Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?)
"Bob Peterson" wrote...
Junk science is junk science. Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong" is the same as saying "it's wrong because it's wrong." It's a completely conclusory, content-free statement you're making. I don't recall saying it too political so it must be wrong. What you said was, "Junk science is junk science, especially when done for political reasons." The reasons that science is done has *no bearing* on whether it's done properly. Either it's good science or it's not, independent of the state of mind those doing it. you can make generalizations about information when you know the source. Not about whether or not it's 'junk science.' Such a stance shows complete ignorance of the meaning of 'science.' The information gathered from kooks is not credible. It might even be accurate, but the fact that it is dispensed by nut cases is good grounds to question it. Having grounds for questioning something is very different from saying it's per se not credible. If you can't see *that* difference you're creating strong grounds for questioning *your* credibility. To say it can be accurate but not credible makes no sense. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:23:13 -0800, "Rico X. Partay"
wrote: "Bob Peterson" wrote... Junk science is junk science. Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong" is the same as saying "it's wrong because it's wrong." It's a completely conclusory, content-free statement you're making. I don't recall saying it too political so it must be wrong. What you said was, "Junk science is junk science, especially when done for political reasons." The reasons that science is done has *no bearing* on whether it's done properly. Either it's good science or it's not, independent of the state of mind those doing it. you can make generalizations about information when you know the source. Not about whether or not it's 'junk science.' Such a stance shows complete ignorance of the meaning of 'science.' The information gathered from kooks is not credible. It might even be accurate, but the fact that it is dispensed by nut cases is good grounds to question it. Having grounds for questioning something is very different from saying it's per se not credible. If you can't see *that* difference you're creating strong grounds for questioning *your* credibility. To say it can be accurate but not credible makes no sense. "Junk science" is identifiable because it has an "answer" and sets out to prove that answer. All effort is toward proving the "answer" and any evidence to the contrary is ignored, or worse, suppressed. Science is supposed to begin with a theory and set out to prove or disprove that theory. The Christian Scientists are a glaring example of junk science. Strider |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?)
"Rico X. Partay" wrote:
To say it can be accurate but not credible makes no sense. You, sir, haven't dealt with anyone with an "agenda", then. That phrase pretty much describes every "statistic" ever quoted. ral |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?)
Isn't "Left wing kookiness" something to be dealt with by the
Department of Redundancy Department? Claude |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:57:41 GMT, Strider wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:30:36 -0800, "Rico X. Partay" wrote: "Bob Peterson" wrote in message ... Junk science is junk science. Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong" is the same as saying "it's wrong because it's wrong." It's a completely conclusory, content-free statement you're making. Adherence to scientific methods do not allow for politics. Insertion of politics into science will bias the results of any study. Strider Do you therefore believe that good scientists are apolitical, or that only conservative scientists are able to keep from injecting their politics into their work? Either way, you are not convincing me so far . . . . Keith For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp. For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/ |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:35:56 GMT, Strider wrote:
"Junk science" is identifiable because it has an "answer" and sets out to prove that answer. All effort is toward proving the "answer" and any evidence to the contrary is ignored, or worse, suppressed. Science is supposed to begin with a theory and set out to prove or disprove that theory. The Christian Scientists are a glaring example of junk science. Strider Well defined. What does that have to do with politics? K For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp. For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/ |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:40 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:19:53 GMT, *snippage* The corporations have never lost control over the day to day lives of Americans. Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class believes it deserves. The "liberals" are the true conservatives (conserving the existing political order) and the "conservatives" and libertarians are the true liberals (supporters of more personal freedom). The times, they are a-changing. -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. Libertarianism=Corporate Fascism. g.c. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
In article , Greylock
wrote: Good science is apolitical. If one may define economics as political, the political impact on science is terrible. At the EPA and FDA for examples, careers have come to sudden ends because someone or another focused on findings that this or that product had been proven to be unsafe, & anyone who doesn't want their careers squelched soon learns to self-censor & give "good" spins to things that may be profitable if the harm is overlooked. The data itself, bought & paid for by the interested parties, may more often than not be accurate, but may well have been designed consciously or subconsciously to NOT assess the bad with the good, but to only assess the good. When receiving funds from an "interested party" who will renew grants only if "answers" please them, these answers tend somehow to be found. By and large doubleblind studies are apolitical & you can detect, from most peer reviewed & published data at least, what any bias might have been, you can tell that though they "proved" such-&-such had a health benefit they failed to factor in side effects, so some other study would be required to assess the bad, for which no funding is forthcoming from the interested parties. One of my favorite examples was a Davis University study that proved mulch from recycled tires killed all plantlife within one week because of the zinc content, but by the time the vendors of