• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Is America the most brainwashed country on Earth?/least scientific belief

What's the motivation for us to learn math and science when all the good math and science people just come join us anyways? Then start fucking their offspring and we'll get better at science. #howsthatforscience.
 
Dating an Asian has really gone to your head.
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
I think we had this conversation before on the pit, maybe the Bill Nye thread where he calls out people? I think the conclusion with that was Christian doesn't equal Christian because no other country has the Southern Baptists and the like, who are probably the biggest science opponents.
Click to expand...

This idea is along my lines of thinking. Not all Christians threatened when science and reason disagree with a book written 2000 years ago. There are plenty of Christians who are firm believers in science, but they don't fall in a biblical literalist camp.
 
bym051d said:
This idea is along my lines of thinking. Not all Christians threatened when science and reason disagree with a book written 2000 years ago. There are plenty of Christians who are firm believers in science, but they don't fall in a biblical literalist camp.
Click to expand...

And there are also many evangelical Christians (b/c the word has become ambiguous in meaning - I'm talking about those that hold to the centrality of the atonement to salvation and holding Scripture as true and authoritative) who are firm believers in science and Scripture alike. Such as BioLogos, which includes prominent theologically conservative scholars/pastors such as Tim Keller, NT Wright, Philip Yancey, and Dallas Willard


ETA: Wright is British, so maybe not as pertinent to this conversation, but still influential in many American evangelical churches
 
PhDeac said:
He's probably talking about the back and forth on questions like "do eggs cause high cholesterol?" or "is it ok to have wine when pregnant?"

I don't think the problem is science. It's probably more the journalists dumbing down the findings for the public.
Click to expand...
Whoa dude....a lot of those issues became real scientific dogma. It was irrefutable to science. It's a HUGE cop out to claim they didn't royally fuck up a lot of predictions

Look at fat. If these boards were around when fat first became the #1 American health boogie man back in the 1980s, I'm sure a majority of people on here would be making fun of anyone that said common sense says that fat can't be the problem scientists claim it is. They'd be citing science studies and acting like anyone saying "be cautious" was a moron and idiot....and linking to websites of scientists who claim all fat is bad. Look at the way Atkins was treated. He came out with a diet and health strategy that went against SCIENTIFIC dogma and challenged the norms that fat was bad. He was publicly destroyed but in the end was right. Nutritional science now has a lot of the basic tenants he put out in the very first book. His work stands, theirs does not...at least if you really understood what he was saying and not the journalist created boogieman they created to shoot him down.

Most of the general public were skeptical about those types of proclamations because of common sense....and guess what? They and their common sense were right. Bacon and eggs is actually not bad, and now people are claiming it's actually GOOD for you and healthy. So science was wrong. That has an effect on ALL science as a result. It's dangerous for scientists to make sweeping generalizations and act like their findings are irrefutable.....and IMO their responsibility to stop the journalists if they are bastardizing it. They don't, they let it happen.

And IMO there are a lot of issues today that are going down the exact same path. The CO2 issue is one of them. It's the same thing. Common sense says the "imminent disaster by human CO2 emission" is not likely for lots and lots and lots of reasons. That does not stop journalists and scientists from jumping on weak/baseless science and make sweeping generalizations about the end of the world as we know it. But I'm sure most people on this board believe that because there are a lot of "CO2 disaster" non-believers in America means we're scientifically illiterate. Replace CO2 with fat if you want to see how the CO2 will play out. I would not be surprised that scientists eventually consider low CO2 emissions like has happened as a positive thing.

I mean think about this PhDeac. CO2 is an irrefutable fucking plant NUTRIENT, not a environmental toxin as has been proclaimed by the EPA who are scientists. They aren't journalists pedaling crap.
 
TownieDeac said:
Or, more specifically, reporting irresponsibly on single, soft studies that hint at correlation rather than 10+ year meta-studies that can hold up over larger populations with more statistical and experimental rigor.
Click to expand...
You mean like pedaling concepts like there are lots of peer reviewed publications touting the scientifically proven benefits of smoking marijuana compared to long term risks? Now I'm not saying there isn't some truth to that underlying concept based on anecdotal evidence because there are obviously lots of benefits and the risks appear low (even via smoking), but believing it's scientifically proven with peer review and validation is not true.
 
