Anti-Science

[Pogue Mahone]

We all understand that humans physical abilities are too a large degree influenced by genes. I’ll never become a professional athlete or model regardless of how much I work out. But: the influence of physical talent on personal success is somewhat limited in modern societies (excluding minor sectors like professional athletes). That statement is already false, because physics/looks do play an important role. Yet it is easy to pretend, that other factors are more important, so we can just downplay the physical aspect.

Giving up the notion that we start on a fairly level playing field when it comes to cognitive abilities is not something that we are ready to do. It does point towards a very unfair/nasty reality, especially when the importance of intelligence is increasing. *you are in the bottom x% => you’ll face an uphill battle all your life* is not a nice message. It would be much fairer and easier, if intelligence would be only influenced by “nurture”. The fact that intelligence is not a visible feature helps us to maintain this illusion (nature vs. nurture is not at all settled, so hopefully the impact of genes is as small as possible).

All of that is already pretty problematic without discussing race. Once ethnicity gets thrown into the mix, it becomes almost impossible to talk about it. To be fair: It is not entirely clear why scientists should focus on this fairly arbitrary criteria. It adds very little, when talking about the ethical and political implications of the “gene-lottery”. Still, it doesn’t make sense to demonize someone because he mentions it; Murray isn’t particularly fixated on it in the first place. Facts stay facts even if they are uncomfortable.

Yup.

The other key point which is stressed repeatedly in the book is that intra-group variability is bigger than inter-group variability (the clue is in the title!) so anyone who pre-judges the intellect of an individual on the basis of their ethnicity really is being racist, unlike the authors of the book.

 

[Will Absolute]

Yup.

The other key point which is stressed repeatedly in the book is that intra-group variability is bigger than inter-group variability (the clue is in the title!) so anyone who pre-judges the intellect of an individual on the basis of their ethnicity really is being racist, unlike the authors of the book.

I've never read the book, but I saw an account which claimed that the authors soft-pedalled some of the more radical implications of the data in an effort to be less controversial, but later regretted it. Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb!

 

[Will Absolute]

As far as climate change is concerned, the mistake Global Warmers make is a simple one - the assumption that 'scientists' must know.

It's the same error which leads to undue attention being paid to 'economic forecasts', despite repeated proof that such forecasts have little value (recent 'expert' predictions about the immediate outcome of the Brexit vote spring to mind.) There are areas of human experience, in the natural world and in human activities themselves, which are too murky to allow for the creation of realistic models, and far too complex to permit accurate prediction.

Instead of admitting ignorance, as we should, we have an unfortunate tendency in critical issues to adopt the habits of our primitive forebears, and revert to a kind of pseudo-scientific shamanism, where the opinions of a 'scientific priesthood' are believed, despite an inability to demonstrate the validity of its theories by making accurate, or even semi-accurate, predictions - the only acceptable proof of any scientific hypothesis.

So predictions about global climate in 50 years are accorded credibility, despite repeated failure to predict, at a level better than chance, climate in 5, 10 or 15 years.

 

[PedroMendez]

As far as climate change is concerned, the mistake Global Warmers make is a simple one - the assumption that 'scientists' must know.

It's the same error which leads to undue attention being paid to 'economic forecasts', despite repeated proof that such forecasts have little value (recent 'expert' predictions about the immediate outcome of the Brexit vote spring to mind.) There are areas of human experience, in the natural world and in human activities themselves, which are too murky to allow for the creation of realistic models, and far too complex to permit accurate prediction.

Instead of admitting ignorance, as we should, we have an unfortunate tendency in critical issues to adopt the habits of our primitive forebears, and revert to a kind of pseudo-scientific shamanism, where the opinions of a 'scientific priesthood' are believed, despite an inability to demonstrate the validity of its theories by making accurate, or even semi-accurate, predictions - the only acceptable proof of any scientific hypothesis.

So predictions about global climate in 50 years are accorded credibility, despite repeated failure to predict, at a level better than chance, climate in 5, 10 or 15 years.