rubber mulch got their hands on the data, it was interpretted as "improves the quality of zinc deficient soils" & "suppresses weeds." The "spin" amounted to a lie though narrowly & literally it was true. The Davis research itself was funded by the rubber industry & was riddled with positive asides, but the data provided was unambiguous & conclusive: it rapidly killed all the plants. Even data presented in peer review publications, and which make it pretty clear that something very bad is in the making (regarding greenhouse effect for example), but by speaking statistically rather than in absolutes, there's always wiggle-room for politicians to claim a finding is the opposite of what it was. Politicians serving industrial interests ahead of public health do this as a matter of course -- so while it is often the case that the actual science was apolitical, by the time the scientific finding reaches the public in "pop" & "PR" contexts, it is so thoroughly politicized to "prove" diamatrically opposed conclusions that a public that rarely goes to MedLine or a Health Science Library for the original data never know quite what to believe -- & frequently end up chosing a side on the basis of their own politics instead of the never-seen complete data. Occasionally a company like Monsanto generates in-house data that is completely fabricated or so slanted as to be worthless, but looks real on the surface. Non peer-review journals & academic vanity presses produce intentionally fraudulant results that bewilder the public. Even "good" science tends to be so couched in so many qualifiers or undecipherable language that it can instantly be turned into "lies, damned lies, & statistics" by abusers of the findings, even when not by the complete findings themselves. The bottomline is that science as it reaches the public is politicized. It is less so for the extreme minority who rely on peer-reviewed journals, but for the majority these are awfully hard to track down, & the garbled versions in magazines or newspapers rarely bare much resemblance to the original. -paghat the ratgirl Facts are gathered, a theory is advanced, and if the theory is found to explain the facts the theory is accepted until further facts support or contradict it. Junk science starts with a theory and then selectively accumulates facts to support the theory. Inconvenient facts are ignored in the pursuit of proving the theory. Good scientists are not necessarily apolitical, but proper adherence to the science and the facts does not allow for the insertion of political dogma. If you start with the theory, the dogma is built in. Most of the junk science being promoted these days is coming from the far left nutballs and the far right religious nutballs. Most of the press for the junk science goes to the far left nutballs. far . . . . Keith -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
In article ,
(George Cleveland) wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:40 -0800, Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:19:53 GMT, *snippage* The corporations have never lost control over the day to day lives of Americans. Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class believes it deserves. That strikes me as a wise assessment, if a sorry one. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:46:23 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:59:35 GMT, (George Cleveland) wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:40 -0800, Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:19:53 GMT, *snippage* The corporations have never lost control over the day to day lives of Americans. If that was so, the corporations would not have allowed the imposition of social security taxes, collective bargaining, the SEC, high income taxes, fair housing laws, OSHA, EPA, the ADA, minimum wage laws, all the rest of the post-1933 nanny/security state. But all those - and more - WERE enacted, because the corporations did lose their power. Jeez, I couldn't have made a better case for strict regulation of corporations. Virtually every one of those "nanny" state regulations has made the lives of working people tolerable under capitalism. Without them the existence of capitalism itself would be in doubt. Revolution, *Red revolution* was on the agenda in the U.S. in the 1930s. Laissez-faire capitalism had failed. Roosevelt was able to deflect the demands for radical change by making humane reforms to an inherently inhumane system. Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class believes it deserves. In the 1930s, and still today, the ruling class consisted of the bureaucrats, think tank residents, Congress critters, university presidents and professors, lawyers and the rest of the operational personnel of the security state. Baloney. Ask yourself, "Whose decisions have a greater effect on my day to day life, my boss or my congressman?" If the corporations were really in control, there is no way Martha Stewart and the rest of the accused corporate types would be in any legal trouble at all. In the glory days of rule by the industrialists, the tycoons did much more outrageous things, and generally got away with them. Why would a competitor of Martha Stewart be any thing but pleased that she was in hot water with the feds? FDR's "brain trust" was not made up of corporate CEOs. JFK's "best and brightest" had McNamarra (sp?) from the corporate world, and he was a dismal failure. Same with LBJ - professors, lawyers, politicians. If you mean that not even FDR tried to eliminate the market system and the right to spend one's own time and money more or less as one sees fit - so long as you don't interfere with the governors' view of how public life should be conducted - you are of course correct. He was a control freak, not a communist. The question that hasn't been asked for almost a hundred years in this country is "Who creates wealth, and who has the right to gain the most from its creation?" -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:03:56 GMT,
(Babberney) wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:57:41 GMT, Strider wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:30:36 -0800, "Rico X. Partay" wrote: "Bob Peterson" wrote in message ... Junk science is junk science. Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong" is the same as saying "it's wrong because it's wrong." It's a completely conclusory, content-free statement you're making. Adherence to scientific methods do not allow for politics. Insertion of politics into science will bias the results of any study. Strider Do you therefore believe that good scientists are apolitical, or that only conservative scientists are able to keep from injecting their politics into their work? Either way, you are not convincing me so far . . . . Keith Good scientists are apolitical in their work. Unfortunately, liberals cannot help themselves and need to be segregated and marginalized for the good of the country. Strider For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp. For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/ |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:01:50 GMT,
