If you claim to be the party of science

[DKW 86 7,410]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

You never told me what the thesis is at issue?

Presumably, it has something to do with transgenderism?  What specifically?

We are speaking in broad generalities here. The media tells us daily that "the science is settled" on any number of topics. Right now, it would be foremost Transgender Medical Intervention before the kids come of age. I know, love, and support people that have all transitioned. They were 18+ when they did so tho. There were no rash decisions made by a child in any case.  But now, suddenly, if you want to even suggest, as the NYT has in some number of articles, that waiting until the children can make these decisions for themselves. That isnt denying anyone care, It is simply allowing time for simple maturity to understand the issues at hand. That is now getting some really bat crap crazy folks into a shoutdown match with the NYT because they merely suggest that there may be another side to the issue. Arwa Madawi of the Guardian, has written an article many point to today. It is a salute to straw-manning an argument. She has no real pint so she has to build so many strawmen to knock down. IE:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/commentisfree/2023/feb/19/new-york-times-trans-coverage-open-letters

imagine if an alien managed to avoid getting shot down by the Biden administration

’ve got a feeling the poor alien might get the impression that every third person in the US is trans – rather than 0.5% of the population. 

the impression that nobody is allowed to say the word “woman” any more and we are all being forced at gunpoint to say “uterus-havers”. 

They might believe that millions of children are being mutilated by doctors in the name of gender-affirming care because of the all-powerful trans lobby.

They might come away thinking that JK Rowling is not a multi-multi-multi-millionaire with endless resources at her disposal

but a marginalized victim who needs brave Times columnists to come to her defense.

New York Times Magazine devoted to a laboriously evenhanded story about disagreements over the standards of care for trans youth;

or the 3,000 words of the front-page story … on whether trans women athletes are unfairly ruining the competition for other women;

or the 1,200 words of the front-page story … on how trans interests are banning the word “woman” from abortion-rights discourse.”

accused the Times of treating gender diversity “with an eerily familiar mix of pseudoscience and euphemistic, charged language, while publishing reporting on trans children that omits relevant information about its sources”. That relevant information being that some of those sources have affiliations with far-right groups. That “charged language” being phrases like “patient zero” to describe a transgender young person seeking gender-affirming care, “a phrase that vilifies transness as a disease to be feared”.

It goes on and on and we all get the point. Strawman after Strawman. Why? Because the worst she can say is that:

Quote

New York Times Magazine devoted to a laboriously evenhanded story about disagreements over the standards of care for trans youth;

Excuse me, we used to call laboriously evenhanded a feature of good journalism. 

[AUFAN78 3,889]

This woman is somewhat a breath of fresh air right, I mean, she admits to formerly being in a freakish cult, but when it became ultra freaky she departed. And she calls a spade a spade which is admirable in todays woke rhetorical daily nonsense. BTW, Love the Evergreen review.

Anyway, We can all think of similar personalities on this forum, yet we wait too for them to break ranks. We lift a glass to hope!

https://sashastone.substack.com/p/did-i-just-leave-a-cult#details

[Son of A Tiger 555]

Edited February 21, 2023 by Son of A Tiger

[homersapien 11,352]

6 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Which was my whole point. It is used ad nauseum by media people and talking heads, many of whom I would doubt if they ever had one STEM course in their lives. They dont understand anything about science, which is where we get the "the science is settled" meme.

Again, what is the thesis? 

There is plenty of evidentiary support (i.e.scientific) support for a thesis that sexuality exists on a continuum instead of as a binary category.  That is probably what you are alluding to when media, etc.  react to those (many) who deny transgenderism even exists, which has been expressed on this very forum.  (Homosexuality was historically condemned on this basis.) 

On the other hand, if the thesis revolves around what how we as a society should react to their existence, science has nothing to contribute.  Science is silent regarding compassion or empathy.

Such outcomes of social policies have yet to be determined, but no doubt data is being accumulated by the social sciences.

Edited February 22, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,352]

3 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Reminds me of Galileo

[Son of A Tiger 555]

[DKW 86 7,410]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

Again, what is the thesis? Thesis: "Mass media misuses Science is Settled"  meme all the time. They likely have zero to no understanding of Science in anyway.

There is plenty of evidentiary support (i.e.scientific) support for a thesis that sexuality exists on a continuum instead of as a binary category.  That is probably what you are alluding to when media, etc.  react to those (many) who deny transgenderism even exists, which has been expressed on this very forum.  (Homosexuality was historically condemned on this basis.) I 100% agree, and am confused. Did you think that I was addressing anything gay or real transgederism then you are mistaken. Sorry, I did not say anything close to this.