It is true, that most people – including scientists – underappreciate the level of uncertainty and that leads sometimes to rather unscientific stuff (e.g. social cost of carbon). Climate change could turn out to be “not a big deal” or “we are all truly fecked” and everything inbetween. That said, the basic mechanism is well established and a simple “we don’t really know how this is going to turn out, so we do nothing approach” strikes me as rather stupid. It is a crazy risky gamble with the future of our children.

 

[Wibble]

As far as climate change is concerned, the mistake Global Warmers make is a simple one - the assumption that 'scientists' must know.

It's the same error which leads to undue attention being paid to 'economic forecasts', despite repeated proof that such forecasts have little value (recent 'expert' predictions about the immediate outcome of the Brexit vote spring to mind.) There are areas of human experience, in the natural world and in human activities themselves, which are too murky to allow for the creation of realistic models, and far too complex to permit accurate prediction.

Instead of admitting ignorance, as we should, we have an unfortunate tendency in critical issues to adopt the habits of our primitive forebears, and revert to a kind of pseudo-scientific shamanism, where the opinions of a 'scientific priesthood' are believed, despite an inability to demonstrate the validity of its theories by making accurate, or even semi-accurate, predictions - the only acceptable proof of any scientific hypothesis.

So predictions about global climate in 50 years are accorded credibility, despite repeated failure to predict, at a level better than chance, climate in 5, 10 or 15 years.

What a load of rubbish. You display a huge ignorance of the data. Modelling such complex system is bound to involve uncertainty as scientist never deny and indeed include as they have a general aversion to extrapolating beyond the data. And modelling has been been remarkably accurate in predicting the trend - huge accelerated rise in temperatures, CO2 levels, sea levels and the like and models are getting better and better. The evidence is so overwhelming now that all that remains to be argued over is the detail and exactly how severe the warming is going to be.

 

[Wibble]

Most of the claims of the bell-curve were supported by the APA paper that evaluated the book in 95/96. As far as I can tell (as someone who didn’t read the book), most of the claims are fairly mainstream and true. Maybe the authors overstated the aspect of race/ heritability and didn’t include all nuances(the details of nature vs. nurture are still very much up for grabs). Yet hardly anyone does that even in scientific papers. Much of the criticism was hardly well argued either. For example: People criticized him with stuff like the “Theory of multiple intelligences”, which is pretty much debunked.

I am sure there are enough valid points against the book, like against any book that deals with issues that are not entirely settled. Much of the responses to “the bell curve” were simply motivated by how difficult the subject is and not by its academic merits.

The biggest problem is that the second half of the book probably confuses correlation with causation. IQ is higher in better educated people from higher socio-economic grouping largely because they are better educated and able to score well on the testing and not due to any inherent base intelligent differences. In fact there is a great deal of evidence is that intelligence is only weakly correlated with your parents despite epigentic factors possibly being involved, so the idea that there is a stronger correlation with a non-biological grouping should set alarm bells ringing. When there is no biological basis for the inheritance (you don't genetically inherit a socio-econimic group) and the correlation between related individuals I can't see how you can come to a causation conclusion.

As I said that book was based on decent data but it is the highly speculative use of the data in the later stages that I had an issue with (from memory - and it has been a while).

 

[Will Absolute]

What a load of rubbish. You display a huge ignorance of the data. Modelling such complex system is bound to involve uncertainty as scientist never deny and indeed include as they have a general aversion to extrapolating beyond the data. And modelling has been been remarkably accurate in predicting the trend - huge accelerated rise in temperatures, CO2 levels, sea levels and the like and models are getting better and better. The evidence is so overwhelming now that all that remains to be argued over is the detail and exactly how severe the warming is going to be.

There's been no 'huge' accelerated rise in temperatures, unless you're counting the recent, expected blip due to El Nino, which has already been reversed in its aftermath. When all's said and done, the rise in global temperature since the late 19th century is only about .8C.

