Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 10,101-10,150 of 12,463

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "There were some legitimate concerns relating to the story about the science test that was in the news recently, but it appears to have been confirmed."

Well, I, for one, am glad th..."

random thoughts:

amazes me that I have yet to meet a single teacher who likes 'No Child left behind'.
Did the Bush administration talk to any of them before they put it together?

So, why do you keep shrugging off any religious connection with these topics lately?
There's the casual, 'oh yeah, religion. You guys are all worked up about that, but instead I'm going to talk about this instead for a moment..."
I'd like to think it's not deliberate, but it has all the elements of a good magician's trick.


You can't take the outrage over creationism as religion out of the conversation, as creationism is religion that people are pretending is science.

and it's not just religious schools doing it, as there have been several cases of normal schools teaching it and people having to fight against it. Been several court cases and incidents of creationists textbooks being used.
Texas is the main offender, but a couple southern states have also tried it.
Up north they at least aren't trying as hard to force it on normal schools and just teach it in the religious ones.
Not that there's a good way to lie to and badly educate kids, but at least there's hope they'll keep it to themselves.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "All valid points, but based on experiences and knowledge of the US education system I don't have. You say "Something that doesn't get play..." in relation to these other things, but I would say tha..."

Okay, cerebus. Thank you for acknowledging the fact that my points are valid. Now that I've made them, we have a choice. We can go back to talking about the dearth of science fact in religious teachings. That's a given. You can ask me questions, in order to build your knowledge of America's public school system, and/or you could do further research. But, if you're rather stick with the ... non-believers are against religion because some religious schools teach creationism ... I guess that's okay.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "amazes me that I have yet to meet a single teacher who likes 'No Child left behind'.
Did the Bush administration talk to any of them before they put it together?
"

Honestly, I don't know how that came about ... if teachers were involved or not.

The shock....

I remember teachers jumping and dancing around when Obama was elected and the Dems held the House and the Senate. All my colleagues were screaming ... the Dems would do away with No Child! Yay!

Oops.... They didn't, not really. I think more monies were added. There'd been a lot of talk about an "unfunded mandate" etc.... I'm pretty sure there's a lot more cash available. It's still, for the most part, alive and well.

I don't know. I think there should be accountability. I mean, the tests showed something. We absolutely STUNK in math. Why? We're talking numbers that were in the toilet. That got people looking at math. Eureka. How many general ed elementary teachers had a strong background in math? Not many. Which led to changes with regard to teacher testing requirements, the number of math classes for elementary ed teachers, etc.... Math consultants were hired, for megabucks, by tons of districts in order to get the older teachers up to snuff, etc.... I'm not sure that would have happened otherwise.

But, ....

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "So, why do you keep shrugging off any religious connection with these topics lately?"

Ahahahahaha!

Is that what balance and moderation, an honest look at the facts, looks like in your book?

Sad, if so.

[cerebus]

"... non-believers are against religion because some religious schools teach creationism ..." and some states are trying to get it into the public school system. That is the point I am discussing. I'm not going to delve into the other problems with the US education system as they don't relate to religion....which is what we're discussing here. If there is a thread on a discussion forum somewhere about the general problems with education, then I might participate there, but that is not the issue here.
I will say it again, as non-believers we're asked why we care, or told to just let it go, it's down to the individual. And as I, and other non-believers have said, yes, that is true....to a point. When that 'personal' religion starts impinging on civil issues (same-sex marriage for example), or education (attempts to bring creationism into science lessons) then it is no longer 'personal', and is open to scrutiny.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I admire your dedication to fairness and equality, but it seems to be taken to an extreme....we cannot discuss one issue of inequality (same-sex marriage again as an example) without at the same time discussing and having an opinion on every other single conceivable rights issue. And now, in a discussion about religion vs science, highlighting an instance of where religion attempts to intrude on science is only to be considered if we also hold a position on every failing of the education system, including methods of teaching mathematics, etc.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "So, why do you keep shrugging off any religious connection with these topics lately?"

Ahahahahaha!

Is that what balance and moderation, an honest look at the facts, looks like in y..."

If it's balance to give one idea a sentence casually dismissing it and pages of intense study to another subject, then no, my idea of it doesn't look like that at all.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "You can't take the outrage over creationism as religion out of the conversation, as creationism is religion that people are pretending is science."

Perhaps you missed the parts where I said I don't like it when children are taught bunk and am aware that some religious schools teach crap.

Yup. True.

I'd be a liar calling 911 due to third degree burns after my pants caught on fire if I claimed otherwise.

Or, ... a total and complete idiot.

What I meant?

I was suggesting that one might want to do something wild and crazy. It's called thinking outside the box. Yes, we all know non-believers (and many believers) hate when religious schools and churches teach creationism. Yup. Got it. And, yes, we know that's a charge that many, at least, non-believers hold against religion. (Though, seriously, that's such an overgeneralization. Religion. Encompassing all. Which.... Well, isn't accurate. But, hey, whatever.)

Is it crap and is it awful?!

Heck, yeah.

But, if instead of reading every article and book one could find regarding the decrepit nature of religion one read other things, well, one might be in for one hell of a surprise.

Yup. We're going to have thousands of American kids running round having been taught that the world was made in seven days. (Some of them will look around and think, huh, and pick up the actual facts when they're adults, by the way.)

Whereas, we're going to have millions, MILLIONS, of children who can't do math and don't know jack about science. Why? Religion? No. For some of the reasons I've detailed.

But, hey, ... we can ignore that fact. As if it doesn't exist. And, every time we meet someone who doesn't know what five times five equals or can't figure out how much 20% off might be or gives a blank expression when someone mentions a famous scientist, we can pretend the poor schmucks went to religious schools.

That, though, won't give us the big picture and if we don't understand what problems exist ... well, we won't be able to even think about solving them.

Sadly, regarding the millions ... picking up higher-level math as adults we be a lot more difficult than picking up an article on science or a book by Dawkins.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Been several court cases and incidents of creationists textbooks being used.Texas is the main offender, but a couple southern states have also tried it.

Up north they at least aren't trying as hard to force it on normal schools and just teach it in the religious ones."

I assume you have stats and articles that you can share. Yes? I have heard of a handful of teachers behaving badly and talking religion or teaching intelligent design. When I've heard about them, it's been due to the fact that they were fired.

So, if Texas is teaching creationism, hellfire, oops, I want to know. What textbooks are being published and used in public schools that teach creationism? I have my own issues with different textbooks, for history, being used in southern states versus northern states. If there's a vast conspiracy in the southern states to violate our laws and teach creationism through textbooks in the public schools, I want to hear about it. It will give me one more thing to write my politicians about.

