Earlier quoted context omitted.
Race is a social construct. Edit: I'm 50% Ashkenazi, we are prone to Tay-Sachs disease, caused by a genetic mutation. Does that make me a member of a separate race.
Science is a "social construct". As is anything else we talk about. Try telling someone with sickle-cell anemia that race is just a social construct.
Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science
81–90 of 112 posts
Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the case of climate change, it's pretending that there's cost/benefit analysis to be done. It ignores the possibility that the cost of doing something will exceed the likely damage expected. (I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just saying that folks are trying to skip that part of the conversation) In the case of climate change, we can't even get to the cost/benefit analysis part of the conversation because som…
I hear this a lot and feel like it is a muddled response to a muddled understanding of climate change. For what it is worth: * Science is clear that CO2 causes warming (pure physics), but so do many other gases (methane, water vapor, etc). * Science is clear that global temperatures are rising (even if you quibble about the 'pause') * Science isn't clear regarding what part of global temperature rise is due to human…
Can you elaborate on this part?
* Science isn't clear regarding what part of global temperature rise is due to human activity.
"Human influence has been detected and attributed in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, and in global mean sea level rise; and has been extremely likely been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid century. In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans."
[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/drafts/SYR...
Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science
#83Taking Dan Rather's advice on a responsible attitude to science is like going to Bill Cosby for dating advice, or asking Rolf Harris to run your kindergarten. Booted from CBS in disgrace for confusing journalism with character assassination. Read the original CBS report. "This man is a truth teller". Indeed. Here is the full report. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report...
I don't see one mistake (assuming it is that; I don't know the details) in a long career as discrediting him, or else everyone is discredited. We have nobody left. Integrity isn't binary; it's not all or nothing.
If you don't know the details, that is easily remedied by reading the CBS Report, which I linked to. It is free. I followed this controversy at the time, and it is very revealing precisely in those details, which I read in full as soon as it came out. Rather was guilty of assisting fraud in the service of a cause, no other conclusion is reasonable. That certainly disqualifies him as a serious commentator going forward. Trust matters. Yet now he is being resurrected to lecture us about science.
Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science
#84Science needs another ally as well - we also need wholesome support of science. Not just pick and choosing to support a particular ideology, liberal or conservative. For some (my friends on the right, whom I understand and have empathy for more than your average HN reader), scientific thought unfortunately has been so closely tied to liberal ideologies that middle America sees as destructive to families and local eco…
Faith is believing in something despite evidence to the contrary not because of it. So, there really is a conflict. People are not robots they can accept ideas in conflict to both be true. That does not mean faith has no cost. EX: So as not to offend anyone. If you believe that god's true name is 'Zual' and that she wants you to do a handstand on your 20th birthday. And you agree there is no evidence that this is the…
That's not at all what faith is. There are some definitions of faith that include "belief not based on proof", but that is still far removed from "belief despite evidence to the contrary".
Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear this a lot and feel like it is a muddled response to a muddled understanding of climate change. For what it is worth: * Science is clear that CO2 causes warming (pure physics), but so do many other gases (methane, water vapor, etc). * Science is clear that global temperatures are rising (even if you quibble about the 'pause') * Science isn't clear regarding what part of global temperature rise is due to human…
Can you elaborate on this part? * Science isn't clear regarding what part of global temperature rise is due to human activity. I just want to contrast the above with this statement by the IPCC [1]: "Human influence has been detected and attributed in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, and in global mean sea level rise; and has been extremely l…
>"[human activity] has been extremely likely been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid century."
This is worded strangely so that it doesn't mean anything. Of course human activity has been the dominant cause of humans observing something. Why don't they say CO2 emitted by human-made machines or something more specific?
Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
> growing intolerance for scientists to hold opinions of faith or conservative ideals Conservative ideals and science don't have any inherent conflict, but uhm, that other thing...
The problem isn't faith, it's narrow-mindedness about how the divine interacts with the world. God is bigger than you and doesn't hew to your preconceptions of them.
I can agree with this 100% as an Orthodox Christian. One of the core tenants in understanding Orthodox Theology is human, created logic does not apply or cannot happen to even hope to describe God in his entirety, this is indeed the root of many of the early heretical teachings about Christ, such as he wasn't actually a man, but just a divine apparition (Docetism), or he wasn't fully divine (Arianism). We merely have words for the attributes He has decided to reveal to us, even using the word "He" when describing him with caution.
Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your point is right, but your example is terribly flawed, because as whateveracct notes, > and therefore, human rights are an outdated concept is a value judgement that cannot be derived from scientific principles.
That's the very point I'm making, that you can't derive values that way, and yet many people insist we do so anyway. Like climate change - we've proven man is responsible for global warming therefore we must do x, y, and z about it. The fact that mankind is responsible from global warming has nothing to do with needing to do something about it, or what exactly should be done. But it's always spoken about in terms of…
You've skipped over a key part of the argument for taking action to reduce climate change: we've proven man is responsible for global warming, our models show devastating things a, b and c happening due to warming, therefore we must do x, y and z about it.
Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"we dogmatically accept that cigarettes cause cancer" The truth is that using the colloquial definition of "cause", everything seems to "cause" cancer: >"These considerations of mechanism suggest that at chronic doses close to the toxic dose, any chemical, whether synthetic or natural, and whether genotoxic or nongenotoxic, is a likely rodent and human carcinogen. Not all chemicals would be expected to be carcinogen…
>There is value in having a nuanced understanding No doubt. People should try to understand the nuance of things. But there's a difference between understanding nuance and actually trying to refute expert opinion using specious and simplistic arguments. Non-experts will never be able to understand all the science needed to establish a judgement such as "humans are causing climate change". It requires training in atmo…
>"Even Martin Luther..."
I think this is a good point to bring up. Consider the centuries upon centuries when the intellectual aspects of Western Civ spent most of their time thinking and arguing about things today we would find rather pointless (eg was Jesus begotten by the father or not). Not only that, the result of these (pointless) arguments drove political activity.
Nowadays we say "go think or argue all you want about that type of stuff, but no particular sect should be supported by our government." I hope the same will be achieved for other intellectual pursuits at some point. You seem to be arguing for the opposite.
Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
By the same token, there are hordes of Americans who affect a belief that there are no races, and think any attempt to apply Darwinism to human nature is the quintessence of evil. Liberal Creationists.
Race is a social construct. Edit: I'm 50% Ashkenazi, we are prone to Tay-Sachs disease, caused by a genetic mutation. Does that make me a member of a separate race.
Yes, you are therefore a member of a well-defined breeding population (deme) and that membership gives us useful information immediately. Not only do you have a greater chance of getting certain diseases, your group also has higher intelligence, with a mean almost a standard deviation higher than gentiles. If race was arbitrary it would not give us predictive validity of that kind.
Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
While this response seems 100% reasonable, I don't see how this it is any more effective in the face of "Climate change is a Chinese hoax" level absurdity. At this point with deniers it is religion so reason is out the door regardless.
You are misrepresenting the opposing argument being made. The opposing argument is that people are making is as follows: 'climate-alarmists' misuse climate-science as a means of making political change. It is not a denial of all climate-change science. I don't care to argue this topic because I'm not expert nor do I care to pretend to be one on the topic of climate change, but this misrepresentation of the opposing v…
Are you unaware of the hundreds of times Trump has literally claimed all climate change science is a hoax, or are you saying his view is unimportant?