No one disputes that we're pumping vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and that atmospheric CO2 levels are exploding as a result. It's the effect of that process that's unknown.

Sea levels have shown almost no change (about 8 inches since 1870.)

 

[PedroMendez]

The biggest problem is that the second half of the book probably confuses correlation with causation. IQ is higher in better educated people from higher socio-economic grouping largely because they are better educated and able to score well on the testing and not due to any inherent base intelligent differences. In fact there is a great deal of evidence is that intelligence is only weakly correlated with your parents despite epigentic factors possibly being involved, so the idea that there is a stronger correlation with a non-biological grouping should set alarm bells ringing. When there is no biological basis for the inheritance (you don't genetically inherit a socio-econimic group) and the correlation between related individuals I can't see how you can come to a causation conclusion.

As I said that book was based on decent data but it is the highly speculative use of the data in the later stages that I had an issue with (from memory - and it has been a while).

I think we just read different stuff which is perfectly fine, because I certainly don't have enough knowledge to make any definitive statement here. All I can say is that everything that I read about the topic said, that general intelligence is a valid concept and highly dependent on your genetics (and that of your parents; but there is naturally an statistical effect of normalisation). I have absolutely no clue about how this plays out when it comes to the issue of race. I would have expected, that any social scientist would control the results/data for all kinds of variables. I don't know what Murray did with the data and can't say anything about that.

 

[berbatrick]

@Pogue Mahone
@PedroMendez

It's a long (I haven't finished) and decent (but not too involved) takedown of a lot of the stuff Murray is talking about:
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech

If he indeed said that "we are only a few years away from a thorough understanding of IQ at the level of individual genes" he is completely wrong. We are struggling to get the full genetic picture of something as "simple" as height!
Also, evidence has proven that his opinion about the environmental effect on underlying genotypes is wrong.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

@Pogue Mahone
@PedroMendez

It's a long (I haven't finished) and decent (but not too involved) takedown of a lot of the stuff Murray is talking about:
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech

If he indeed said that "we are only a few years away from a thorough understanding of IQ at the level of individual genes" he is completely wrong. We are struggling to get the full genetic picture of something as "simple" as height!
Also, evidence has proven that his opinion about the environmental effect on underlying genotypes is wrong.

Yeah, some good points in there. I always thought that the biggest flaw in using self reported ethnicity as "black" or "white" was flawed, as that can include massively genetically heterogenous populations. Mind you, considering his book was written 20 years ago they don't really contradict many of his findings. Just give them a bit more context.

 

[Jippy]

 

[Carolina Red]

What a fecking idiot. And 28 people upvoted that too

 

[Bobcat]

What a fecking idiot. And 28 people upvoted that too

Comment sections on newspapers are usually depressing reading and usually boil down too:
1. Immigration is bad and immigrants are criminals and/or are trying to "take over"
2. Climate change is not real and even if it is we should not do something about it because things like recycling, eating less meat and maybe take the bike once in a while takes too much effort
3. Everyone is out to feck you over with taxes

The one thing they all have in common is anti-intellectualism, anti-science and a deep contempt of authorities. Politicians or anyone with an education is either brainwashed, partisan, stupid or simply lying.

It's become the age of confirmation bias. If you want you can disregard everything you read in mainstream media, just because Alex Jones or some mentalist on youtube told you what you wanted to hear (while wearing a labcoat)

 

[senorgregster]

Sorry that I can't follow your post, ask questions to clarify for me and comment. But I'm most sorry to hear your BIL has cancer and do hope he survives. See also my unsolicited advice in the last paragraph and i.e. the link.

My questions:
Did this doctor say that the hospital does no cancer research at all or no research in the specific type of cancer your BIL has?
Is he the same doctor who treated your mother?
What's the gain or win of this doctor not telling you the truth? How does he make money by not treating your BIL?
Why do you think in Europe hospitals, doctors and big pharma don't win with cancer, and how does all that lead to your statement 'if is any cure I truly believe we would know'?

