It’s enlightening, sure to piss off a certain few and completely explains many facets of our frustration with the political left.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/12/mike-rowe-destroys-woman-who-wants-him-fired-for-being-ultra-right-wing-conservative/?print=1
Note: I posted this in the Pit because it will get flak, and would likely be moved here because of it anyhow.
So, you’re posting a link, with no actual thoughts of your own to supplement it?
We’re not going to do your homework for you. If you want to discuss this issue, make your case.
You’re posting this “to piss off a certain few”? Good luck with that.
Seems to be a complaint from a science show narrator that falled for an internet troll.
To me it looks as if the Daily Caller is running out of subjects that avoid dealing with how the Republican fish head is rotting the whole body.
The science narrator does seem to concentrate in one item that seems somehow to be attractive to some conservatives. To deny the existance of Black Holes. AFAIK there are better science subjects to doubt than those.
Perhaps it is because Einstein predicted them and nowadays several conservatives hate him because they dumbly see his relativistic thories as also originating relativism in moral or societal settings?
Firstly, we should duly note that the person who bragged about thinking for himself has just started a thread with an article link but no actual analysis.
Secondly, the link describes how conservative talk show host nut-picked some Facebook comment by a random person (I see nothing to suggest Ms Bright holds any noteworthy position or represents anyone other than herself, although any corrections are welcome) and then is a massively patronizing dick to her (which the article describes as “killing Rebecca with kindness”). Which is kind of petty and stupid.
Thirdly, his “argument”, for lack of a better word, is frequently ludicrous. That something isn’t conclusively proven doesn’t mean there’s a 50/50 chance of it being true. His comparison of something completely unprovable (the existence of a supernatural being) and something with a significant weight of evidence behind it (climate change) is silly if not highly disingenuous.
Fourthly, for someone objecting to the term “science-doubting”, he spends a surprisingly amount of time casting doubt on science.
Fifthly, Rowe goes on to focus on her categorization of him as “ultra-conservative” and to assume that this is what is driving her objections rather than his poor grasp of both science and basic logic, which he demonstrates throughout.
OTOH, perhaps the OP is correct and this **does **completely explain many facets of the right’s frustration with the political left. I mean, who likes to be repeatedly called out on their bullshit over and over and over again? it must be very frustrating indeed.
My thought, confirmed by about a dozen quick google hits, was that science never said there were 100 billion galaxies. The statement was always that there were AT LEAST 100 billion galaxies. So the discovery that there were two trillion galaxies did not, in any way, prove them wrong.
Look at it this way. Suppose you took your life savings and enrolled in Trump University because Donald Trump personally promised you that you would make at least a million a year by investing in real estate. And say you ended up making 5 million a year. Would that mean Donald’s original statement was really really wrong? No, I bet you would think he was more right than anyone ever knew.
But it is a good example of how conservatives can manipulate a phrase to totally change its meaning then bamboozle their not so bright “base” into jumping on their bandwagon of stupid.
I like Mike Rowe. Whatever his politics, he seems like a good guy.
You, however, are a fucking imbecile.
This is the same Mike Rowe from Dirty Jobs? Sad. I used to like that guy.
And the dumb fart puts it in the pit! It’s like the jokes writing themselves.
With global warming, ignoring it or being wrong has serious consequences. There really aren’t any consequences for being wrong about whether black holes exist, or whether there are 2 trillion galaxies or 100 billion.
That doesn’t even factor in the other benefits from renewable energy. Cheaper energy, less health problems from energy (coal causes tons of health problems), independence from the middle east, sustainability, etc.
If the global warming deniers are wrong, that means endless trillions of dollars in property damage, reduced economic growth and lots of human suffering and refugees. It could set humanity back by decades.
Also there are people disagreeing with science who are in science, and then there are laymen disagreeing with science due to political reasons.
People within science disagreeing with each other is one thing. But a lot of laymen have no training, and they disagree for political reasons. Republicans are much more likely to deny evolution and climate change than democrats. It isn’t because republicans are trained in these fields and are seeing info the rest of us aren’t. It is because their ideological agenda isn’t served by these things. Thats not the same thing as saying ‘well scientists in the field disagree’. This is people with no training disagreeing for reasons that have nothing to do with the science.
It’s a universal constant that any social media related article saying some form of [X] totally destroys [Y] is going to be disappointing.
That’s funny, my Google search turned up a number of articles stating that the scientists estimated between 100 and 200 galaxies in 1995 and that estimated was assumed accurate until recently. Example here:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/10/so-many-galaxies/504185/
But then again, I wasn’t looking to bash Mike Rowe for being an ultra conservative.
In fact, if most conservatives could defend their thoughts as well as Rowe I’d probably have more respect for them.
So don’t let my thoughts get in the way of your bias.
That cite says between 100 billion and 200 billion that human technology can detect. That’s a big qualifier, there.
I don’t get it. He was defending science and education.
QFT. I’ve yet to see anyone “destroyed” by a commentary or article. At best you get [Y] offering a decent rebuttal of whatever said, and at worst (and more often) you get [Y] saying “Nuh-uh” followed by a string of abuse aimed at . And that’s true no matter what the affiliations of and [Y].
Also the reason for questioning these beliefs come from newly available data and theories. It doesn’t come from a fear of losing profits. The “scientists” arguing against global warming, or evolution or the existence of god, all turn the scientific method on its head. They start with the conclusion they want to be true and then scrounge around for data that might support it.
Ah yes, the “sweet, sweet liberal tears” approach to modern politics. When you get your talking points from Eric Cartman, it’s time to re-examine your priorities.
I was under the impression that posting a link with no description whatsoever was “frowned upon.” Perhaps there’s no actual rule, but I never click on links like that.
A very interesting read. Thanks for posting it.
I just want to point out that black holes have actually been observed doing the things that are predicted they would do. And that there are always people who propose wild theories as a way of trying to advance science. They usually don’t pan out, but they can help challenge the other theories and make them more robust. And, if they do work out, they can open new paths.
I agree, BTW, that he comes off as not really understanding science in that exchange. For one thing, he doesn’t understand confidence levels or skepticism.