OT science question

[dpb]

If you put "some" in front of each of those, I could agree. As a general statement, I disagree wholeheartedly..

--

[J. Clarke]

Would you care to explain that remark?

Before you do you might want to google "newton theology".

[Tim Daneliuk]

Because Science is dispassionate, but Scientists are not. Oh, I know, peer review will fix that ... not. There is a scientist establishment. It decides what does- and does not get funding and/or publication. It makes little difference if the method of science leads to new and useful information if the high priests of the discipline are controlling the flow of money and thus the focus of research.

Scared? Not really. Disgusted with scientists who make common cause with scummy politicians - right and left - so that their pet causes get funded. There would be no particular outcry on the global warming "problem" today, for example, if it was not a rich money vein to be mined by scientists in the form of grants and other tax-funded money support.

Bah.

[Tim Daneliuk]

Then you understand neither science nor religion. Science is about

*mechanism*. Religion is about *meaning and purpose*. Anyone who believes that these two systems of epistemology are inherently at odds is poorly informed.

[Tim Daneliuk]

You want a *real* religious fight? Put three scientists in a room and ask them to demonstrate why their particular areas of research are more worthy of funding than the other two. You're kidding yourself. Science has been elevated as a secular religion and the moronic and ill-educated public continues to buy into it.

[Tim Daneliuk]

There are no "sides" if the issues are properly understood. Faith systems and empirical systems are complementary not contradictory.

[Tim Daneliuk]

I am pretty well educated in both theology and science. I know of no/few people of faith that deny the Big Bang theory and most I know defer to scientists. If you want to see a major scam, take a look at the people peddling Global Warming as a huge threat to humanity.

[Tim Daneliuk]

You are dead wrong. The process is more-or-less neutral, but *what gets funding in the first place* is not. You can control information flow by simply not funding areas you don't like ideologically/politically.

P.S. I am a Computer Scientist by training - the theoretical kind, not the MIS kind - and I have personally watched the grant process. It utterly lays to waste your naive notions of impartiality.

[Markem]

Make sure it is not a Siberian Elm, messy tree.

Mark

[krw]

It's when the two cross those lines (and both do) that things get ugly.

[krw]

The story I saw was definitely about Dutch Elm Disease resistant American Elms. I haven't heard anything more since, though.

[Woodie]

I remember seeing that a couple of years ago. Hope it's going well.

[Puckdropper]

Rejnold Byzio wrote in news:mn.95807d8700250254.67227 @netscape.net:

*snip*

Me, I think I'd vote for Dave Thomas, Founder of Wendy's. Well, at least for "the man who should feed the world." Good hamburgers, especially for a fast food restaurant.

Puckdropper

[B A R R Y]

A friend calls Wendy's "The Cadillac of Fast Food."

[Mike Marlow]

Agreed. As one who holds what I call fundamental beliefs (though that is not to be confused with what the term fundamentalist has become today), and one who has plenty of room for the findings of the sciences, the ironclad ideology of both sides frustrates me. I have a keen appreciation for a good argument and the inclusive point, counter point of good discussion - when either side slides into their own form of intellectual dishonesty I just hate it. A good argument stands on its own and does not need bolstering. If it doesn't - it ain't a good argument. It's just a cat-fight. Now that's something else all together - well worth the watching, just not to be taken seriously. Swingman - that's your cue to enter, stage left...

[Han]

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:e9c32$488329d1$471fbab9$ [e-mail]:

I have only one ironclad belief, and that is that everyone and anyone should believe what he/she/they want, with the only proviso that subscribing to this notion is a precondition for my respect. This includes automatically that I won't bother you with my beliefs, and you should not bother me with yours. Discussing beliefs is a totally different matter that is completely up to the consent of all discussants.

I'm not sure whether I subscribe totally to that. I believe that catfights may have losers who physically get hurt, and that is not my idea of a good argument .

Huh???

[Bored Borg]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:16:10 +0100, sweet sawdust wrote (in article ):

Because in the popular mind, there is no difference between science and technology.

sorry, it's a question posted a long time ago. What the heck?

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Sure.

Can you tell us who these people are who are afraid of science/ scientists?

The only people whom I can think of who are consistently, as a group, afraid of science or scientists are people who are either heavily invested in a belief system that runs contrary to nature, or are even more heavily involved in convincing others of one, whether they believe it or not.

This is neither unique nor necessarily common among religious persons, some famous scientists were clergy, Gregor Mendel for instance.

I'm thinking more along the lines of various con-artists, psychics, fraudulent medical practitioners, that sort of thing.

They fear and hate science and scientists because it is science that proves them wrong, culpable, or criminal and it is scientists who can do so.

For instance, I only just today received a note from a dentist who is on the advisory board of a group that exists to raise awareness about medical fraud. He wrote, in part:

I have also found that with people with delusionary, grandiose borderline personality disorders that attempting to communicate with them in any way yields only more lies, defamations, and hostility.

I really can't think of any honest and sane people who are afraid of scientists. Many are apprehensive about science education because the find it a hard subject, but plenty of other people feel the same way about other subjects--Art for example.

So what is the next question, why are people afraid of art/artists?

[Fred the Red Shirt]

No. It says that genetically engineered salmon are being raised on Prince Edward island. It does not say that _the_ 600,000 genetically engineered salmon that have escaped into the pacific Ocean escaped from Prince Edward Island. It says they escaped from net pens in Washington waters.

In fact, you quoted the relevant text above.

I think you read the article a bit hastily.

[Charlie Self]

I had forgotten this thread. No, I wouldn't put "some" in front of those, but I can agree to changing it to "most."