Please don't be offended but you come across as 99% of patients or relatives of patients do. They have zero insights into oncology and medical research. This isn't to blame you at all, it's not knowledge we pick up from our parents and it isn't taught in school. How could you know? You can't. But I'd like to encourage you to learn a bit about it before making such bold accusations. If you want to, I'm happy to take your questions and answer to my best knowledge.

I want to put two things out straight away:

Cancer isn't cancer. It is a very broad helicopter-like term for very different diseases. Mesothelioma (I assume that's what your mother had) gets treated very differently than other types of cancer (I assume your BIL has some kind of colorectal cancer?). Breast cancer isn't even breast cancer. You have very different characteristics of these cancer cells and therefore need testing which type of breast cancer it is to pick the right treatment to tackle it. The stage of cancer is also important to know and decides on the treatment strategy. That's applicable across the spectrum of cancer BTW. Unfortunately, some types of cancers and stages of cancers cannot be successfully treated these days.

Cancer research as all medical research is very regulated, and for very good reasons. It is also very expensive, time- and labor-intense. Therefore, you will find out that not all hospitals participate, let alone initiate all sorts of research, no matter how good or ambitious the doctors are.

My bit of advice:
If your BIL wants to enroll in a study and doesn't trust his doctor that there's no available, check out https://clinicaltrials.gov/. Use the links in the 'For Patients and Families' box to find out if there are studies near him.
However, you'd need to know exactly the type of cancer your BIL has, the medical term physicians use. Also the stage and how he has been treated for it by now if applicable. Search for studies that are open and still enroll patients.

Hope that helps. Best wishes to him and your sister!

Edit: There are other ways to find open studies but I find CT.gov to be convenient to navigate for patients while providing a wealth of information.

Was about to start replying to Barros myself and then saw your response. Nailed it.
I'd add UPenn has a huge research effort in cancers, including colorectal, so there was clearly a breakdown in communication.

https://www.pennmedicine.org/cancer/types-of-cancer/rectal-cancer

Hope the family does well @barros

 

[senorgregster]

Science is the very reason all our tech work to be fair. Your computer wouldn't work if people hadn't decided to study electrical circuits, semiconductor technology, magnets and so on in excruciating detail. GPS wouldn't work very well without taken the theory of relativity into account. Science is the very reason we've managed to get to 7.5 billion people on this planet (for better or for worse) through chemical processing, understanding of anatomy and pathology etc.

The people most critical of science are the scientists. In my experience scientists love nothing more than being more right than other scientists.

Critical thinking individuals are probably drawn to science for that reason and then it becomes a large part of training as well. On an aside, I believe we have a very high rate of individuals with a lazy eye and color blindness. Not good in some presentations as I learned the hard way.

 

[barros]

Sorry that I can't follow your post, ask questions to clarify for me and comment. But I'm most sorry to hear your BIL has cancer and do hope he survives. See also my unsolicited advice in the last paragraph and i.e. the link.

My questions:
Did this doctor say that the hospital does no cancer research at all or no research in the specific type of cancer your BIL has?
Is he the same doctor who treated your mother?
What's the gain or win of this doctor not telling you the truth? How does he make money by not treating your BIL?
Why do you think in Europe hospitals, doctors and big pharma don't win with cancer, and how does all that lead to your statement 'if is any cure I truly believe we would know'?

Please don't be offended but you come across as 99% of patients or relatives of patients do. They have zero insights into oncology and medical research. This isn't to blame you at all, it's not knowledge we pick up from our parents and it isn't taught in school. How could you know? You can't. But I'd like to encourage you to learn a bit about it before making such bold accusations. If you want to, I'm happy to take your questions and answer to my best knowledge.

I want to put two things out straight away:

Cancer isn't cancer. It is a very broad helicopter-like term for very different diseases. Mesothelioma (I assume that's what your mother had) gets treated very differently than other types of cancer (I assume your BIL has some kind of colorectal cancer?). Breast cancer isn't even breast cancer. You have very different characteristics of these cancer cells and therefore need testing which type of breast cancer it is to pick the right treatment to tackle it. The stage of cancer is also important to know and decides on the treatment strategy. That's applicable across the spectrum of cancer BTW. Unfortunately, some types of cancers and stages of cancers cannot be successfully treated these days.