IamThunderbolt said:
And there are also many evangelical Christians (b/c the word has become ambiguous in meaning - I'm talking about those that hold to the centrality of the atonement to salvation and holding Scripture as true and authoritative) who are firm believers in science and Scripture alike. Such as BioLogos, which includes prominent theologically conservative scholars/pastors such as Tim Keller, NT Wright, Philip Yancey, and Dallas Willard


ETA: Wright is British, so maybe not as pertinent to this conversation, but still influential in many American evangelical churches
Click to expand...

This. So much this. It's not the cut and dry as people on all sides make it out to be.
 
TownieDeac said:
Responsible doctors haven't.

Medicine moves very, very slowly when it comes to research. Conventional wisdom in medicine and practice moves glacially compared to research, for the [good] reason that it's hard to identify good science.

I would also continue to argue against pour's line of logic that given the fact that in the last decade, biomedical research funding has been slashed, grants are given to A) top labs, and B) incremental and slow, safe science.
Click to expand...
Glacier pace? Lots and lots of doctors jump feet first with fads. I mean c'mon, are you guys that oblivious to what goes on? Any doctor that has prescribed a statin.....or probably 100% of them...jumped on the fat/cholesterol is dangerous...bandwagon. The longitudinal studies have basically shown that statins prevent minor stroke/heart attack, but not major stroke/heart attack which was the hope. A lot of people skeptical about the rush to statins thought that'd be the case, and now we'll have to deal with the long term problems of chronic statins use...which could be significant. Cholesterol is critical in synapse formation/protection and synapse loss is the hallmark of every neurodegenerative disease...like Alzheimers. There are a lot of people holding their breath and crossing their fingers that we don't see an explosion in those problems. Statins can cause muscle issues as well (muscle weakness is a primary side effect)...so the same goes for the heart. If you want to blame big pharma, go ahead, but they just jumped on the scientific fad of being anti-fat.

There are crazy fads in science and crazy fads in medicine...and most are just that, fads...trends without much underlying basis. The "intelligensia" jump on those bandwagons as causes and HAMMER those that don't. It becomes dogma until proven otherwise. That's what goes on. Maybe that's how science works all the time, I dunno. Causes mean funding so scientists rarely voice caution...loudly. But the number of people on here that don't seem to realize the process that's been going on or accept that is what goes on is pretty staggering to me.
 
pourdeac said:
Glacier pace? Lots and lots of doctors jump feet first with fads. I mean c'mon, are you guys that oblivious to what goes on? Any doctor that has prescribed a statin.....or probably 100% of them...jumped on the fat/cholesterol is dangerous...bandwagon. The longitudinal studies have basically shown that statins prevent minor stroke/heart attack, but not major stroke/heart attack which was the hope. A lot of people skeptical about the rush to statins thought that'd be the case, and now we'll have to deal with the long term problems of chronic statins use...which could be significant. Cholesterol is critical in synapse formation/protection and synapse loss is the hallmark of every neurodegenerative disease...like Alzheimers. There are a lot of people holding their breath and crossing their fingers that we don't see an explosion in those problems. Statins can cause muscle issues as well (muscle weakness is a primary side effect)...so the same goes for the heart. If you want to blame big pharma, go ahead, but they just jumped on the scientific fad of being anti-fat.

There are crazy fads in science and crazy fads in medicine...and most are just that, fads...trends without much underlying basis. The "intelligensia" jump on those bandwagons as causes and HAMMER those that don't. It becomes dogma until proven otherwise. That's what goes on. Maybe that's how science works all the time, I dunno. Causes mean funding so scientists rarely voice caution...loudly. But the number of people on here that don't seem to realize the process that's been going on or accept that is what goes on is pretty staggering to me.
Click to expand...