On the other hand, if the thesis revolves around what how we as a society should react to their existence, science has nothing to contribute.  Science is silent regarding compassion or empathy. My point is that Mass Media idiots are disingenuously using " science"  to shut down a very robust civil discussion to their advantage.

Such outcomes of social policies have yet to be determined, but no doubt data is being accumulated by the social sciences.

One mo time...

It wont really matter to the chattering classes what the truth or science says anymore. It will be again be twisted to fit their politics. 

[DKW 86 7,410]

15 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

 

[CoffeeTiger 5,082]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

 

[homersapien 11,352]

5 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

One mo time...

It wont really matter to the chattering classes what the truth or science says anymore. It will be again be twisted to fit their politics. 

My point is not to reinforce such faulty thinking, which is exactly what you are doing.  Don't take the bait.

[DKW 86 7,410]

16 hours ago, homersapien said:

My point is not to reinforce such faulty thinking, which is exactly what you are doing.  Don't take the bait.

So you do not think that the Chattering Classes misquote Science daily? You really think that the "Science is Settled" for most "theories" out there? That there is no longer any need to do research or question anything? That is not science.

[homersapien 11,352]

10 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

So you do not think that the Chattering Classes misquote Science daily? You really think that the "Science is Settled" for most "theories" out there? That there is no longer any need to do research or question anything? That is not science.

 

I don't know what you mean by the "Chattering classes".  (Anyone who doesn't agree with you?)

But to answer the question, reputable news sources or responsible organizations sometimes misquote scientific opinion, but more often than not (IMO), they get it right. (A good example is AGW theory.)

Regardless, you are not being helpful by making generalized statements about organizations ("chattering classes") abusing or misquoting science without being specific.  It only serves to undermine the value science brings to any discussion. One needs to be very specific when discussing scientific support. 

That is why I kept asking what the thesis was at issue (which has yet to be articulated).

If it is transgender people exist, then yes, I think science would support that.  If it is science supports a certain way of treating transgender people, then most likely no, I suspect the science is still out on that, and will likely stay out for a long time.

The rest of your post simply illustrates how I have been talking past you, instead of to you.  You are obviously emotionally involved by implying your understanding of science is greater than mine. (And for all I know about your education and work experience, that's certainly possible.)

But if it really helps for you to feel superior in that respect, have at it. 

 

Edited February 23, 2023 by homersapien

[PUB78 1,354]

https://wng.org/opinions/are-evangelical-leaders-as-courageous-as-j-k-rowling-1677156614?mkt_tok=NzEwLVFSUi0yMDkAAAGKHoSN3qq5iWtIYlYkA6RJ-juZH_yCCMDYOm5Q4z6iEMOaFN7-JkbLFd0XVj9VoK-XnnPQ3EkH12iPTOD6pGbtHvQFmg4ELnM51-V-JW7fPcM

[DKW 86 7,410]

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

I don't know what you mean by the "Chattering classes".  (Anyone who doesn't agree with you?)

Stopped reading right there. No one is that f'in dense.

[DKW 86 7,410]

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

I don't know what you mean by the "Chattering classes".  (Anyone who doesn't agree with you?)

But to answer the question, reputable news sources or responsible organizations sometimes misquote scientific opinion, but more often than not (IMO), they get it right. (A good example is AGW theory.)

Regardless, you are not being helpful by making generalized statements about organizations ("chattering classes") abusing or misquoting science without being specific.  It only serves to undermine the value science brings to any discussion. One needs to be very specific when discussing scientific support. 

That is why I kept asking what the thesis was at issue (which has yet to be articulated).

If it is transgender people exist, then yes, I think science would support that.  If it is science supports a certain way of treating transgender people, then most likely no, I suspect the science is still out on that, and will likely stay out for a long time.

The rest of your post simply illustrates how I have been talking past you, instead of to you.  You are obviously emotionally involved by implying your understanding of science is greater than mine. (And for all I know about your education and work experience, that's certainly possible.)

But if it really helps for you to feel superior in that respect, have at it. 

 

I'll quit wasting my time I have given serious precise answers here. 

You claim to know ANYTHING about science, and yet you are the poster boy here on this forum for sharing article after article of completely factless claims of driveby psychiatry. You have shared countless COMPLETELY FACT FREE articles from completely clueless 2-bit partisan hackjobs that defy science and even common sense. 

"Well, I have never been in the same room with so&so but I can professionally tell you that i find him to diagnoseable with such&such syndrome based upon my complete lack of time observing them in a clinical environment. I prefer 5-10 second sound bytes likely to be taken completely out of context as my sample research and declare that an individual that I have zero presentation/observational time with, to be clinically.....bull****" 

You are unintentionally the funniest poster on this board...no crap.