Cancer research as all medical research is very regulated, and for very good reasons. It is also very expensive, time- and labor-intense. Therefore, you will find out that not all hospitals participate, let alone initiate all sorts of research, no matter how good or ambitious the doctors are.

My bit of advice:
If your BIL wants to enroll in a study and doesn't trust his doctor that there's no available, check out https://clinicaltrials.gov/. Use the links in the 'For Patients and Families' box to find out if there are studies near him.
However, you'd need to know exactly the type of cancer your BIL has, the medical term physicians use. Also the stage and how he has been treated for it by now if applicable. Search for studies that are open and still enroll patients.

Hope that helps. Best wishes to him and your sister!

Edit: There are other ways to find open studies but I find CT.gov to be convenient to navigate for patients while providing a wealth of information.

Just saw your post, he survived they removed the cancer and was amazing that his doctor in New Jersey told him and his wife they would remove all the muscles we have down there and he will have to live with a bag (of shit) and the docs on UP removed his cancer and 2 days later he was home and no need of bag, -always a second opinion, about why I think Europe will not gain holding a cure for cancer, because the government spend billions in goverment run hospitals and if they had the cure then less money to the healthcare. My only thing about the doctor was his change from an open conversation to get off my face, maybe he was tired of listening people.

 

[barros]

Was about to start replying to Barros myself and then saw your response. Nailed it.
I'd add UPenn has a huge research effort in cancers, including colorectal, so there was clearly a breakdown in communication.

https://www.pennmedicine.org/cancer/types-of-cancer/rectal-cancer

Hope the family does well @barros

He's good thanks, that was a big scare and I saw him getting older in a few days

 

[senorgregster]

Just saw your post, he survived they removed the cancer, about why I think Europe will not gain holding a cure for cancer, because the government spend billions in goverment run hospitals and if they had the cure then less money to the healthcare. My only thing about the doctor was his change from an open conversation to get off my face, maybe he was tired of listening people.

Glad he's doing better.
Sorry but the bolded part is utterly absurd. A good example is with the HPV vaccine. First was made by Merck and at least one more out now by GSK with even broader coverage of HPV strains. Dirt cheap ($120/dose, requiring just 3 doses) and can prevent the majority of HPV-related cancers which include cervical and head/neck cancers. Public response: Big pharma trying to poison us and "my daughter will not have sex". Please don't blame those trying to save lives. Time for the public to self-reflect and avoid high-risk behavior.

 

[Jippy]

 

[Adisa]

Ignorance is a disease.

 

[oates]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...in-north-but-signs-coral-recovering-elsewhere

Gurt Barrier Reef not damaged beyond repair. It appears that the GBR is capable of repairing itself in some areas. Coal mine still needs shutting down though.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

 

[Classical Mechanic]

shit, what the feck is going on in these minds. Are they all mentally ill? They don't seem like they are, although the stuff they're saying is completely off..

They're conspiracy theory types, they believe the government etc are lying to us. He says at the end they believe all space missions that spied the earth were filmed in a studio.

 

[jackofalltrades]

shit, what the feck is going on in these minds. Are they all mentally ill? They don't seem like they are, although the stuff they're saying is completely off.
Regarding the topic and the thread title itself, I have to say, Anti-science is always bullshit, but being critical about science using scientific methods is extremely important nowadays. Just have a look at food and nutrition advice, all obviously based on scientific facts & methods and yet it's all bullshit and there are so awful many studies that contradict themselves. Thing is: Not everything that's got science written on it, should be called science. Some scientifically correct studies simply have no meaningfulness at all.