Regarding your statement about the northern states ....

I don't even know what to say. At least they don't try to force it as much on normal schools ....

Who would they be? The religious right? Or, are you trying to say that science teachers aren't trying to force it as much. If that latter, you're dead wrong, in that ... it's not forced. We teach science or get our butts fired. :/

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "You can't take the outrage over creationism as religion out of the conversation, as creationism is religion that people are pretending is science."

Perhaps you missed the parts wher..."

But lately, when religion is brought up, all you want to do is think outside the box.
Which is fine, go wild, but those of us that are still interested in what is happening inside the box might not want to be constantly told we can go outside if we want.

We know, but we came to this box on purpose. We aren't unaware of that other stuff, or insensitive to it, but that's a completely different box.

I'm interested in getting religious people to think about the world outside their imaginary box and the big picture that they want the rest of us to behave and think according to what their imaginary friend tells them.
It may not be as big a problem as the trade, but it is a problem and it's worth talking about.
Finding what you consider a worse thing doesn't make it less bad or just go away.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "education (attempts to bring creationism into science lessons) then it is no longer 'personal', and is open to scrutiny."

If parents are paying to send their children to private schools, it actually is personal.

However, when it comes to the realm of public schools, it is open to scrutiny.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I admire your dedication to fairness and equality, but it seems to be taken to an extreme....we cannot discuss one issue of inequality (same-sex marriage again as an example) without at the same time discussing and having an opinion on every other single conceivable rights issue. And now, in a discussion about religion vs science, highlighting an instance of where religion attempts to intrude on science is only to be considered if we also hold a position on every failing of the education system, including methods of teaching mathematics, etc. "

Hey, ....

If you don't want to look at the big picture, that's cool. That's your choice.

Part of the point of this thread and many of the non-believers who have taken part here has been to encourage inquiry. Inquiry, facts, research, open discussion. Has it not?

That's, actually, one of the things I've learned since taken part and one of the areas in which I've grown. Now, when someone makes an argument or I read a news article, I want more. More information. More facts. I research and think, in order to really understand the issue.

Practical application.... Right?

But, hey ....

If, instead of open inquiry and questioning and looking at facts (and, yes, I can supply facts in spades), you'd rather call my dedication extreme and tell me to go elsewhere in order to discuss facts that pertain to the topics under discussion here, that's your prerogative. I wonder, though, if that's really and truly what you want to do.

And, ultimately, I've got to call it.... I'm not going to take my valid points elsewhere.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "But lately, when religion is brought up, all you want to do is think outside the box."

Not accurate, Travis.

If you think so, prove it.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "education (attempts to bring creationism into science lessons) then it is no longer 'personal', and is open to scrutiny."

If parents are paying to send their children to private sc..."
And when combined with the repeated attempts to introduce creationism to the science curriculum at a state level, again using Louisiana as an example, then it is a valid example of the kind of thing that will be taught if objections are not raised.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "But lately, when religion is brought up, all you want to do is think outside the box."

Not accurate, Travis.

If you think so, prove it."

look back over the last couple pages (205-207) and notice where religion gets a casual mention and then you launch into pages of discussion about your 'big picture' topics.
Your dismissive attitude, your laughing when it got mentioned, and the insulting tone when you explain that if we want to be small picture, stay in our boxes type and actually stay on topic, but you are determined to educate us.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "If it's balance to give one idea a sentence casually dismissing it and pages of intense study to another subject, then no, my idea of it doesn't look like that at all. "

Shall I write an ode? A sonnet? A research paper?

Some religions, perhaps even most, have "laws" and such things that are very, very ... horrid, criminal, nasty, and disgusting.

Religious leaders have done rotten and terrible things throughout history. The persecution of the Jews, not even allowing them to be buried, etc.... The persecution of women.... How many women were burned and drowned? The low estimate is 100,000. The Inquistion and the cost to science. The Crusades. Gay rights.

True. All of it. I've said it over and over, but ... in case I've not said it enough ...

Bad ... very bad!

Heck, we can even throw in the birth control thing and unwanted pregnancies and women being encouraged to stay with abusive dirtbags rather than divorce. Yup. True. And, ... that stuff ticks me off like you'd never believe. I even work against it in my private life. Outside the box, I'll tell you. Heck, for example, I worked as a volunteer, on call one weekend a month and every Wednesday night, with battered women ... men, too ... but I never got any of those calls. You'd be surprised how I reacted to the ... but I can't divorce him because it's a sin lines .... Volunteered there for about three years. But, I digress. Oh, yeah ... then, when I was a social worker, I got in trouble for alienating the clergy. Almost written up and everything. True story. But, again ... need to get back on track.

Religion can be very, very, very bad! Has been and still can be.

Worse, even though I believe in God ... though don't go to church, had my name taken off the roles, and everything ... I can't prove that God exists. Rather illogical of me, I know. But, as I've said, no scientific, verifiable evidence exists.

Though, there is evidence of very bad behavior of the religious ... good behavior, too, but it would tick you off it I went there ... and, since I'm not here to spread the religious seed, it's not really my thing.

So, bad ... very bad.

Is that enough?

All of the arguments and points I've made, with evidence, etc..., still stand.

My points are valid and provable.

Maybe you, like cerebus, should suggest I take them elsewhere ... 'cause the other angle might not work. Again, ... if that's really what you want and the path you want to go down.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "If you don't want to look at the big picture, that's cool. That's your choice.

Part of the point of this thread and many of the non-believers who have taken part here has been to encourage inquiry. Inquiry, facts, research, open discussion. Has it not?"
Yes, facts, evidence etc are all things that have been requested on this thread, but in relation to the subject being discussed. You rightly raised concerns about the creationism in school story when it was first raised, trying to find out if the story was fact or fiction. That it had been recently confirmed was relevant and I posted as a result. But introducing other issues with the education system is not about looking for facts or evidence, it is introducing another subject. But if the discussion is about creationism being taught as science, changing the subject to teaching maths by counting on fingers is not relevant. I'm not telling you to go away, I'm saying that we cannot expand every single discussion to include every permutation possible. It is not an attempt to stifle discussion, it is not even an attempt to stop you bringing these things up, but you appear to be implying that we are being dishonest in raising an issue and then not immediately including every other possible issue in the same breath. As I said, all of the points you made about education standards are valid and legitimate concerns, but I'm not talking about slipping education standards, I'm talking about attempts to force religion into science classes (in this instance). Should I read anything into your continued neglect in discussing nuclear energy as the best option to curb greenhouse emissions? By polluting we are destroying the world, and poor people who contribute little to this will suffer the most. So by not positing a position on this subject are you being inconsistent in your desire for equality?? Of course not! It is simply not pertinent to this discussion, and that you haven't mentioned it means nothing....and certainly doesn't imply that you hold any particular view on it.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "If it's balance to give one idea a sentence casually dismissing it and pages of intense study to another subject, then no, my idea of it doesn't look like that at all. "

Shall I wri..."