[Son of A Tiger 555]

A really interesting article if you read it all.

ChatGTP confession: Global warming? Not much since 2016 | Fox News

 

[homersapien 11,352]

7 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I'll quit wasting my time I have given serious precise answers here. 

You claim to know ANYTHING about science, and yet you are the poster boy here on this forum for sharing article after article of completely factless claims of driveby psychiatry. You have shared countless COMPLETELY FACT FREE articles from completely clueless 2-bit partisan hackjobs that defy science and even common sense. 

"Well, I have never been in the same room with so&so but I can professionally tell you that i find him to diagnoseable with such&such syndrome based upon my complete lack of time observing them in a clinical environment. I prefer 5-10 second sound bytes likely to be taken completely out of context as my sample research and declare that an individual that I have zero presentation/observational time with, to be clinically.....bull****" 

You are unintentionally the funniest poster on this board...no crap.

This is nothing more than a spewfull of lying, foamin-at-the-mouth, miss-characterization.

If you want to dispute anything I have said, quote it and I will parse it in detail with you.  I am not interested in responding to a baseless rant based on your impressions of anything I have posted, especially when you don't even quote the matter in particular.

It's the same as our first "run in" - when you called me a "liar", yet you couldn't produce the lie.  Bottom line, your baseless impressions or opinions count for nothing to me.

So, if you are fulfilled with spewing insults like a enraged monkey flinging poo, have at it. knock yourself out.   It just doesn't interest me. 

I am more interested in parsing the truth of a specific assertion in a rational, temperate way using the tools of facts, logic and rational debate. 

I'll leave the poo flinging to you (and the other usual MAGA suspects).

Edited February 24, 2023 by homersapien

[Son of A Tiger 555]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

This is nothing more than a spewfull of lying, foamin-at-the-mouth, miss-characterization.

If you want to dispute anything I have said, quote it and I will parse it in detail with you.  I am not interested in responding to a baseless rant based on your impressions of anything I have posted, especially when you don't even quote the matter in particular.

It's the same as our first "run in" - when you called me a "liar", yet you couldn't produce the lie.  Bottom line, your baseless impressions or opinions count for nothing to me.

So, if you are fulfilled with spewing insults like a enraged monkey flinging poo, have at it. knock yourself out.   It just doesn't interest me. 

I am more interested in parsing the truth of a specific assertion in a rational, temperate way using the tools of facts, logic and rational debate. 

I'll leave the poo flinging to you (and the other usual MAGA suspects).

^^^^^^do what augolf said and take it to PMs

[homersapien 11,352]

1 hour ago, Son of A Tiger said:

^^^^^^do what augolf said and take it to PMs

Thanks for your advice.

Been there, done that.  Useless.

Edited February 24, 2023 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,410]

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

This is nothing more than a spewfull of lying, foamin-at-the-mouth, miss-characterization.

If you want to dispute anything I have said, quote it and I will parse it in detail with you.  I am not interested in responding to a baseless rant based on your impressions of anything I have posted, especially when you don't even quote the matter in particular.

It's the same as our first "run in" - when you called me a "liar", yet you couldn't produce the lie.  Bottom line, your baseless impressions or opinions count for nothing to me.

So, if you are fulfilled with spewing insults like a enraged monkey flinging poo, have at it. knock yourself out.   It just doesn't interest me. 

I am more interested in parsing the truth of a specific assertion in a rational, temperate way using the tools of facts, logic and rational debate. 

I'll leave the poo flinging to you (and the other usual MAGA suspects).

Thank you God in Heaven...

Again, you are trying to have it both ways. You say that Science does not have a political slant. Maybe a few true scientists dont, but we have people in the media giving shout downs everyday about how science supports their political views. You say that science is not used that way. Everyone on the board knows it is used exactly that way.

Just because you dont agree with the facts doesnt make them go away.

[jj3jordan 2,039]

On 2/24/2023 at 5:32 AM, DKW 86 said:

I'll quit wasting my time I have given serious precise answers here. 

You claim to know ANYTHING about science, and yet you are the poster boy here on this forum for sharing article after article of completely factless claims of driveby psychiatry. You have shared countless COMPLETELY FACT FREE articles from completely clueless 2-bit partisan hackjobs that defy science and even common sense. 

"Well, I have never been in the same room with so&so but I can professionally tell you that i find him to diagnoseable with such&such syndrome based upon my complete lack of time observing them in a clinical environment. I prefer 5-10 second sound bytes likely to be taken completely out of context as my sample research and declare that an individual that I have zero presentation/observational time with, to be clinically.....bull****" 

You are unintentionally the funniest poster on this board...no crap.

Spot on assessment.🫵

[homersapien 11,352]

5 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Thank you God in Heaven...