Small example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43490335

This expensive study, published in a journal with lots of pedigree made by medical professionals turnt out to be absolute garbage in hindsight when neutral scientists analyzed it. It affected millions of patients for many years and the damage that it has dealt is enormous since taking back all these conclusions takes a lot of work. It has been the worst influence for this disease, since it cemented the general view of a pathologic mental cause, not an organic one. New studies showed actually many organic differences between healthy individuals and those with me/cfs. Boggles my mind that the creators of this study actually stick to their "result" instead of admitting it's all a fraud.

I agree. I think Steven Pinker points to some flawed experiments in one his books, the experiment about the salivating dogs for example, led to over 50% of the dogs dying.

Also if most of your info comes from the general and not specialist publications, as mine does, the reports are often misleading or unquestioning. For example, I'd heard two things said as if they were scientifically proven : that men can't multi-task and that women can withstand more pain than men. The only evidence I've ever seen for these was a man having to cook a meal for various people and women bearing pain in childhood. Not exactly rigorous !

 

[The Firestarter]

Flat earhters are most prominent in the US. Speaks volumes about their education system.

 

[Captain Obvious]

What a fecking idiot. And 28 people upvoted that too

Youd be surprised just how many disgusting comments get upvoted in their 1000s on that website

 

[Carolina Red]

Flat earhters are most prominent in the US. Speaks volumes about their education system.

In what way?

 

[nickm]

There's been no 'huge' accelerated rise in temperatures, unless you're counting the recent, expected blip due to El Nino, which has already been reversed in its aftermath. When all's said and done, the rise in global temperature since the late 19th century is only about .8C.

The AVERAGE rise in global temperatures is ~0.8 C. But certain regions see much greater variations, eg the the arctic circle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_effects_of_global_warming#/media/File:Global_Warming_Map.jpg

No one disputes that we're pumping vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and that atmospheric CO2 levels are exploding as a result. It's the effect of that process that's unknown.

It's not unknown. The greenhouse effect is the reason why our planet is as warm as it is, in the first place. https://www.skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist.htm

Sea levels have shown almost no change (about 8 inches since 1870.)

New observations show sea level rise accelerating: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating. "If the rate of ocean rise continues to change at this pace, sea level will rise 26 inches (65 centimeters) by 2100".

 

[Nucks]

In what way?

The lack of a standard in Us secondary schools. It's why we've got college entrance exams, and Canada doesn't (I'm a dual citizen, US/Canada, Canadian HS, US university).

The standards from school to school, district to district are wildly different down here, so at one school, you might have a quality first rate high school education being delivered, and at another, the quality is lacking, because the district is poor.

In many ways it boils down to federal vs state rights. In say, Canada, education is mandated by the federal government. There is a baseline standard that everyone must be taught, and everyone must achieve to pass, then the provinces get to apply that baseline standard via the curriculum they choose.

In the US, I believe some places actually treat creationism as equally scientific as evolution, moreover, they are allowed to choose their own curriculum and there is no national standard. That's probably what he means. Or if he doesn't know why he is saying it, that's probably why. The US educational system is just like most things in the US, the best, or absolute shit. For every future ivy league prodigy, there are multitudes of kids getting HS diplomas that wouldn't graduate if they were judged on a federally mandated system that expected a base level of proficiency. This also falls on the federal government, which has pushed systems that change the expectations of kids based on socio-economic conditions. Which does no favors for inner city kids, who can get their diploma, basically just for showing up, because the graduation rate is so poor.

 

[Nucks]

The AVERAGE rise in global temperatures is ~0.8 C. But certain regions see much greater variations, eg the the arctic circle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_effects_of_global_warming#/media/File:Global_Warming_Map.jpg



It's not unknown. The greenhouse effect is the reason why our planet is as warm as it is, in the first place. https://www.skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist.htm



New observations show sea level rise accelerating: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating. "If the rate of ocean rise continues to change at this pace, sea level will rise 26 inches (65 centimeters) by 2100".

Regarding the guy you replied to.

There has been NO average rise in global temperate, IF YOU SET THE AVERAGE BASELINE, at the last ~20 years, going back to 1998. If you look at the last century, the last 20 years is a terrifying trend.