No one is saying your points aren't valid, provable or even interesting.
What we are saying, is they are only slightly connected to the topic at hand and playing the victim doesn't change the fact that that is what was being discussed and some of us, despite your noble efforts to enlighten us, still want to talk about it.

Feel free to stay inside the box with the rest of us.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I'm interested in getting religious people to think about the world outside their imaginary box and the big picture that they want the rest of us to behave and think according to what their imaginary friend tells them."

Yes....

And, ... you've done so for years. You can continue to do so. I'm sure you will continue to do so. Though, use of the phrase "imaginary friend" might not, in truth, get them to think ... in and of itself.

Tell me.... I ask this honestly ... really wanting a truthful and thoughtful answer ....

Can't we do both?

If not, why not?

What is it about cerebus and his point regarding religious schools and creationism and you and your desire to get people to give up their "imaginary friend" and whatnot that doesn't allow for a broader discussion?

Does looking at the big picture somehow diminish your arguments?

I wouldn't think so.

Make your arguments. Prove your points. Give facts.

I might disagree with you, in that, I don't think, for example that creationism being taught to thousands of students poses as much a threat as math and science not being taught or taught adequately to millions of children. Guys ... it's a fact ... a fact that millions and millions of students and adults are behind in those fields. What the flip? One would think that would frost your proverbial cakes. One would think you'd have something to say about that.

You have your argument. A building is on fire. Heck.... A whole block is on fire. That being creationism. Well, just so that you know, a whole flippin city is on fire, maybe a state. That being the kids who don't know how to add or have a clue about chemistry or geology or ....

Neither magically disappears because one of us doesn't want to see it.

Both exist. Both, in my opinion, need to be dealt with ... though, dealing with creationism in private schools might be challenging, legally.

Calling attention to the city that's on fire doesn't diminish the horror at the building or block that is burning.

Why would you think it does?

And, at what point do you walk the walk ....

Is it about inquiry, evidence, and open-minded thought and dialog, or isn't it?

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "And when combined with the repeated attempts to introduce creationism to the science curriculum at a state level, again using Louisiana as an example, then it is a valid example of the kind of thing that will be taught if objections are not raised. "

Objections are raised regarding public schools that cross the line. I'm the first to raise them. As is the ACLU. As are many politicians. Would you like me to write my representatives today about the division of church and state? Well, tomorrow. I already wrote them today on another matter. Yeah, I know. Sort of like banging one's head on a brick wall, I think. Maybe. Yet, I do it. That's our system of government. There is no way, no way, that a state would successfully put creationism in public schools. But, yes, when people try, others should take a stand against it and they will. That includes me.

I firmly believe in the division of church and state. Heck. A class of kids asked me the other day if I was religious. I wouldn't answer. Did I believe in God? I wouldn't answer. I told them why, division, and why I, personally, thought it was inappropriate. It had nothing to do with me as their teacher, our class, etc.... Further, I'm an adult in their life and it would be inappropriate for me to share, with power differentials, etc.... What if they, somehow, were swayed in some way by my answer? They basically told me I was off my nut ... that answering whether or not I believe in God isn't preaching to them. Guess what? I still refused to answer.

And, ....

I'm still going to tell you there are far worse things out there than thousands of school kids being taught creationism in private schools. Is it bad? Yes. There is worse, though. That just is what it is and will be what it is unless and until more people understand the issues at hand and do something about it.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "And, at what point do you walk the walk .... "
It's comments like this that imply you are saying that if we don't discuss every issue we are being dishonest. And I disagree with that.

"Is it about inquiry, evidence, and open-minded thought and dialog, or isn't it?"
It is about religion vs science, belief vs non-belief. We are chastised if we say we'd be better off without religion, being told "it's personal", "what difference does it make to you?". Creationism in science classes is why it makes a difference, a concrete example of where religious believers impose those beliefs where they don't belong, and where it impacts on others. Same-sex marriage is another example. You compare thousands to millions, but that suggests that this issue is confined to a small number of private schools, but this is not the case as you well know, there are constant attempts in many states to have this introduced to public science classes. Highlighting this instance is a great example of what will happen if those constant attacks are not watched for and argued against at every opportunity.
Slipping education standards is an issue all to itself, and I'm going to say that pushing it so assiduously in this thread, and so quickly after dismissing the creationism example as just a private school issue, comes across as an attempt to change the subject and to accuse others of lower standards than yours for not following that subject change.
Right, the education standards in the US are slipping, but the water reclamation and management in parts of Australia is appalling considering how little of it there is, why are we not up in arms about that! How can we sit here discussing education when there are those in drought because water is not being managed properly! Talking about education at a time like this means you have abandoned those suffering from drought, they're not as important to you as whether someone can add without using their fingers!

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "victim doesn't change the fact that that is what was being discussed and some of us, despite your noble efforts to enlighten us, still want to talk about it."

I'm not playing the victim.

If you want to simply say the things you've always said and make the arguments you've always made and read the arguments you've always read, that's your choice.

Non-believers don't like it when creationism is taught; it was taught in a school recently. We have a picture of a quiz that was given.

And, ....

Adults shouldn't have imaginary friends.

What angles would you like to take on those two points?

[cerebus]

And Benjamin Netanyahu has put a bed on a plane! How can we even be thinking about science or religion at a time like this, when money is being wasted on a bed! Shame on all of us!

[cerebus]

Thousands of brazilians are dying needlessly! What are we doing about it!?

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "you appear to be implying that we are being dishonest in raising an issue and then not immediately including every other possible issue in the same breath."

How, in tonight's posts, did I imply you and Travis are being dishonest? Could you point out the words I used? Show how I implied you're dishonest for discussing creationism in private schools?

If I actually did that, I'd be interested in knowing and being given specifics.

Or, does this go back to something else? Not really to do with tonight's discussion?

Regarding nuclear power, ....