Again, you are trying to have it both ways. You say that Science does not have a political slant. Maybe a few true scientists dont, but we have people in the media giving shout downs everyday about how science supports their political views. You say that science is not used that way. Everyone on the board knows it is used exactly that way.

Just because you dont agree with the facts doesnt make them go away.

(Actual) science does not have a political slant, period.

And you got it backwards, a few scientists undoubtedly do (engage in politically biased argument - after all, scientists are people).   But they don't necessarily represent the actual science, which is a methodology, not a dogma.

And I never said there aren't "people in the media giving shout downs everyday about how science supports their political views".  Of course that's true.  But again, they don't necessarily represent the actual science. (Possible exceptions for those who include citations to valid scientific findings.)

I never said science is not abused or used "that way".  You are making that up.  Please stop lying about what I've said.  If you want to quote me specifically, do so and I will try to clarify your misunderstanding.

Finally, exactly what "facts" are you referring to?  Please be specific. 

You seem to excel at generalized ad hominem attack but are very reluctant to engage on specific points in a reasoned manner. 

Why is that?

Edited February 25, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,352]

3 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Spot on assessment.🫵

 

[DKW 86 7,410]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

(Actual) science does not have a political slant, period.

And you got it backwards, a few scientists undoubtedly do (engage in politically biased argument - after all, scientists are people).   But they don't necessarily represent the actual science, which is a methodology, not a dogma.

And I never said there aren't "people in the media giving shout downs everyday about how science supports their political views".  Of course that's true.  But again, they don't necessarily represent the actual science. (Possible exceptions for those who include citations to valid scientific findings.)

I never said science is not abused or used "that way".  You are making that up.  Please stop lying about what I've said.  If you want to quote me specifically, do so and I will try to clarify your misunderstanding.

Finally, exactly what "facts" are you referring to?  Please be specific. 

You seem to excel at generalized ad hominem attack but are very reluctant to engage on specific points in a reasoned manner. 

Why is that?

You always start in generalized discussion and then when anyone gets into the details you go full WEASEL with them. How many hundreds of times has that happened here?

In our thread of threads you go back to lying about having a 90 degree turn in the conversation when you clearly say what you said.

Who is lying here:

Homey on Rogan 2-7-22 12:54PM
Posted Monday at 12:54 PM
"The left" want Rogan gone?

(FWIW, I've never even heard of him and could care less if he's gone or not.)

So homey is sssooo f'in well informed that he has NEVER HEARD OF THE BIGGEST PODCASTER in the Nation, quoted hundreds of times on this forum.
But homey does what homey always does and lies for effect. It is your true self. 

On the thread you like to bring up:

you said (paraphrasing) that Trump would be impeached and/or resign from office soon. & add "I believe it will happen." 
You were of course 100% wrong as usual. You then you try and and defend yourself saying that you changed thought in the middle of the statement and were addressing some other random thought. Whatever homey, WTF ever...

[DKW 86 7,410]

On 2/25/2023 at 11:31 AM, homersapien said:

(Actual) science does not have a political slant, period.

And you got it backwards, a few scientists undoubtedly do (engage in politically biased argument - after all, scientists are people).   But they don't necessarily represent the actual science, which is a methodology, not a dogma.

And I never said there aren't "people in the media giving shout downs everyday about how science supports their political views".  Of course that's true.  But again, they don't necessarily represent the actual science. (Possible exceptions for those who include citations to valid scientific findings.)

I never said science is not abused or used "that way".  You are making that up.  Please stop lying about what I've said.  If you want to quote me specifically, do so and I will try to clarify your misunderstanding.

Finally, exactly what "facts" are you referring to?  Please be specific. 

You seem to excel at generalized ad hominem attack but are very reluctant to engage on specific points in a reasoned manner. 

Why is that? 

Because we have all learned that there is nothing you wont weasel away from with your lies. It is who you are man. Again look up at what you wrote above. You are finally agreeing with me that "science" is used daily in the media BY POILITICALLY MOTIVATED SCIENTISTS AND MEDIA PEOPLE to lie to the American People. At the same time calling me a liar for saying almost word for word what you just said. You call me an iconoclast because I take the time to look at both sides of an issue. You run off half cocked daily around here. We have too many homeys and not enough of the "wait and see" types around here.

Last thought, you are again restating what I said and telling me at the same time I am lying about it. You do see that right?

If you want to quote me specifically, do so and I will try to clarify your misunderstanding.

That is the funniest s*** you have ever posted. We have all gone round and round with you denying what you say all the time. I am just doing Rob and the Mods here a favor and not wasting anymore server space. 

Edited February 27, 2023 by DKW 86