(Babberney) wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:35:56 GMT, Strider wrote: "Junk science" is identifiable because it has an "answer" and sets out to prove that answer. All effort is toward proving the "answer" and any evidence to the contrary is ignored, or worse, suppressed. Science is supposed to begin with a theory and set out to prove or disprove that theory. The Christian Scientists are a glaring example of junk science. Strider Well defined. What does that have to do with politics? Junk Political Science? Strider K For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp. For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/ |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
OK - so what? That is hardly news. The media lies to people, but the science - properly done - is not political. I know enough science and engineering to winnow through most of it in technical areas, but I have to work at medical subjects a little harder to feel comfortable with the answers. People who WANT the truth can generally get it, people who really prefer slogans and tabloid science, be it painted up ever so pretty, generally never bother to try to find out what the real science is. For the most part, right now, the worst offenders in the tabloid science racket are the liberals and their bullshit scenarios. When you trace the bullshit back to its source, it tends to devolve to some graduate student's computer projection which doesn't do anything else right, but the part that predicts what the liberals want, is touted as being the revealed word of God. It gets tiresome having to listen to the media, who uncritically publish the bullshit and just can't find the column inches to print the sober rebutttals by competent scientists. On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:07:58 -0800, (paghat) wrote: In article , Greylock wrote: Good science is apolitical. If one may define economics as political, the political impact on science is terrible. At the EPA and FDA for examples, careers have come to sudden ends because someone or another focused on findings that this or that product had been proven to be unsafe, & anyone who doesn't want their careers squelched soon learns to self-censor & give "good" spins to things that may be profitable if the harm is overlooked. The data itself, bought & paid for by the interested parties, may more often than not be accurate, but may well have been designed consciously or subconsciously to NOT assess the bad with the good, but to only assess the good. When receiving funds from an "interested party" who will renew grants only if "answers" please them, these answers tend somehow to be found. By and large doubleblind studies are apolitical & you can detect, from most peer reviewed & published data at least, what any bias might have been, you can tell that though they "proved" such-&-such had a health benefit they failed to factor in side effects, so some other study would be required to assess the bad, for which no funding is forthcoming from the interested parties. One of my favorite examples was a Davis University study that proved mulch from recycled tires killed all plantlife within one week because of the zinc content, but by the time the vendors of rubber mulch got their hands on the data, it was interpretted as "improves the quality of zinc deficient soils" & "suppresses weeds." The "spin" amounted to a lie though narrowly & literally it was true. The Davis research itself was funded by the rubber industry & was riddled with positive asides, but the data provided was unambiguous & conclusive: it rapidly killed all the plants. Even data presented in peer review publications, and which make it pretty clear that something very bad is in the making (regarding greenhouse effect for example), but by speaking statistically rather than in absolutes, there's always wiggle-room for politicians to claim a finding is the opposite of what it was. Politicians serving industrial interests ahead of public health do this as a matter of course -- so while it is often the case that the actual science was apolitical, by the time the scientific finding reaches the public in "pop" & "PR" contexts, it is so thoroughly politicized to "prove" diamatrically opposed conclusions that a public that rarely goes to MedLine or a Health Science Library for the original data never know quite what to believe -- & frequently end up chosing a side on the basis of their own politics instead of the never-seen complete data. Occasionally a company like Monsanto generates in-house data that is completely fabricated or so slanted as to be worthless, but looks real on the surface. Non peer-review journals & academic vanity presses produce intentionally fraudulant results that bewilder the public. Even "good" science tends to be so couched in so many qualifiers or undecipherable language that it can instantly be turned into "lies, damned lies, & statistics" by abusers of the findings, even when not by the complete findings themselves. The bottomline is that science as it reaches the public is politicized. It is less so for the extreme minority who rely on peer-reviewed journals, but for the majority these are awfully hard to track down, & the garbled versions in magazines or newspapers rarely bare much resemblance to the original. -paghat the ratgirl Facts are gathered, a theory is advanced, and if the theory is found to explain the facts the theory is accepted until further facts support or contradict it. Junk science starts with a theory and then selectively accumulates facts to support the theory. Inconvenient facts are ignored in the pursuit of proving the theory. Good scientists are not necessarily apolitical, but proper adherence to the science and the facts does not allow for the insertion of political dogma. If you start with the theory, the dogma is built in. Most of the junk science being promoted these days is coming from the far left nutballs and the far right religious nutballs. Most of the press for the junk science goes to the far left nutballs. far . . . . Keith |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
"Left wing kookiness" | Gardening | |||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) | Edible Gardening | |||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) | Gardening | |||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?) | Gardening | |||
"Left wing kookiness", and dissembling carpet-munchers | Gardening |