned and considered because just because that is what we understand from current data does not mean we will not find something in the future that changes that.  But I do not think Creationism is embraced because the data supporting it is more compelling.

[Razgovory]

I don't think it's anti-science to occasionally question something a group of scientists say.

There are be a number of things currently accepted as scientific fact that will be laughed at a century from now.

This isn't just innocent skepticism.  They aren't asking questions about Evolution because of unsolved questions concerning it.  They are rejecting it out of hand because it conflicts with their view of religion.  The skepticism about Climate change is not genuine scientific concern, but because their donors stand to lose billions of dollars if regulations are passed as a result of such research.  Would they question Climate change if the consensus said we need to put more greenhouse gases in the air?  The only times when science is being attacked is because someone is feeling threatened by it.  That's not rational, and it's anti-science.

[The Brain]

I don't think it's anti-science to occasionally question something a group of scientists say.

There are be a number of things currently accepted as scientific fact that will be laughed at a century from now.

This isn't just innocent skepticism.  They aren't asking questions about Evolution because of unsolved questions concerning it.  They are rejecting it out of hand because it conflicts with their view of religion.  The skepticism about Climate change is not genuine scientific concern, but because their donors stand to lose billions of dollars if regulations are passed as a result of such research.  Would they question Climate change if the consensus said we need to put more greenhouse gases in the air?  The only times when science is being attacked is because someone is feeling threatened by it.  That's not rational, and it's anti-science.

Defending your interests isn't rational? OK.

[frunk]

I don't think it's anti-science to occasionally question something a group of scientists say.

There are be a number of things currently accepted as scientific fact that will be laughed at a century from now.

There's nothing wrong with occasional questioning.  Scientific advancement is built on probing questions that get to the heart of what is wrong with current knowledge.  It's quite another matter to outright ignore the answers you get and keep on repeating the same moronic questions again and again.

[Valmy]

Defending your interests isn't rational? OK.

Well it is perfectly rational politically

[Viking]

I don't think it's anti-science to occasionally question something a group of scientists say.

There are be a number of things currently accepted as scientific fact that will be laughed at a century from now.

You say that like there is an opening for us returning to earth centric astronomy or special creation.  The thing is the "occasionally" you are referring to ignore substantial and as of yet unrefutable work done by millions of scientists over the past 150 years (evolution) or 500 years (heliocentrism). The "group" of scientists you are talking about is defined to include "almost all of them". This is the case for both evolution and global climate change.

The sciences of Biology and Meteorology are well researched and well grounded in reality with theories with a robust ability to make predictions and a conclusive ability to explain all observations (facts in layman's speech). Calling it Evolution or Global Warming to try and obfuscate that is silly.

We know that anti-Biologyism and anti-Meteorolgyism are conspiracy theories since the proponents are not experts in the field, they quote-mine, they claim secret cabals exist and most importantly they insist on us taking severe action despite them not making any plausible attempt to explain the observed facts and make testable predictions.

Yes, science changes over time and yesterday's "holy" truth may be replaced by a new and better model for the world. The fundamental difference between Science and Religion is that Science will change it's position if the facts change, Religion will not. What we do know about Science is that it does not return to disproved orthodoxies. Hoyle's Steady State Universe will never return. Even if we come to some sort of static universe theory which replaces the big bang, it will be nothing like Hoyle's Steady State apart from only colloquially.

[Razgovory]

While I disagree with Viking that religion is unchanging, it is not a useful metric for most practical purposes.  You can't build a bridge based on knowledge of Psalms and the book of Genesis is a poor substitute for real biology.  Populating an area beyond it's carrying capacity and praying for rain when you expend the water table is not good policy.  Moses may have been able to divide the waters but if the ice caps continue to melt and the sea level rises I wouldn't rely on miracles to hold back the tide.

[Grallon]

Once upon a time the US were at the forefront of human progress and science...  Now Creationism, Climate Change denial, Voodoo Economics, Religious invocations left right and center - hold sway among large segments of your population...

With nukes on top of it all.




G.