My not having addressed it would likely mean nothing, true. But, if someone offered valid points and an interesting argument, my refusal to discuss it openly and suggestions that he take the point elsewhere and stop playing a victim might. It might not. But, it might.

[cerebus]

As I mentioned comments like "walk the walk..." imply that we are being dishonest, not in discussing the creationism in schools issue, but in not discussing all the other issues you raised around education, and earlier about other rights issues when discussing same-sex marriage.

"Regarding nuclear power, ....

My not having addressed it would likely mean nothing, true. But, if someone offered valid points and an interesting argument, my refusal to discuss it openly and suggestions that he take the point elsewhere and stop playing a victim might. It might not. But, it might."
I would have thought the response would be "and what does this have to do with science and religion"? Believe it or not, there are issues which to me are much more serious and pressing than religion and its attempts to force its way into places it doesn't belong. But I have those discussions on other, relevant forums/threads. No matter how important I find them, bringing them up here and demanding they be discussed, and anyone failing to do so isn't "walking the walk..." is unreasonable.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "And Benjamin Netanyahu has put a bed on a plane! How can we even be thinking about science or religion at a time like this, when money is being wasted on a bed! Shame on all of us!"

Sarcasm works on some people. Not sure it works for you, since it's somewhat out of character.

Believe it or not, cerebus, I read about this today and was horrified. Disgusted. I would have sent him an email if I thought I actually could.

Funny thing ... but not ....

Ole Ben and a bed on his plane, literally has nothing to do with the discussion. Nothing.

Whereas, when you mentioned a private school is teaching creationism, which is a threat to science and our future, and I said ... Holy Crapadoodle ... you want to talk schools, you'd never believe the crap that's going down and poses an extreme threat to science and our future, both dealt with a threat to the study of science and our futures.

But, if you want to try to diminish my argument or me, I suppose the above might work, at least for some.

It might end up diminishing you a bit, though.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Thousands of brazilians are dying needlessly! What are we doing about it!?"

This is going to be my last post for the night. It's seriously late, and I'm feeling this is going down a really nasty hole.

One last question ... two.

Are you serious about the above? If so, I'd discuss it tomorrow. Further, I didn't know about this and am glad for the information.

Or, are you using an article about people being seriously harmed and killed as a sarcastic joke to get a dig in at a poster on the Angels and Demons thread?

[cerebus]

Re: Sarcasm. Fair point, it is the lowest form of humour apparently, it's usually a sign of frustration, in this case at not being able to make the point in quite the way I'd want to.
Back to the education thing, when you brought it up I did say you had valid points, so I wasn't attempting to ignore what you said, but I was then trying to make the point that as valid as they are, they're not connected to the issue of religion in science. Should these issues be addressed, fixed, whatever? For sure, but it's not something I was interested in addressing here....that does not mean I disbelieve you, or think they are not important, just that I don't think they're relevant here. By all means bring these things up, and if enough people find them interesting or relevant, then that's fine, they will discuss them (and there are threads that go on here that I read but don't bother with 'cos I either find them irrelevant or uninteresting, or have nothing pertinent to add), but the implication that we're not being fair or honest in not discussing these issues I think is unreasonable.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Thousands of brazilians are dying needlessly! What are we doing about it!?"

This is going to be my last post for the night. It's seriously late, and I'm feeling this is going down..."
As you pointed out it was unwarranted sarcasm, and I will apologise for that. It was intended to try and draw attention to the fact that there are unpleasant things happening all the time, all over the world, issues that need addressing....At the end of the day you are correct in that your education issues are closer to the original subject, my examples were random, but I think you might sometimes read too much into others not engaging on issues that are not as closely related to the religion/science discussion.
I'll repeat, nobody is saying you cannot bring these up, or that if you do nobody else can engage on them, but to say we're not "walking the walk..." if we don't is unfair imo.

[cerebus]

Eva wrote: "Linky poo http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Truth..."
Would you agree or not with this review from Amazon?
"This book surprised me. I expected a seasoned synthesis of the world's religions from one of the foremost experts in that field. I hoped that Smith might make a persuasive presentation of the foundation upon which they all were founded. Instead, this book more closely approximates a polemic against the Western scientific perspective.

Chapter one denounces science as merely quantitative, and therefore unable to speak to the qualitative concerns of religion and humanity. Science is concerned with objectivity, predictability, control and number. Religion with values, purpose, meanings and quality. Science corrupted becomes scientism, the reduction of all reality to the material.

In chapters two and three Smith begins to present his alternative. Reading more like a personal ideology than a research synthesis, he amends the ancient two-story universe (natural and supernatural) by adding an inner level (psychic or psychological) and by splitting the supernatural into celestial and infinite levels. This four-story, hierarchical model of reality is Smith's personal explanation of the construct underlying all world religions, but those looking for documentation to support his view will be disappointed. Smith does jazz up his perspective by allusion to quantum physics, but this material is quite dated (originally published in 1976).

Chapter four is the longest chapter in the book. In it Smith likens his four-story model to levels of selfhood: body, mind, soul and spirit. Inexplicably, he spends eleven pages arguing that the mind is not equivalent to the brain. The inclusion of an appendix on Stanislav Grof's experiments with LSD is a strange way of supporting Smith's views.

Chapters five and six return to his critique of science. The first focusing on his view that science, in its proper place, supports the "common vision" of religion. Essentially, this common vision is the assertion that "things are not as they seem." Tables appear solid, but quantum physics says they are largely composed of space. In the second Smith rejects evolutionary progress. He claims that the evidence for evolution would not be persuasive for science were it not for the predisposition for material, rather than transcendent, explanations. He also argues that there has been no human progress. His preference for the hunter/gatherer, as opposed to technological man, seems romantic, if not absurd.

Smith presents his personal interpretation of the "common vision" of world religions as a top-down explanation for reality. Human conceptualizations for the ideal and infinite are essential, in his view, to understanding all aspects of human existence. Western science takes a bottom-up approach, with hypothetical constructs resting upon material facts. Smith's view is really quite simple - science will never penetrate the infinite by working with the finite.

Unless you are looking for insight into the personal beliefs of Huston Smith, I do not recommend this book. "

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "I'll repeat, nobody is saying you cannot bring these up, or that if you do nobody else can engage on them, but to say we're not "walking the walk..." if we don't is unfair imo.
"

Hell, now I can't sleep.

When I originally posted, did I say ... "And, you guys have to discuss it with me or else you're jerks..." or something like that.

Or, was my "walk the walk" comment in direct relation to being told I was ignoring religion gone bad, should take me comments elsewhere, etc...? Hence, ....

