I meant the alternative medicine pillmakers. If NICCAM can convince people to stop spending money on useless treatments, it would be a good investment. If it found a pony under the CAM manure pile it would be even better.
If you started teaching that alternative medicine was bollocks, you’d have all sorts of people mad at you. If you didn’t have good research backing it up, it would be even worse.
My wife wrote articles for an encyclopedia of alternative medicine, published by a real medical publisher. Though she worked hard at keeping it factual, she still felt slightly dirty at the end.
This strikes me as pretty disingenuous–I think it’s a serious stretch to take a simple prediction based on no apparent data points whatsoever and try to generalize it into a claim about “Science” in any meaningful way.
The implementation and execution of the law has very little to do with science. Science is about methods, NOT about what someone has concluded is a fact.
As it happens, ethics just about ties the hands of researchers wanting to do science on people.
In the science of psychology, if you could get a correlation of 30%, you just discovered a “law” of psychology. When trying to make predictions about what happens in society, you’re dealing with several more layers of abstract.
As far as science goes, just how many posters can you demonstrate made a hard prediction about that outcome? Somehow I suspect you had a handful, out of which one admitted they were wrong and the rest had responses varying from denial to none.
And even if you’re right about all this, I think it’s pretty darn rare that you’ll find the “typical” left of center Doper to be anti-science on the VAST majority of issues.
There is nothing strawman about my arguments. Actual antinuclear proponents use these arguments quite often.
I disagree. It’s about the intellectual honesty.
As I said, someone could certainly claim that while his prediction was wrong, it doesn’t have larger meaning – the single data point could be an anomaly, or some external factors could be in play. No problem there.
What he cann’t do is simply refuse to acknowledge the existence of his prior prediction or refuse to acknowledge its failure to materialize.
Allowing concealed carry in bars and restaurants is not a matter that can be resolved by “science”. It’s in the realm of public policy debate.
And while it’s terrific that you got to resurrect the thread to say “Nyah nyah nyah!”, it’s not germane to the issue of science denialism.
However, this doesn’t address what I said, which is that far too many people here jump to the conclusion that there must be some ulterior motive behind a simple question, simply because they have heard the question before.
No, not as a process, just not taking each and every conclusion as gospel.
For example, in a thread here not long ago, I wondered if because vets are starting to back off of over-vaccination of pets due to, at best, it being a waste of money and at worst a cause of some illnesses, that maybe the same might be true of children. OMG, they just came out of the woodwork, assuming I am an anti-vaxer and yada yada. Christ, I don’t even have any kids and I DO give my pets vaccinations, as well as getting some myself, but nothing I could say would convince some of them due to the fact I “sounded like” an anti-vaxer. God forbid I question the science there.
Or maybe they just didn’t like the idea that their kids are mammals just like dogs and cats… :dubious:
Those weren’t strawmen? You just sealed the association of JoelUpchurch=idiot in many, many minds. Argue against anti-nukes all you want, but that was just pure, pure idiocy, pretty much exactly what the OP was pitting.
Again, please tell me I’m being whooshed.
…
BTW, how did politics enter this? FWIW, there is an equal distribution of idiocy along the general population; no left or right bias there. Fox news does pander to the less-than crowd on the right, but that doesn’t mean that the right-leaning people in general fall victim to this, does it?
Agreed.
But that’s not what this claim is about. This claim was about a specific factual prediction and its truth or falsity.
Yes, it is, and your resistance to the admission of factual error is proving my point nicely.
Someone can say, “The fact that crime did not rise does not address the issue of allowing concealed carry in bars,” and be absolutely correct – it does not.
But IF someone argued against the passage of the concealed carry in bars law by confidently predicting an increase in violent crime, he is now obligated to admit that this outcome did not occur. He is NOT obligated to conclude that therefore concealed carry is a good idea – as you say, that’s a policy debate.
But he is absolutely obligated to acknowledge the factual event that occurred, and not claim the numbers are a result of a police/press coverup conspiracy.
Right?
In many cases (especially in climate discussions), it’s because googling that question will turn up a host of evidence that it’s a question only asked with any frequency by denialists.
Sure they can. How long was it, again, that the thread was dead before being resurrected? I know I cull my subscribed threads list every so often back to nothing specifically because I’m (statistically, thus far) almost certainly not interested in zombie resurrections–absent a link to the thread, I’d be willing to bet the people you want admissions from haven’t even SEEN the update.
When you hear a question asked 99 times and each time it turns out the question was asked not in good faith but as a springboard for a given screed, what are you supposed to think the 100th time this question is asked ?
As to the people who have not returned to the thread, I concede you have a point. They may not be aware of its resurrection.
Bu the people that have posted to it since its resurrection – they certainly know about it, yes?
Huh? What fantasy are you engaging in now?
I did not argue in that thread or this one anything relating to the consequences of concealed carry in Virginia bars, I have no idea what’s been said by posters previously and have made no allegations or reached any conclusions on the matter, because it’s irrelevant.
In Bricker-world, it seems that any question relating to human affairs is now classified as a matter of “science”, and Wrong Opinions are a demonstration of Scientific Denialism.
Sorry kiddo, being a lawyer with a bug up your ass about the dreadful hypocrisy of your online debate opponents does not make you a scientist.
I already mentioned that many times, as the laws of physics are also involved you can start by falsifying Kirchoff’s law.
What anyone can notice is that your incompetency shows when you confuse clarifications of why it is unlikely that you or others could falsify it, as wiggle room or to be walking away from those falsifications. That is only happening in your imagination.
The evidence is overwhelming that there is an ulterior motive behind a simple question when the person making the question pads it with reheated baloney points, and then the person even refuses to check the evidence that those points were made by people with an agenda.
In the case of many of the climate change deniers the most clear evidence for this was their refusal to see for themselves that even Frank Luntz admitted that he came with the idea of telling conservatives that they should use “climate change” instead of “global warming” It was not an idea of the scientists or the liberals to say that “we now call it climate change”.
Watch the video at the end for Luntz acknowledging how he came with that idea and the evidence that scientists continue to use both terms.
At this point, a link to examine the evidence might be beneficial.
Again: no.
Let me restate my claim. Please argue against it, not what you’re painting it to be.
If you predicted A, and Not A happens, that’s a matter of fact. Yes?
That’s all.
Perhaps my use of “you” is confusing you. In the sentence above, I use the pronoun in its indefinite sense. That is, I don’t mean to say, “If you, Jackmanii, predicted A, and Not A happens, that’s a matter of fact.” I mean instead to say, “If you, any person, predicted A, and Not A happens, that’s a matter of fact.”
Refusal to admit that error is certainly a matter that hinges directly on this discussion: it’s the intellectual honesty Feynman discusses in his Cargo Cult speech.
Surely:
I hear ya. Probably needs a different topic. This one is already off the rails.