@eoten said:
@Maroxad said:
As a foreigner I cringe at this, even I know the 5 freedoms or rights protected by the first ammendment are Religion, Assembly, Petititon/Protest, Press, Speech.
She forgot Petition/Protest. How convenient she forgot the one she did.
She also revealed herself to be quite anti-science in this hearing. Thankfully her job is exclusively focused on interpretting law. And not one of scientific matters.
Edit: Iirc, the time for Thread Necromancy in this forum was 30 days, since last post. I apologize if I am wrong though.
Yeah, unlike virtually every justice who has ever sat in that seat before being confirmed, she has no notes, and is answering every question off pure memory, which is impressive. Now, how is she "anti-science" because someone not agreeing with the group of scientists that you agree with doesn't make someone anti-science. For example, if someone disagreed with Mike Brown at the IAU and said they thought Pluto was still a planet, are they a "science denier?" Because an equal, or even more relevant union of astrophysicists disagreed with Mike Browns assertion.
The reality is, there's almost NOTHING that science unanimously agrees on, and to pick one side of it, and claim everyone else is "denying science" actually makes you the anti-science one in the room because science is rarely ever definitive on anything. Remember, science once thought the earth was flat, and considered "blood letting" and drilling holes in a persons head to be perfectly acceptable medical procedures.
So if you're telling me she's "anti-science" you'll need to cite some kind of evidence, because I take that assertion when I hear it with a very, very large grain of salt.
So... you are a post-modernist. Good to know.
First of all, I am not even American, and even I KNOW about the 5 rights guaranteed by the first amendment. She is SCOTUS nominee. She also had many other episodes where she demonstrated a lack of understanding. But that was by far the most offensive one, because even I knew that one at the top of my head.
I think you have a massive misunderstanding of what science is. Science is a system we use to acquire information about the world around us.
Why does that someone disagree with Mike Brown? What evidence does Mike Brown provide to prove it isnt a planet? If Mike Brown is appealing to authority figures (and possibly using himself) then, no that someone isnt anti-science. But if Mike Brown provided clearcut evidence for a criteria for a planet, then showed evidence of how Pluto isnt a planet, and the other someone still disagrees, then yes, he is anti-science.
Science doesnt form opinoins, it is a system we use to arrive be able to better explain and predict natural phenomena. However, some scientific phenomena are so overwhelmingly supported by evidence, pretty much everything that goes into scientific journals. Trying to undermine scientific research as if it was somehow subjective WITHOUT providing sufficient evidence to counter it, is incredibly anti-scientific. That is the issue I took with ACB, and now that is the issue I am taking with you. Evidence and entries published in scientific journals overwhelmingly support climate change.
You are also commiting the same anti-science nonsense as ACB.
But you had to go worse, even do more to try to undermine confidence in teh scientific method, and doing so dishonestly.
Science NEVER claimed the earth was flat, in fact, arithmeticians and natural philosophers were able to prove it was round CENTURIES before Science was even a thing. Science also never supported Trepanning, and bloodletting declined rapidly with the advent of medical science. Science is what ended these practices (barring a few cases).
I get where you are trying to go with this, but while questioning established knowledge is key for the scientific thinking, the questioning also has to be supported by sufficient evidence. Handwaving solid scientific theories as "contentious" or "politics" is a sign of a dishonest thinker.
Edit: Modern skepticism is not skeptical over solid scientific theories because of political, religious or ideological leanings, or personal feelings. And evidence of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses contributing to climate change is overwhelmingly supported in both chemistry, ecology and climatology.
Log in to comment