Whoa, guys....

One of the things I took from my time here was looking at the big picture, not just accepting things, asking questions, finding proof, having open dialog, etc.... That's what's been brought up, over and over, as a good way to live. I've grown in that regard.

So, yeah ... given that, I questioned why, instead of being open to other ideas and discussion, "you'd" feel the need to do what was done.

If you don't want to respond, that's fine. That's different, though, than inviting someone to post on a different thread.

Regarding my post, which had to do with threats to science and our future, as did yours ....

Since when did our science discussions have to include an element of religion? We can't just talk about science? We can't just talk about threats to science? If not, why not? I mean, I suppose it can always be the same old battle ... science vs. religion. That is how it began; of course, it was started by someone who no longer takes part and hasn't in forever if not since the first post. And, how many times, when someone has taken us off topic, have people, including non-believers, said, "Don't worry about it. That's what we do here" or something similar? Several.

Some things aren't cool. But, that is what that is .... I'd say I accept your apology, but, honestly, I don't need one nor do I want one. To be perfectly honest, though maybe I shouldn't be, I'm guessing your apology should go to you. I'm not saying that to be a jerk. I just think, .... Using an article about people being hurt is something that likely let you down yourself. It didn't hurt me; it shocked me. I likely felt the same way as you do when people bring up Hitler and the Nazi's lightly. But, that's not cause for an apology.

[cerebus]

Hope not being able to sleep isn't related to this....sleep trumps pretty much everything :)
I think what we're starting to reveal here is one of the easily forgotten problems with this form of communication, the lack of tone and other clues as to what is being said. The interpretation I took of the "walk the walk" and other related comments was that by not engaging fully with the examples you introduced, we were somehow not adhering to the standards that we hold others to. If that is not the case, then my interpretation is a misunderstanding, and my point I've been trying to make these last few posts is moot at best.
My intention with mentioning other threads is also not an attempt to force you off this thread btw....far from it, I think this discussion would be less interesting and fruitful if you left. The point I was trying to make there was again related to the inference that we were unwilling to discuss these new points. I was attempting to say that I am willing to, and already do, discuss any multitude of things, but for those that I felt unrelated to this, I do it on other threads/sites etc. Again, it was not a suggestion you leave.
Yes, threats to science are relevant as I would see it, I guess I just saw your points as being about education standards in general, rather than taking them as examples of threats to science education in particular.
And finally, my use of the article about brazilian car safety, whilst unwise for the reasons of sarcasm already discussed, I don't feel was inappropriate in the sense of trivialising it, which I didn't do....I do believe it is important, but the point I was trying to make (albeit in a less than ideal way) was that there are so many horrendous/unpleasant/unfair things out there that not mentioning each and every one does not imply a lack of interest, or integrity, on our part (which as I mentioned is what I thought you were implying, but we've now established you weren't). As for it being akin to a Godwin's, that's probably a fair comparison, again in as much as I have said (and not been believed) that frequently when I mention Godwin's (here as elsewhere) that I do not always mean it in the sense of "You're wrong, you lose!", but as a case of "oh look, there's a (possible) Godwin". Small and probably insubstantial distinction, but there nonetheless.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: " And, how many times, when someone has taken us off topic, have people, including non-believers, said, "Don't worry about it. That's what we do here" or something similar? Several."
Yup, and not trying to disuade that, just the implication that not engaging is seen as taking a position....

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "What else would it mean? Lets build a bomb at a cost of billions and not use it? What else would you want to use a bomb for?"

I think you've missed the point. As I said before scientists didn't go "we need to build a huge bomb" and then spent a load of money to achieve it. That's not the way science tends to progress. What happened was a new branch of physics was uncovered (nuclear physics) and a whole range of new advances became possible. It was only when it was realised that one of those advances was a huge bomb that resources were allocated to develop it before anyone else did.

cHriS wrote: "Take North Korea why are we so anti them developing nuclear capabilities?"

Exactly. Other nuclear armed countries we have been less worried about. It's not the fact they are arming with nuclear weapons that scares most people, it's the unreasonable ideology of the people in charge that worries people more. The same with Iran.

cHriS wrote: "If a dog is classed as dangerous then you should not have one at all. It is the law that is wrong."

I've no argument there, but it has nothing to do with your metaphor.

cHriS wrote: "It does matter. You can't do what ever you want; you are only allowed to use reasonable force."

And who gets to define "reasonable" force? Some people (even in the UK) believe that reasonable force is the decapitation of people who "insult" their religion in some manner.

Personally I think "reasonable" force should involve "reason". In the end though it makes little difference to the point that it is not the weapons we wield that is the problem but the motivation of those who wield them.

cHriS wrote: "I feel that there is a slight contradiction in your reasoning. You said "The conviction would be that of the desire to own the dangerous dog..." So for you to own the dog one would have to be available. If we ban all dangerous dogs there would not be an issue."

No contradiction. Certainly dangerous weapons or items should be restricted from people likely to misuse them. For example owning a gun in the US makes you statistically more likely to be shot. Hence why other developed nations have strict gun control. That doesn't change the fact that it is the conviction of use that is the problem not the item itself. In a world without huge ideological divides between religion or politics, what would be the point of using a nuclear weapon?

cHriS wrote: "Then you say about the bomb, "Actually it was developed with the full intent to use it before the enemy did". So if science did not develop it.....?"

Again you have a charmingly naive view of research. People didn't go out to research the most powerful bomb ever. They discovered the science that uncovered the possibility of such a device and then it was developed mainly out of fear of an ideological opponent developing it. The conflict of Fascism, Capitalism and Communism was the catalyst for the development, not the desire for scientists to build a big bomb.

At the same time the same science also gave us understanding of the working of stars, new potential energy sources, developments that would lead to a new era of medical and material science with MRI scanners, radiotherapy, X Rays all of which save lives.

cHriS wrote: "If you want that way of thinking to be used to let science 'off the hook' then you should apply the same way of thinking to god and religion. It's man's conviction that chooses to take the developments of god and religion etc........ "

Actually no. Because most of science is a tool for revealing knowledge, most of it makes no claim to morality. Religion and the ideas of gods claims to give moral guidance, whether its helping the sick and poor to persecuting the fraction of our society attracted to different people from the average. Religion can lead to putting fixed dogma before discovery and humility and the idea of gods, souls and the afterlife can lead to the devaluing of human life in the here and now.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "An enlightening article regarding vaccines and US politics. Everyone, including the most progressive Democrats, had lots of questions, it would seem. And, .... Why wouldn't the scientist from the CDC answer the question regarding why mercury was taken out of all childhood vaccinations, short of multi-dose flu vaccines? I mean, they did it. They did it in 2001. So, clearly, they did it for a reason. However, the scientist, from the CDC, wouldn't answer the question."