 

[Carolina Red]

The lack of a standard in Us secondary schools. It's why we've got college entrance exams, and Canada doesn't (I'm a dual citizen, US/Canada, Canadian HS, US university).

The standards from school to school, district to district are wildly different down here, so at one school, you might have a quality first rate high school education being delivered, and at another, the quality is lacking, because the district is poor.

In many ways it boils down to federal vs state rights. In say, Canada, education is mandated by the federal government. There is a baseline standard that everyone must be taught, and everyone must achieve to pass, then the provinces get to apply that baseline standard via the curriculum they choose.

In the US, I believe some places actually treat creationism as equally scientific as evolution, moreover, they are allowed to choose their own curriculum and there is no national standard. That's probably what he means. Or if he doesn't know why he is saying it, that's probably why. The US educational system is just like most things in the US, the best, or absolute shit. For every future ivy league prodigy, there are multitudes of kids getting HS diplomas that wouldn't graduate if they were judged on a federally mandated system that expected a base level of proficiency. This also falls on the federal government, which has pushed systems that change the expectations of kids based on socio-economic conditions. Which does no favors for inner city kids, who can get their diploma, basically just for showing up, because the graduation rate is so poor.

I am a teacher in the US, so I’m pretty well versed in the whole state vs. federal parts of what you posted.

To the point that he was making... I know of no school district that has creationism taught in a science classroom. There are 3 successive federal court cases actually ruling against the teaching of creationism in public school science classes.

 

[The Firestarter]

In what way?

In my opinion, the idea of an educational system is not only to plant knowledge, but also develop critical thinking and reasoning skills. I am not for a second assuming that anyone (bar some loon) in the US is teaching kids that Earth is flat. And most develop that view much later. What I think the system fails to do is highlight and convince the students in the importance of the scientific method and why trusting the knowledge accumulated in the past centuries is imperative and the only way to progress.

When a large number of people start believing the ridiculous "theories" like the one mentioned above, then obviously their education has not been successful. Why this is happening, I really don't know. One of the reasons may be what @Nucks mentioned: the decentralization of the school system, where each state has significant control. But still, there should be a minimum level of subjects covered everywhere. Personnel may be another thing. Whatever it is, I think the system is failing - I have talked with quite few people from around the world (all parts of Europe, Asia) and every single one has been flabbergasted about such a "movement", stating that such beliefs do not exist at all in their respective countries.

 

[whatwha]

A flat earth PhD thesis, HAHAHAHA

Seeing that has cheered me up

 

[Carolina Red]

What I think the system fails to do is highlight and convince the students in the importance of the scientific method and why trusting the knowledge accumulated in the past centuries is imperative and the only way to progress.

We are working with these kids for 50 minutes to 1.5 hours per day in an individual class. They've been indoctrinated at home and in their churches since they were old enough to talk that what we tell them is false.

It's not the education system, it's the religious indoctrination and pushback from their parents.

 

[The Firestarter]

We are working with these kids for 50 minutes to 1.5 hours per day in an individual class. They've been indoctrinated at home and in their churches since they were old enough to talk that what we tell them is false.

It's not the education system, it's the religious indoctrination and pushback from their parents.

Is there a strong corellation between flat earthers and religion though? I'd suppose so, but still I've not looked at any data.

 

[Carolina Red]

Is there a strong corellation between flat earthers and religion though? I'd suppose so, but still I've not looked at any data.

They frequently use the Bible to support their flat earth position.

 

[The Firestarter]

They frequently use the Bible to support their flat earth position.

I see. A good collection of papers, but lacks peer review and claims have been found challenging to experimentally reproduce though.

 

[Nucks]

I am a teacher in the US, so I’m pretty well versed in the whole state vs. federal parts of what you posted.

To the point that he was making... I know of no school district that has creationism taught in a science classroom. There are 3 successive federal court cases actually ruling against the teaching of creationism in public school science classes.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ed_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html

Is this not accurate then?

