Science strikes back: anti-Trump march draws thousands to Washington

[Dug]

It depends on whether the research is ment to help solve the problem in some new way or merely to reproduce what has already been done hundreds of times. Ultimately science ought to involve solutions and not just data analysis.

Until they're told that they don't have enough data to back up their claims so the solution they proposed..? Nah we won't do that. Come back when you have more data backing up your claim. Rinse n repeat.

[Alexeht]

Isn't climate change natural? You know 4 seasons...

[GreenJesus]

The way we name numbers might be a construct, but math itself describes the universe.

In any number system, if I have two beans and go out and get two more beans, I have four beans. Or I have 10 + 10 = 100 beans. Or I have 0x2 + 0x2 = 0x4. Or I have gabba + gabba = gooba, in a language where gabba is equivalent to two and gooba is equivalent to four.

Mathematics is observed reality.

Yes, I see what you mean. I guess what I meant was when scientists use studies such as "we observed babies reactions to pewdiepie and half of them laughed when he yelled out "Holocaust". Therefore, babies are born anti-semetic.

[Barnabas]

Science offers science. Sometimes, that's a solution. Sometimes, it's not. Sometimes, it's something wholly unexpected. That's kinda the way science works.

Reproducing studies that have been replicated before isn't really a bad thing. Sure, we don't need to spend $100M on repeated tests to make sure that yes, gravity is still functioning as expected. But reproducing more recent studies to verify the results and ensure that the data and methodology are reliable and useful is absolutely of considerable value.

Sometimes we don't give a shit what scientists think for a couple of years? Is willfully not listening the same as denying?

[Super Kami Dende]

Hahaha, you think they actually care, and aren't just using you for easily manipulated votes.

How cute.

literally can be said about both sides of the spectrum when it comes to candidates.

Also, if Scientists are going to march against the anti-science of the Right, why not against the Anti-science of the Left?

[Sky High]

Yeah, that's fair. A network of regulatory agencies backed by billion dollar budgets and an army of lawyers vs some small-time private citizen who is doing no harm to ANYONE but ran afoul of some arbitrary regulation that may or may not be beyond the scope of what's actually written.

pfffft, miss me with this "that's not fair!" shit. if they didn't break the law the EPA would have no legal means to go after them, plain and simple.

[Endus]

Isn't climate change natural? You know 4 seasons...

That's not climate, no. That's seasonal variation.

[IIamaKing]

You tried injecting an obviously anti-scientific hoax like anti-vax into a discussion about climate change in an attempt to appear more "moderate" and show that you can "compromise".

No, I was pointing out that bogus or faulty science can have a lasting and large impact on people See anti vax or gmo hate. Thanks again.

Look at the anti vax or GMO shit, some faulty science has had an LARGE and hard to retract effect on many people.

You conflated that with AGW not me.

[Incredibale]

pfffft, miss me with this "that's not fair!" shit. if they didn't break the law the EPA would have no legal means to go after them, plain and simple.

They dont even have to prove a law was broken. I told you already, they can tie anyone up in court for as long as they want.

[Adam Jensen]

Yes, I see what you mean. I guess what I meant was when scientists use studies such as "we observed babies reactions to pewdiepie and half of them laughed when he yelled out "Holocaust". Therefore, babies are born anti-semetic.

And a lot of that is due to media misreporting.

[PC2]

Until they're told that they don't have enough data to back up their claims so the solution they proposed..? Nah we won't do that. Come back when you have more data backing up your claim. Rinse n repeat.

Well if you're saying they don't have enough data to be confident then by all means get more data. Be data-driven. But if they think more data will not change their predictions very much then they do need to graduate to being solutions-driven. Big data itself does not solve problems.

[Sky High]

They dont even have to prove a law was broken. I told you already, they can tie anyone up in court for as long as they want.

I'm sure you have examples of this.

[Incredibale]

It's honestly weird how folks like yourself can suddenly understand context when it suits you, and ignore it when it doesn't.

A farmer not being allowed to turn marshland into crop fields because there's a protected species living in it shouldn't be allowed to do so. Land ownership is not sovereignty. Land owners don't get to do whatever they want on their land, because they are not sovereign. That ownership is an agreement with the government, where the government grants the land owner certain rights, and retains those it hasn't granted to them. Like the right to set boundaries on how that land can be used.

There's no reasoning with people like you who fall back on the "government is God" authoritarian "might is right" bullshit, and that's exactly what it is. When or if the EPA is disbanded, I'm sure you'll honor the law of the land as it exists at that point in time. Sure.

[Dug]

Well if you're saying they don't have enough data to be confident then by all means get more data. Be data-driven. But if they think more data will not change their predictions very much then they do need to graduate to being solutions-driven. Big data itself does not solve problems.

It's not the scientists themselves who are not confident it's the people with an actual agenda to resist it that are the issue here. That's the problem.

[IIamaKing]

Literally, the scientific method and peer review are what keep people from doing that. Which is how we CATCH things like anti-vaxxer garbage. That wasn't the result of scientific investigation; the guy who wrote the initial paper manufactured data and lied. He was caught out for doing so, fired, and his medical license revoked. Why? How? Science.



What "side" do you think we're talking about?

Because if one side is "science", the only other "side" is "ignorance and willful propaganda". Which absolutely should be reviled. You don't compromise with liars, because half a lie is still a lie.

The "side" of AGW is real. You think you are going to do that by calling those who disagree with you ignorant liars? Tip, you wont. But by all means keep on keeping on. How many different ways do I have to say it?

[De Lupe]

And how do you do that with a person who doesn't want to hear what you have to say because you have been a name calling ass hat? Its not about science and facts, its about being civil. Winning people over doesn't start with "but they are all ignorant idiots".
If you cannot grasp this very simple idea, I dont know what to tell you.

I see what you mean, and I agree that people should be more open to talking and not yelling, but at the end of the day, the truth doesn't have to be nice to be the truth. You don't have to be nice to be objectively correct. People who are objectively correct lose their patience when surrounded by people who are objectively wrong on a daily basis and it takes a toll on their ability to discuss and debate.

[Zylos]

It depends on whether the research is ment to help solve the problem in some new way or merely to reproduce what has already been done hundreds of times. Ultimately science ought to involve solutions and not just data analysis.

Generally it helps to know what the cause of a problem is before you try and fix it.

[Toppy]

I agree that the best thing they can do is reach out to show people what scientists do for the world. It would be hard to express how damning it would be if the US keeps cutting its science budget. Science is what made the country mighty in the first place, its what keeps all nations mighty. The less you give to it the further your nation will fall.

[De Lupe]

It depends on whether the research is ment to help solve the problem in some new way or merely to reproduce what has already been done hundreds of times. Ultimately science ought to involve solutions and not just data analysis.

And how do you propose to find solutions without first analyzing the data?

[Dug]

The "side" of AGW is real. You think you are going to do that by calling those who disagree with you ignorant liars? Tip, you wont. But by all means keep on keeping on. How many different ways do I have to say it?

Do you think these debates just start off with people flinging insults at each other? No they come about because the denier side adamantly refuses to even entertain the notion that they may be wrong and then they start insulting a scientists life work and even goes after their livelihoods with regressive legislation and you think the scientists are the ones that should be taking the high road and not get angry with these people that choose to stay willfully ignorant?