That's how science works.
 
pourdeac said:
Glacier pace? Lots and lots of doctors jump feet first with fads. I mean c'mon, are you guys that oblivious to what goes on? Any doctor that has prescribed a statin.....or probably 100% of them...jumped on the fat/cholesterol is dangerous...bandwagon. The longitudinal studies have basically shown that statins prevent minor stroke/heart attack, but not major stroke/heart attack which was the hope. A lot of people skeptical about the rush to statins thought that'd be the case, and now we'll have to deal with the long term problems of chronic statins use...which could be significant. Cholesterol is critical in synapse formation/protection and synapse loss is the hallmark of every neurodegenerative disease...like Alzheimers. There are a lot of people holding their breath and crossing their fingers that we don't see an explosion in those problems. Statins can cause muscle issues as well (muscle weakness is a primary side effect)...so the same goes for the heart. If you want to blame big pharma, go ahead, but they just jumped on the scientific fad of being anti-fat.

There are crazy fads in science and crazy fads in medicine...and most are just that, fads...trends without much underlying basis. The "intelligensia" jump on those bandwagons as causes and HAMMER those that don't. It becomes dogma until proven otherwise. That's what goes on. Maybe that's how science works all the time, I dunno. Causes mean funding so scientists rarely voice caution...loudly. But the number of people on here that don't seem to realize the process that's been going on or accept that is what goes on is pretty staggering to me.
Click to expand...

pretty much
 
The conservative attack on science is one of the more idiotic things I've heard in mainstream politics.
 
He might as well have written "DON'T YOU GUYS WATCH HOUSE?"

And I wish we didn't have the conservative attack on science re: stem cell research.
 
This blog has compiled a few examples of how bad science has been in recent years, especially the first link where 53 landmark.....not run of the mill publications.....landmark, game changing, dogma changing science studies....were attempted and only 10% of them were reproducible. There have been other such attempts, some included. Is anyone on here going to call 90% wrong a success? The NIH is so concerned they are now making reproducibility a priority......finally.

http://www.jove.com/blog/2012/05/03/studies-show-only-10-of-published-science-articles-are-reproducible-what-is-happening

Studies show only 10% of published science articles are reproducible. What is happening?
Posted on May 3, 2012 by Moshe Pritsker

Studies show a very low reproducibility for articles published in scientific journals, often as low as 10-30%. Here is a partial list:

The biotech company Amgen had a team of about 100 scientists trying to reproduce the findings of 53 “landmark” articles in cancer research published by reputable labs in top journals.
Only 6 of the 53 studies were reproduced (about 10%).
Scientists at the pharmaceutical company, Bayer, examined 67 target-validation projects in oncology, women’s health, and cardiovascular medicine. Published results were reproduced in only
14 out of 67 projects (about 21%).
 
It's telling, on this thread, that rather than address America's issues with science, a few posters have chosen to address problems of science. I think it really speaks to our falling behind the world.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
pretty much
Click to expand...
Yeah, you pretty much think of yourself as "intelligensia" and hammer as an idiot anyone with common sense for questioning one of your "proven" causes. Thanks for demonstrating it...over and over and over again. You're the problem, not part of the solution.
 
lol the only two people I've ever 'hammered' (other than your mom) are you and Lectro for either stupidity or misrepresentation, willing or simply out of ignorance. i remember you said you did something in a chemistry lab of some sort, so perhaps your experience in the private (janitorial) sector is different, but you're simply ridiculous.
 
Pour has actually brought up some serious problems in science. There's reproducibility, peer review, access, grant funding, fraud, no places for null results, etc.

But it's just awful to bring up these things in the face of a scientifically illiterate country. To rationalize our national ignorance away because of systemic/methodological problems in science is just...staggering.
 
sure, those have been challenges since forever. pour just wants to throw out the baby and call everyone else Science Mafia or Nazis. my problem with his berating is that he blames "Science" the establishment or whatever for the sins of the few (very) few vocal science communicators and the much larger pool of interested parties who simplify or ignore or misrepresent scientific research for other purposes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top