re: The fact that we have to have a "March for Science" is frightening

I'm definitely not anti-science. I am anti-politicized science though. When you have an agenda you aren't being objective.

Because objective science would make you look at a bunch of things that are completely anathema to the progressive agenda.

Because facts are sexist and racist and bigoted.

quote:

---

When it told us things we didn't want to hear

---

Yep

quote:

---

It seems to me all the responses are a bunch of butt hurt towards the transgender movement

---

It seems you only read the responses you want to.

quote:

---

First, there’s the Left’s opposition to genetically modified foods, which stifled research into what could have been a second Green Revolution to feed Africa. Second, there’s the campaign by animal-rights activists against medical researchers, whose work has already been hampered and would be devastated if the activists succeeded in banning animal experimentation. Third, there’s the resistance in academia to studying the genetic underpinnings of human behavior, which has cut off many social scientists from the recent revolutions in genetics and neuroscience.

---

And most people don't even realize what science actually is. It's a method, and the results are simply the results. Good science takes great pains to eliminate any bias the observer may have when conducting the experiment. Sure there's bad apples out there that fudge results because they are out for glory, but it will ultimately come out.


One thing I do see as an issue is the decline in peer reviewed experiments. There's no glory in checking someone else's work, so the scientists and money shy away from it, but it's critical for the process to work right.

This is the most unnecessary bullshite ever. We don't NEED it.

Everyone proceeds as if they're under the threat of attack.

The truth is that most people desperately crave attention, and marching has become the trendy organizing mechanism of the day.

quote:

---

Tell a liberal you are against abortion because you are on the side of science. Looking at the science of reproduction, how can you not conclude that abortion is murder?

---

I'm "pro science" (sad that that's even a thing) and pro life. The abortion issue is not a science debate, it's a philosophical one, just like gender issues.

quote:

---

The abortion issue is not a science debate, it's a philosophical one,

---

This is a leftist lie among many.

I don't disagree with any of that. As a government employee, I think some of the stuff the government does is ridiculous.

But we are talking about simple things that you can read on yourself. Things like prescribed burning, the effect of harvesting juvenile tom turkeys, the significance of the longleaf pine ecosystem to wildlife, the importance of wolves and other large carnivored to ecosystem balance. You can read a multitude of studied on any of these topics, the same ones the agencies use to dictate management of a resource. And the majority of those studies are conducted by universities and extension services, not the agencies.

Yet, I talk to people time and time again that will argue against any of it. They basically claim that all biologists are hacks, idiots that don't know what they are doing. All of the studies are bogus, because the agencies and organizations can make them say whatever they want.

Do some scientists possibly do that? I don't doubt it. You can bend interpretations as you see fit. But it's a sad statement of our society when the majority believes the government, universities, extension services, and non-profit groups are all lying about the same things.

quote:

---

Maybe there's a certain validity to some reticence towards government interference at every level.

---

In some regards I agree, but specific to my point regarding natural resources, no. They are a public resource. As such, the government is tasked with managing them for the public. If every Joe, Dick, and Harry was allowed to do as he pleased with the wildlife on his land, we would be no better than feudal Europe, where only the rich could hunt.

THe issue is that scientists are mixing their work with politics.

Science can tell us the how, it cannot tell us the why or why not. There are ethical issues at play and moral issues.

Just because you are qualified to do work in a lab does mean you are qualified to push for policy that affects real people.

quote:

---

I guess the solution is to burn down the government and kill all the idiots.

---

Scruffy likes it!