 

[Wibble]

Excuse the title. I really don't know what to call this thread, but it concerns the movements we are seeing more and more of who have 'scientists' on their side who claim to prove something that is just, well, false.

Take climate change for example. There are some scientists who don't believe that humans are impacting climate change and who don't believe that what's happening is anything other than a natural cycle of climate change. These scientists are vastly outnumbered in their ideas and some may well not even really believe that, but it's in their best interests, (due to ties to fossil fuel companies etc.) to deny human involvement.

Now, I have no problem with people disagreeing with each other. I'm not a scientist. I'm trusting the 95% to some extent. I read to inform myself and I look for the evidence that makes the most sense but in some ways, I'm trusting the 95% or more of experts. My argument is that the 5% are given as much air time in many cases, emboldening those who are deniers too. Take a panel show or news interview on the subject and you'll invariably find a scientist who believes humans are impacting on the climate and one who doesn't. This isn't a fair representation of the consensus and leads people who aren't informed to believe that both arguments are as valid as each other.

It happens in lots of areas of science. Evolution vs Creationism. The amount of people in America who believe the earth is 6,000 or so years old, is truly staggering. OK, this is a religious issue too, but when it impacts the education of children it's more than religion.

Now, we have this to deal with also. https://www.elitereaders.com/phd-student-flat-earth-thesis/

A PHD in the flat earth theory. Like this is truly mental. Yet the numbers of people who believe the earth is flat is actually increasing and will only continue to do so when "scientists" are coming out with this.

My question I suppose is, how do we move forward when people just find 'science' to correspond with their views as opposed to looking into things and looking at the best available evidence objectively?

I know we can't expect every person to look into every subject with a fine tooth comb, so we invariably have to trust consensus in the scientific community. But if you think there is a conspiracy in that community and search out the minority and choose to trust them, then your views are only getting stronger.

I don't know, I just think that Flat Earth PHD has pushed me over the edge and there is only so much stupid I can take.

I am (or rather was) a scientist and a huge part of science is about critically assessing the sources you use to form and or back up your ideas, hypotheses and arguments. This is how we weed out bad (or just wrong or insufficiently evidenced) science.

So this thesis was a) from a pHD student in an Engineering department, b) it was rejected by the University (eventually), c) the University in question isn't very good at all (Uni of Sfax) and d) it only got published in “The International Journal Of Science & Technoledge” a dodgy, now defunct, online publication that was trying to impersonate the real thing (with Technology spelt correctly).

So there is no cricis in sceinec as this was not scienec as anyone knows it, it wasn't taken serious or used as a reference by anyone and is nothing other than clickbait.

Of course the damage with such things and particularly mercenary oil company shills is that the impression that you are talking about can get spread no matter how little real scientists are or real science is affected.

 

[Wibble]

There's been no 'huge' accelerated rise in temperatures, unless you're counting the recent, expected blip due to El Nino, which has already been reversed in its aftermath. When all's said and done, the rise in global temperature since the late 19th century is only about .8C.

It is now well over 1 degree and accelerating. We will see at least a 3 degree and more likely 4/5 degree increase by 2100. If we look at what 1 degree has done 3-5 degrees is terrifying.

No one disputes that we're pumping vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and that atmospheric CO2 levels are exploding as a result. It's the effect of that process that's unknown.

What are you talking about? The chemistry of the greenhouse effect is not only known and very well understood but it even replicatable in a lab. How do you think the earth got warn enough to evolve life in the first place?

Sea levels have shown almost no change (about 8 inches since 1870.)

8 inches is huge and again is is accelerating. The most conservative estimates of sea level rise is 0.5 m by the end of the century with 1, 2 or even 4 meters quite possible as we haven't been modelling expansion very well yet, mainly glacial and ice cap melting.

In summary the evidence is overwhelming and unequivocal and only the scale is debatable, ranging from disastrous to catastrophic. Clicking the heels of your red shoes and wishing you were in Kansas just doesn't work.