Not sure about that. IIUC one needs more time to establish a relation or significance. One state is not enough as the site showed. In any case, the ones claiming that there would be more crime were wrong so far.
Ask Commissar.
Oh, wait, he’s gone…
While science denialists commonly cling to extreme minority opinion to push their agendas, what’s less often recognized is that their “experts” are generally not even qualified in the field in question.
Various people with “Dr.” in front of their names promote antivax ideology and are held up as knowledgeable, until you notice that they are doctors of chiropractic or naturopathy, or PhDs in branches of science only peripherally related to medicine (i.e. chemistry), or if they’re actual MDs, they have no expertise or training in immunology and pediatric infectious disease.
There’s also the problem of Nobel disease, where scientists win the prize for illustrious work in a particular branch of science, and later go off the deep end, espousing crank/denialist beliefs which may or may not be related to their prior work. Examples: Linus Pauling and vitamin C, and Kary Mullis with AIDS denialism:
“Mullis is a man known to virtually everyone in biology. His claim to fame is winning the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for the development of PCR. However, as a perfect example that even eminent scientists can hold completely insane beliefs, Mullis also believes in astrology, denies anthropogenic global warming, and believes he has conversed with an alien in the form of a glowing raccoon. He is also completely convinced that he will die in the presence of redwood trees, and is thus completely reckless when redwoods are not around, going so far as to ski down the centre of a highway far from the sight of a redwood.”
There’s arrogant, and then there’s crazy.
But we’ve gotta believe Mullis’ AIDS denialist views! He’s a Nobel Prize winner! :dubious:
You shouldn’t have to believe him because he’s a Nobel Laureate, but you should respect the fact that he’s talked to a glowing raccoon. Those guys are smart.
Bingo. That’s the only concession I sought from them. They can still argue the policy question – just not claim psychic powers or a police conspiracy.
A very good point, and part of why it’s a lot more important to look to the peer-reviewed literature and the general consensus: there’s always going to be a nutbag or two like Mullis or Behe who actually is trained in a relevant field. They are a bitter minority who have given up any semblance of scientific credibility and intellectual honesty to pursue pet theories that are wrong beyond reasonable doubt.
A lot of effort to prove that I am right - I must have struck a nerve here. You’ve made negative assumptions over and over, with “evidence” that you assumed was there, thrown strawmen around and lowered yourself to try to score a win thru insults.
Way to prove my point.
Wait, wait. I must be missing something. If I’ve skipped a crucial explanatory post, I apologize. But, crime rates going up or down in Virginia after passing a law is fucking science now?
As a lawyer, Bricker, you must know the meaning of post hoc ergo propter hoc. As a lawyer, apparently you have no fucking clue as to what science is.
Yes, I do.
You seem to imagine that I’m making leaps of inference that I am not.
Read carefully: I am saying that if someone predicts A, and A does not occur, then they are obligated to admit that they predicted A and A did not occur.
That’s all.
“A” in this case is “gun crime in bars will rise.”
There’s no difference between that and saying that the Higgs boson will show up at 350 GeV. It didn’t.
Now, what conclusions are to be drawn from that? I don’t demand anyone draw any conclusions from it. But to deny the numbers themselves?
Yes, the numbers are science. Why would they not be? That’s the most basic thing there can be: counting things.
If you think there’s a post hoc fallacy, lay it out, specifically: what do you imagine is the fallacious claim?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
specifically: what do you imagine is the fallacious claim?
[/Quote]
That you have offered an example of science.
In Bricker-world, science is exactly what he says it is, and if you don’t agree you’re intellectually dishonest. All facts and all numbers are science. Hijacking the thread to try and score political points is science too. You’ve heard of political science, I assume? :dubious:
Well-turned! Hey, I just told this guy on the street corner that he should not cross against the light or he could be cited by a police officer. He refused to pay me for my consultation time, despite the fact that I was clearly lawyering.
Nowere do you show where I was wrong. There is only your say so, if you can not find evidence that the deniers are accepting the cites shows that they swallowed propaganda you have nothing.
I’ve noticed a lot of true believers do that when they have nothing to counter facts with. That they label themselves “science believers” and toot their own horns makes the lulz all the better.
What is the scientific method? Can you briefly describe it?
OK, folks.
Here’s a thread bemoaning the lack of intellectual honesty and the existence of science denialists.
And here are two participants:
And willing to say what the truth is we have Budget Player Cadet, and in the original thread Measure for Measure.
And me.
Why isn’t there a parade of people stepping up to say to Jackmannii and Hentor, “No, on this factual issue, you’re wrong?”
Because nobody really gives a shit. It’s the internet. The playground of fools and the terminally bored. Self made experts with either no job, or the ability to slag off work and flame people all day and night.
Mores the pity
For common reference as to what is science, let’s just go to dictionary.com:
What word shows up in every one of those definitions but #3?
Okay, so in what way is your example in any way “systematized”, gained by “systematic study”, or reflecting a “body of facts systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws”?
Science is not simply the prediction that given circumstance A, event B will occur. That’s just a prediction. Your example is no more “science” than the prediction by Peter King that Pittsburgh and Green Bay would play one another in the last Super Bowl was “science”.
It’s illuminating to me, in terms of how a rejection of science could take such root, when even putatively intelligent conservatives are so ignorant about what science even is.
Budget Player Cadet, and Measure for Measure do you really think that making one prediction and looking at the outcome is “science”? Really?
I’m sorry, but I asked you to summarize the scientific method, and you instead offered definitions of the word “science.”
Once again: in your understanding, what is the scientific method?