Which is I'm afraid quite common for people making conspiracy claims, equating refusal for a scientist to answer like they are concealing some sort of wrongdoing. In actual fact it may be simply that the scientist felt that they couldn't answer for a variety of reasons. One of the most common reasons being that a truthful answer would mislead more than it would inform.

For example, if there was a couple of studies that linked the mercury to health problems, but were not conclusively proved and there was a perfectly viable alternative to mercury that had become available, it would be perfectly sensible and moral to switch to the alternative. However, turning around and saying such would likely be reported as an admittance that vaccines are "dangerous".

Which is true, vaccines have a risk factor associated with them, as do practically all medical treatments from surgery, to casts to putting a sticking plaster (band aid in the US?) on someone. The point is the difference in risk.

However, most people don't think in these terms. They think anecdotally. Just like the smoker that says "my grandfather smoked 90 a day and lived to be 100". That may well be true, but we still know on average that heavy smoking is far more likely to lead to an early grave.

Shannon wrote: "Americans issues with vaccines doesn't hinge upon anti-science or anti-science religious extremist types."

Seems a rather absolute statement. Certainly there may be some legitimate concerns too, but a lot of it seems based on anti-science fears and the common misunderstandings of the public at large.

Shannon wrote: "However, one might ask ... why does the UN want to do this thing?"

To be honest it could be as simple as a difference in where people draw the lines at "acceptable risk". Though I'd also be suspicious that costs and convenience comes into it too.

Shannon wrote: "Wonder why I couldn't find information that's more recent than 2006? At any rate, while it doesn't prove that multi-dose vaccines led to Gulf War Syndrome in US soldiers, it shows why some Americans, regardless of conviction, are leery of multi-dose vaccines and wonder if the government is on the up-and-up with the citizenry. "

I feel there is a bit of a difference there between vaccinating people with well tested vaccines against natural diseases and vaccinating troops with potentially not heavily tested vaccines against weaponised bio-agents that the Iraqi's had been allegedly given.

Shannon wrote: "The crimes I alluded to yesterday ... and a reason why some don't trust the government when told ... have the vaccine ... it's good for you."

However, that is a massive generalisation that conflates "government", "science" and "corporations" into one big faceless uniform authority, which it's not.

Science on vaccines tells us that they are not just "good" for us, but they help to protect the people around us. There are many well tested vaccines with minimal risks and side effects compared to the risk of not taking them.

The US government on vaccines? Well I can understand some concern on the specific ones offered, mainly because of the huge profits that corporations make off these products thanks to the US medical industries tendency to place profit over medical care, which makes your system reputedly twice as expensive as it needs to be for the same results. (A system which the right wing in the UK are trying to emulate by dismantling the NHS and giving contracts out to private business.) Finally, the US government has currently such a anti-science slant in general that I could understand being so suspicious of them on science in general, which is why I'd want to listen to the doctors and scientists, rather than the politicians that are still repeating disproved rumours about vaccines and other technologies.

Shannon wrote: "Finally, this is just for fits and giggles, ... lest anyone think only Republicans who are religious do naughty, naughty things ..."

Well I don't. Any time that ideology is placed above reason and evidence I feel it's wrong. Whether it's right wing or left wing, or religious or secular.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "One of the most common reasons being that a truthful answer would mislead more than it would inform."

We've had this conversation before....

I'll say now as I said then ....

If that's the thing, in science, we, the populous, is being asked to believe. I know. You disagreed then and likely will know. There being some sort of difference, if I remember correctly, in that we're being asked to acknowledge the knowledge of scientists and not being asked to believe. Correct me if that wasn't your point before and if you have different feelings now. I still see it as being asked to believe.

Further, if scientists aren't going to answer certain questions due to the fear that people will take the answers the wrong way, etc...., people within science shouldn't be confused or distraught when people see them as being less than forthcoming and wondering if there are nefarious reasons for such.

Again, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Americans issues with vaccines doesn't hinge upon anti-science or anti-science religious extremist types."

Seems a rather absolute statement. Certainly there may be some legitimate concerns too, but a lot of it seems based on anti-science fears and the common misunderstandings of the public at large.
"

You know this from experience, right...? From living in the US and listening to all of the people around you talk about it and from reading articles on the subject and watching it on the news when it comes on.

I'm sure there are anti-science people who are against vaccines. I know there are.

I also know every single person I know and every single person I've seen give an interview talks about the child who was fine one day and became autistic two days after a round of vaccines. Heck, they've even played videos with dates of children on our televisions. Fine and talking on ... May 13th ... vaccines ... lying on the floor and drooling, refusing to speak, on May 15th. There's an actress, she used to date Jim Carey, who has gone on and on about this. I don't think she's anti-science; she's never said anything remotely anti-science. But, she's said, over and over, that she believes things like vaccines with mercury lead to autism.

Again, my point was not and is not to say science is wrong or bad. It's not even to say mercury causes autism.

It's to say ... perhaps we should think things through before doing things in facilities that aren't secure and before we make claims ... and that the majority of American's who take issue with vaccines aren't running round saying, "Down with science," and insisting that vaccines are brewed by the devil.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "I feel there is a bit of a difference there between vaccinating people with well tested vaccines against natural diseases and vaccinating troops with potentially not heavily tested vaccines against weaponised bio-agents that the Iraqi's had been allegedly given.
"

Ahhh.... Is that it?

Well, here's the thing....

Whether you think it's different or not, it's a reason many people distrust the US government when it comes to vaccines and honesty that has nothing to do with being anti-science or religious.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "The crimes I alluded to yesterday ... and a reason why some don't trust the government when told ... have the vaccine ... it's good for you."

However, that is a massive generalisation that conflates "government", "science" and "corporations" into one big faceless uniform authority, which it's not.

Science on vaccines tells us that they are not just "good" for us, but they help to protect the people around us. "

True, Gary. There is evidence that vaccines are good for us. And, every American to set foot in a public school, including public college, is vaccinated, including me. If I had children, I'd have them vaccinated.

But, the "crimes" I alluded to and gave evidence for happened ... though there's never been an accounting for them and science types don't tend to want to talk about them.

