- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What makes you a science denier?
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:14 pm to airfernando
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:14 pm to airfernando
quote:
Science has perpetually proved itself wrong.
... no shite.
kind of the entire point
0
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:31 pm to ManBearTiger
My bad if I misunderstood the OP. I was under the impression that you did not believe in the disorders being scientifically proven. Mainly because your subject "What makes you a science denier?". If you were intending to ask whether or not said disorders are over treated, the answer would be absolutely. I doubt Dyslexia is over treated and i'm not exactly sure how that one made it onto your list, but I can tell you that many of my peers in college were prescribed adderall or vyvanse to improve their studying. I'm not sure at what age parents are introducing their children to these drugs, but I would advise against it.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:50 pm to FavoriteAnon
quote:
I'm not sure at what age parents are introducing their children to these drugs, but I would advise against it.
I have a friend that was on ritalin first then adderall starting at about age 6. He was an only child, and his parents were overprotective of him. They convinced themselves they were protecting him. I know they thought it was best. Doctors told them that I assume. I think it's pretty fricked.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:51 pm to FavoriteAnon
quote:
I was under the impression that you did not believe in the disorders being scientifically proven
Look, here's the thing, in order for something to be scientifically proven shouldn't there be some kind of concrete definition on exactly what is being proven? Does any clear defintion or objective criteria for diagnosis of dyslexia exist? Ditto that for ADD/ADHD. Sure, I'd say these things exist, if they were not labelled as disorders which the subject is simply "afflicted" with, but rather treated as symptoms of dysfunctional environment, diet, parenting, etc.
It seems to me these disorders have been fabricated, intentionally or not, as a way to explain away any individual culpability as to why some people are the way they are.
This post was edited on 4/14/16 at 9:55 pm
Posted on 4/14/16 at 10:02 pm to gthog61
quote:
The "concensus" on global warming is due to grant money. I would like to hear from scientists who don't stand to get rich off it.
My doctor gets paid to treat me therefore I don't believe him when he tells me I have AIDS. I need a pro-bono doctor before I'll buy into the hoopla
Posted on 4/14/16 at 10:13 pm to ManBearTiger
Well dyslexia has become more of a "catch all" term for more complex reading and auditory issues. I am no expert but from my understanding it is an issue with spatial awareness when reading or speaking. I also don't believe there is any treatment for this other than special tutoring for children, which will get them caught up to where they should be. My point being that this issue is an actual issue that affects many people. I think what you are saying is that many parents create these "issues" as excuses for their child being behind the standard reading level, etc.. I'm positive that this happens, but I believe for dyslexia a trained professional would be able to test the child and know the difference.
In terms of ADD and ADHD I will tell you these things exist, but shame on any doctor that will knowingly prescribe a child any medication that is not necessary.
In terms of ADD and ADHD I will tell you these things exist, but shame on any doctor that will knowingly prescribe a child any medication that is not necessary.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 10:16 pm to lsu2006
quote:you got AIDS from a pro boner!
My doctor gets paid to treat me therefore I don't believe him when he tells me I have AIDS. I need a pro-bono
Posted on 4/14/16 at 10:16 pm to ManBearTiger
Climate change doomsday predictions are nothing but scare tactics. Climate change is real, but you never hear the positive side, just fear mongering and fake predictions
Posted on 4/14/16 at 10:27 pm to ManBearTiger
That the theory of natural selection is false
Posted on 4/14/16 at 10:28 pm to ManBearTiger
Believing men and women are equal.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 10:30 pm to TJGator1215
quote:
That the theory of natural selection is false
Key word in bold. Of course it's false, otherwise it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a fact.
Scientists are so full of shite and the mainstream media just eats it up.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 10:36 pm to Tigris
quote:
Of course it is. All you have to do is look at historical CO2 levels to see that CO2 has been higher than we could ever reach by our emissions; and life was thriving on Earth at the time.
It's the same poor argument I hear time and time again. The question isn't if climate change exists (It does). It's whether current rates of warming are exceeding previous records (They appear to be).
We don't only have 200 years of data. Geologic data from multiple sources lines up to show the patterns that created concerns in the scientific community.
To say that life thrived during times of high CO2 and temperatures is true, but multiple massive extinction events have happened since that time. What that means is that current life on our planet may be ill equipped to deal with rapid changes in the environment.
So the question isn't how to stop climate change, but rather how to mitigate its effects.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 10:46 pm to ManBearTiger
All these spiteful science nerds were beaten up in high school... Meanwhile Sarah Palin was a beauty queen!
Posted on 4/14/16 at 11:12 pm to TejasHorn
I believe in science, I graduated with a degree in biochem, but I am still very religious. I go to church sometimes. Science doesn't disprove religion as religion doesn't disprove science.
Science test things that we can see. We use evidence to explain or try to understand why things occur and is the way it is.
Science test things that we can see. We use evidence to explain or try to understand why things occur and is the way it is.
Posted on 4/14/16 at 11:24 pm to BoostAddict
quote:Science doesn't require belief.
I believe in the big bang, evolution and all that good stuff.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 12:22 am to LucasP
quote:
Key word in bold. Of course it's false, otherwise it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a fact.
Scientists are so full of shite and the mainstream media just eats it up.
please tell me this is just a shiny hook
Posted on 4/15/16 at 12:23 am to Bmath
quote:
To say that life thrived during times of high CO2 and temperatures is true, but multiple massive extinction events have happened since that time. What that means is that current life on our planet may be ill equipped to deal with rapid changes in the environment.
Life thrived in the warmer periods. It will again.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 12:28 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Life thrived in the warmer periods. It will again.
That's true.. but I also think it's fair to say that if humans do have a significant impact.. those future "warm periods" could be extinction events. They could be extinction events without our help too.
I look at it like diet and exercise.. or lifestyle choices that increase your risk factors. You may not have a heart attack and die.. or you might and it might kill you -- but I'm sure as hell not going to increase my risk factors when I could easily control them.
Positive feedback loops are a very scary thing
This post was edited on 4/15/16 at 12:31 am
Posted on 4/15/16 at 12:29 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Life thrived in the warmer periods. It will again.
The question isn't whether life will be wiped out. The question is will the current life be able to survive without great upheaval. If climate does really change rapidly then there could be a die off event, as there has been in the past several times, and things could get difficult for us as a species. I don't think anyone is saying that we're going to kill off all life. Things just might get difficult for currently extant species. Then there would be a recovery and adjustment to new environment. With a new to some great or little extent set of species.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 12:32 am to Peazey
quote:
The question isn't whether life will be wiped out. The question is will the current life be able to survive without great upheaval
It's as likely that a warming climate will be more beneficial than harmful. Life will change, people will adapt.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News