And, whether or not it's logical, people, some people ... maybe many people, have all of this in the back of their heads. The idea that ... if the government and government scientists did that then, did whatever was done to the troops, etc... and refused to be truthful about it, well, if that happened, it could happen again.

Actions and reactions....

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "If that's the thing, in science, we, the populous, is being asked to believe. I know. You disagreed then and likely will know. There being some sort of difference, if I remember correctly, in that we're being asked to acknowledge the knowledge of scientists and not being asked to believe. Correct me if that wasn't your point before and if you have different feelings now. I still see it as being asked to believe."

Which is the problem. You see it as being equivalent to belief which is an immense over simplification and leads to more misconceptions and the false ideas of scientists being equivalent to priests.

What you are being asked to accept is the consensus of many individuals and groups that are all working not only on their own research, but verifying, checking and being sceptical of their own and others. A wide and diverse group of many ideologies and none. In the same way as you accept an airline pilot knows how to fly a plane, or a Spanish teacher can speak Spanish. If you feel strongly that you disagree with their position then you can learn science and challenge the ideas yourself, or learn to fly a plane or learn Spanish (unless you know it already).

Is there any better option?

Shannon wrote: "Further, if scientists aren't going to answer certain questions due to the fear that people will take the answers the wrong way, etc...., people within science shouldn't be confused or distraught when people see them as being less than forthcoming and wondering if there are nefarious reasons for such.
"

Again over-simplification. Take for example http://dhmo.org/ using arguments from this site I could call on laypeople to support a general ban of the substance DHMO from everywhere possible, to remove it from all products on the shelves and keep it away from children. All the facts and hazards listed are correct, but would it be a good idea to ban it?

Yes they should be distraught when people start seeing nefarious reasons, as this is the product of the kind of monolithic view of "Science" that is promoted by ideologues, politicians, preachers and con artists to try to undermine reason and evidence that threatens their cherished beliefs, livelihoods or scams.

Scientists are routinely misquoted or quoted out of context to try to support unscientific ideas, from Creationism to Climate Change denial, anti-vaccination and beyond. One thoughtless flowery metaphor about the Higgs boson by a scientist led to confusion and rumours that the discovery of the Higgs would prove/disprove religion or that it was some kind of blasphemous violation of the almighty. Small wonder scientists who respect truth and honesty are actually very careful about what they say, lest it be used accidentally or purposefully to mislead or misinform.

The problem (as has been repeatedly demonstrated on this thread) some ideas are complex and counter-intuitive without a solid understanding underpinning them, and easy metaphors can be more harmful than good, even if the metaphor works for specific circumstance.

For example your contention that you still see it as "being asked to believe" I can understand as a metaphor for the accepting of knowledge without necessarily fully comprehending how that knowledge came about, in a similar manner to dogma. However, to me it isn't the same, because potentially you could go to the data yourself, perform the same experiments, take the same measurements and confirm it for yourself. Obviously no person has the time to do this for all scientific knowledge which is why generally it is simpler to accept the peer reviewed consensus. By comparison there is nowhere to ratify religious knowledge accept for "personal revelation" which shouldn't be trusted for much the same reasons as optical illusions, or psychological manipulation.

A second example;

Shannon wrote: "Again, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

In Newtonian Physics this works as stated, in modern physics you need to take into account your own frame of reference. From a different frame of reference an action may actually be a reaction to the reaction we thought was action.

To whit; mistrust of science in general because of a small group who are reluctant to give information that is likely to be taken out of context to mislead the public may seem like action and reaction. However, it is also quite legitimate to see how scientists in general are reluctant to give out unguarded information as a reaction to the amount of times scientists have been quoted out of context or misquoted to support unscientific rhetoric or misinformation.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I also know every single person I know and every single person I've seen give an interview talks about the child who was fine one day and became autistic two days after a round of vaccines. Heck, they've even played videos with dates of children on our televisions. Fine and talking on ... May 13th ... vaccines ... lying on the floor and drooling, refusing to speak, on May 15th."

Which is the problem with anecdotal evidence. Correlation does not automatically mean causation, which is why scientists try to get a statistically significant sample to show when causation is happening. This has not been shown in comparing vaccination with autism. A further issue is that statistically speaking autism rates have appeared to have gone up recently, but in fact this has been due to an improvement in diagnosing autism rather than an actual increase.

Shannon wrote: "There's an actress, she used to date Jim Carey, who has gone on and on about this. I don't think she's anti-science; she's never said anything remotely anti-science. But, she's said, over and over, that she believes things like vaccines with mercury lead to autism."

Which is anti-science. She believes the claim that the mercury compound caused autism, while the actual scientific research says there is no evidence for this.

http://www.skepdic.com/antivaccinatio...

"Denmark removed thimerosal from its vaccines in 1992. Other countries have followed suit, not because the evidence strongly linked thimerosal to autism or any other disorder. It was removed because of fear generated by anxious parents and the media, and the threat of lawsuits."

"Thimerosal has been eliminated from childhood vaccines in most industrialized countries," said lead author Dr. Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen. "If indeed thimerosal was an important cause of autism, (autism rates) should soon begin to decline in these countries.* Unfortunately, there was no sudden drop in autism spectrum disorders after thimerosal was removed from vaccines. (One report makes the claim that there was such a drop but it has been thoroughly refuted.)

"Thimerosal was pegged as potentially harmful because it is a mercury compound and is metabolized in humans to ethyl mercury. It is possible that some in the AVM mistook ethyl mercury for methyl mercury, which is known to be harmful."

Shannon wrote: "It's to say ... perhaps we should think things through before doing things in facilities that aren't secure and before we make claims ... and that the majority of American's who take issue with vaccines aren't running round saying, "Down with science," and insisting that vaccines are brewed by the devil. "

Fair enough, but the problem is some are, and others are being deluded by the rumours they put around and by the beliefs and misconceptions of others, including many in the "alternative therapy" movements and other schemes with a vested interest in undermining scientific authority to replace it with their own.

Ironically it seems in a way that some people (not all and not necessarily yourself) seem to be fine with peoples beliefs or convictions up until the point that they have reason and evidence to back it up, which is then seen as suspicious!

As for the US government and their trustworthiness, well I would be far more concerned with their gutting of all rights but the right to bear arms (right to due process, right to representation, right to a fair trial) all in an expensive pursuit of preventing terrorism which has killed less than a percent of Americans than gun ownership has yet the most basic sensible precautions that 90% of Americans support are not getting through. That's insanity.

That's the problem with basing policies on public fears rather than reason and evidence.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I'm interested in getting religious people to think about the world outside their imaginary box and the big picture that they want the rest of us to behave and think according to wha..."

I'm just pointing out that there are other big pictures than the one you keep insisting we need to see.

If you are religious, then you are also in a box and need to be made to think outside it.

If you are interested in factual honesty as you keep mentioning to us, then my pointing out religion is lacking in both shouldn't be a big problem.

Has this thread really been going for years?
Wow, time flies.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "This could be another, if it is true........ the other side of science?

Drug firms 'drove swine flu pandemic warning to recoup £billions spent on research' "

Of course this article is ironically in the Daily Mail which regularly uses scare-mongering to spread its own political ideology and increase its own profits.

However, even if it was true as claimed, that's not science. That's corporate greed undermining good science. This is the main problem with linking research directly to profit and money, and indeed is a regular problem with big pharmaceutical companies that distort the scientific process by various means to sell product. Unfortunately most of the right wing groups want less state funded pure science and more corporate profit based science, even though the latter is less likely to get strong investment returns in the long run.

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I also know every single person I know and every single person I've seen give an interview talks about the child who was fine one day and became autistic two days after a round of v..."

The actress Shannon mentions is Jenny McCarthy.
Not proud that I know that.

And yeah, we are willing to take off our shoes and give up our shampoo to fight terrorists, but not willing to actually make it inconvenient for them to buy guns.

Luckily, my kids go to a good school, so they have the math skills to keep track of how many classmates get shot.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "But, the "crimes" I alluded to and gave evidence for happened ... though there's never been an accounting for them and science types don't tend to want to talk about them.."

Again you are lumping all "science" together as some sort of overarching entity and then talking about "crimes" that somehow need to be answered for all of them. The people responsible for said crimes may have been scientists, but they were criminals, that does not mean all scientists are criminals. Some white people have committed crimes, does that make all white people criminals?

The problem once more is "anecdotal" versus overall evidence. Yes science has been misused or abused, yes a few scientists have done unethical things in the name of research, often simply to get quicker answers. Does that invalidate the scientific process or the overwhelming benefits and successes of science that have been achieved ethically?

Yet your allegation that "science types don't seem to want to discuss these crimes" is the kind of fear-mongering allegation that is often levelled at scientists to discredit them, often to try to undermine them as an authority. Yet at the same time we are meant to excuse religion's extremists as not being representative of the main body. However the difference there is that the scientific process does not require unethical research or crimes, yet the source body of many major religions do contain dogma that is prejudicial against various groups.

A scientist that chooses to conduct unethical research to gain knowledge is suffering from bad ethics, not bad science. A Muslim who beheads someone who has practised free speech or a Christian that beats up a gay person can point to their source belief and legitimately claim there interpretation is as correct as the ethical Muslim or Christian can point at the same source and be appalled. Because belief is what you make it, while reason and evidence can be refined and challenged.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: Of course this article is ironically in the Daily Mail which regularly uses scare-mongering to spread its own political ideology and increase its own profits.
..."

If it was only the Mail reporting this you may have 'half' a point to what you say. All news papers, even those who claim to be independent, have their own political ideology; and what is wrong with making a profit?


Gary wrote: However, even if it was true as claimed, that's not science. That's corporate greed undermining good science..

Not at all, this is a company using science to produce a drug or vaccine and then wanting to make as big a profit from it as they can. The two are not separate.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "What you are being asked to accept is the consensus of many individuals and groups that are all working not only on their own research, but verifying, checking and being sceptical of their own and others. "

While I'm being asked to accept the consensus of many learned scientists, if they don't explain it, I'm still being asked to believe, in my opinion.

What is the better option?

Find a way to honestly share information. Take a risk.

I find it somewhat ironic that some might think it's acceptable for Chinese scientists to risk a worldwide pandemic but think it's unacceptable for a CDC scientist to explain why mercury was removed from vaccines in order not to, possibly, confuse the populous.

Dang.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Luckily, my kids go to a good school, so they have the math skills to keep track of how many classmates get shot.
"

Nice shot, Travis.

Pun definitely intended.

So, ... you think it's okay to joke or make sarcastic comments about your children's classmates getting shot, huh....

Shocked again ... within a 24 hour period.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Again you are lumping all "science" together as some sort of overarching entity and then talking about "crimes" that somehow need to be answered for all of them. The people responsible for said crimes may have been scientists, but they were criminals, that does not mean all scientists are criminals. Some white people have committed crimes, does that make all white people criminals?
"

I'm going to say this one more time.

Imagine me talking really, really slowly ... or typing very slowly.

I am not saying scientists are criminals. I am not saying all scientists are criminals. I am not saying science is bad. I am not saying people shouldn't be vaccinated.

Science. Is. Not. Bad. Nor. Are. Scientists.

You contended that anti-science anti-vaccine people with a misinformed belief system could also cause a worldwide pandemic for failure to vaccinate their children.

My posts?

It isn't that easy.

The above ... an attempt to show you the thought process of some, even many, when it comes to the US government, science experimentation, and vaccines.

It's not as simple as pointing and saying ... it's all those anti-science people.

It isn't.

To put forth the idea that I'm claiming all scientists are criminals is wholly inappropriate as it misrepresents my words to the contrary and my point.

Though, by doing that, we don't have to talk about the other....

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "If it was only the Mail reporting this you may have 'half' a point to what you say."

So why didn't you answer even half the point of what I said. You alluded that the fault was with science, but it wasn't, the fault is clearly with those who wished to profit from that science.

cHriS wrote: "All news papers, even those who claim to be independent, have their own political ideology;"

Yes, but some have mixes of ideology and some have a bias to one side or another. Still it's fairly irrelevant to my point which was it was ironic that the "Daily Hate" was accusing someone else of scaremongering :-)

cHriS wrote: "and what is wrong with making a profit? "

Absolutely nothing, just as there is nothing wrong with scientific research, however if you conduct scientific research by unethical means or pursue greater profit by unethical means then that is something wrong.

This is why there are scientists out there who are determined to fight the corruption of the scientific process by big companies with a vested interest (For example Dr. Ben Goldacre)

cHriS wrote: "Not at all, this is a company using science to produce a drug or vaccine and then wanting to make as big a profit from it as they can. The two are not separate."

True the two are not separate. However, funding scientific research that then gets a scientific peer-reviewed answer is science. Misinformation about the science in order to secure profit is not science, in fact it is fundamentally the opposite. Therefore, a company that misrepresents scientific data to generate a profit for itself is not doing science when it does and is actually actively undermining science.