You know how the right wing has always complain about being discriminated against and victimize, especially the fundamentalist Christian right?
Will, I want to ask you, do you believe that science, scientist, and statistic are liberally bias. Why do I ask you this? Observe:
Sex Education
Science, math, and statistic said that birth control, condom, and non surgical contraceptive are between 85% (incorrect use) to 97% (correct use) effective.
The right wingers said that that data is liberally bias since “bias liberal scientist” are that one involve in peer review and making the claim. Thus we must teach the student accurate scientific information, such as non surgical contraceptive are 99% ineffective therefore students should not be taught to use birth control and condoms since they had a 99% of getting pregnant. Any “science, math, or statistic” that prove otherwise are liberally bias and supported by liberally bias people thus their liberally bias information about the effectiveness of birth control, condom, and human sexuality should not be taught by the equally liberally bias teachers.
Evolution and natural selection
Evolution and natural selection is taught in high school biology classroom as a part of the scientific curriculum.
The rights wingers said that evolution and natural selection is a form of establishing “Darwinism theology” thus it must be counter by “non bias, accurate scientific” information such as intelligent design that had not been rejected though the liberally bias peer review scientist. Since intelligent design had not endure the scruziting that all scientist who are promoting a hypothesis or new scientific information must go though in peer reviews, thus intelligent design is not bias and should be allow to teach as accurate scientific information in our science classroom. The teacher themselves should remind neutral on the evolution and intelligent design debate by providing both side of the information and if they do not, than do not teach evolution at all.
So, do you think that science is liberally bias thus it must be balance by Intelligent Design that had not been tested or experimented on and teenagers should be taught that condom had a 99% failure rates?
p.s. if you had any liberally bias information that involve science or math, please feel free to include it.
Since intelligent design had not endure the scruziting that all scientist who are promoting a hypothesis or new scientific information must go though in peer reviews, thus intelligent design is not bias and should be allow to teach as accurate scientific information in our science classroom.
I think you've answered your own question...
Scientific studies are open to be reproduced by anyone. The nature of science is that it is able to be reproduced. When it's able to be reproduced thousands of times (or more), it's considered a scientific Theory.
A scientific experiment does not succeed for one person and fail for another just because one's a liberal and one's a conservative. It's either because one of them did something wrong (which allows other variables to affect the outcome; and yes, the one who "succeeded" isn't necessarily the one who did it right) or because the experiment itself is flawed.
The Scientific Method was designed specifically to standardize the method used to perform experiments so that the experiments can be reproduced any number of times.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
could that be use to prove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster?
If the evidence is present and sound, you could use it to attempt to prove the existence of the FSM.
Whether or not you're successful is a different matter.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I have never seen the condom debate you are referring to. I have seen the religious types make the point that abstinence is the only 100% effective method of birth control and they have a valid point. If somebody credible is really claiming that condoms are 99% ineffective then they are obviously wrong. I'd like to see the link to this claim. I suspect that you are, perhaps unwittingly, repeating somebody's straw-man argument where they have taken perhaps one isolated claim by one wacko and attributed to the entire religious right in an effort to discredit them all.
With respect to evolution, it is my opinion that science belongs in the science class and religion belongs in the Philosophy class or Sunday school. Nothing that the religious right has put forward meets the criteria to be considered science. Evolution should be taught. If it is correctly taught, kids will understand that is a theory and they will understand that there is a difference between a theory and a fact or a law. But it is a very good theory supported by the vast preponderance of the empirical evidence.
But there is at least one area of science that has a liberal bias and that is climate science. The global warming theories are being advanced more like a religion than a properly disciplined scientific process of discovery. Inconvenient facts like the Medieval Warming Period which discredit key aspects of the theory are routinely and very unscientifically discarded from the data-set to make graphs like the hockey stick work.. Discredited scientific claims such as the idea that the 90's were the warmest decade on record when in fact it was the 1930s and that 1998 was the hottest year on record when in fact there was an equally hot year in the 1930s, are routinely and systematically repeated even after they have been discredited in a blatant use of the propaganda technique known as repeating a lie often enough causes it to be the truth. And the statistics are routinely manipulated so that the graphs all show a sharp upwards trajectory. Rather than starting from a fairly average decade the most common deception is to start from the 1970s which is one of the coldest decades this century. Anybody who understands statistics and graphing techniques understands how these presentation techniques can be used to distort the truth. Even the use of very short data-sets and trying in draw inferences about climate which is a very long term phenomena is highly suspect. For example there is lots of discussion about the ice melting in the Arctic. The studies routinely begin in the 1970s (abnormally cold) partly justifiably because that is when the satellite monitoring began. But there is a great deal of alarm-ism being spouted while forgetting to mention that the Northern Arctic Sea Passage melted and opened to shipping 3 times in the 20th Century and has yet to do so in this decade. When discussing a phenomena like climate and trying to pretend that it began in the 1970s and not provide any of the obscure but certainly known historical context for the previous century is outrageously deceptive. And then there is the moving target on language. The climate scientists used to talk about Global Warming caused by an increase in greenhouse gases. At least that met the scientific definition of a theory with a testable hypothesis. The scientific method requires theories to be tested with empirical facts and the problem is for the high priests of global warming theory is that a great deal of the empirical data is starting to suggest that their theory doesn't work. Rather than admitting that the theory is flawed which is a highly respected scientific conclusion, they have merely manipulated the language to talk about "climate change".. Of course the climate is ALWAYS CHANGING. This new theory is about as scientifically valid as the religious Rights theory of "Intelligent Design". Essentially they are trying to convince us that there hypothesis is that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause a greenhouse effect that will cause the Earth to warm so if there is any unusual weather anywhere whether it is warming or cooling or hurricanes or even such ridiculous stuff as earthquakes, it proves that they are correct. That is religion, not science.
There is indeed some left wing bias in science because highly dubious climate science is being used to justify a left wing political agenda. Further there is an effort to silence the growing group of scientists that are sceptical of this non-science.
... I rather strongly disagree with you on Global Warming.
I responded to your comment but I did not use the reply button because I wanted to keep the columns as wide as possible to embed graphs.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Darwin Beagle, what do you think about the possible existence of the flying spaghetti monster?
If it does exist, shouldn't we teach his existence along side intelligent design in the classroom?
Could you refresh my memory of the flying spagetti monster?
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
"The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is a deity created as a satirical protest to the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution."
His letter was pretty funny,
I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution.
I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
it was created by bobby henderson, a physic student.
you can go to the church of the flying spaghetti monster website here
http://www.venganza.org/
Interesting, but I think it's more along the lines of liberals favor science while conservatives (the hardcore ones) don't want much change from old thought. Science is just more fact-based, so I wouldn't call it biased either way. Certain people are just biased for or against it.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
I think that many conservatives that opposed accurate sceintific information are scared of change since they are infected with puritan thoughts.
remember, the puritans verison of hell is where everyone minds their own business.
Is science liberally bias?
Only if you're a Creationist
Statistics on the other hand can be manipulated in any way possible. I used to trust stats before this semester started. But now that I'm learning about stats in school I realize they're mostly bullshit.
So, do you think that science is liberally bias thus it must be balance by Intelligent Design ...?
Only morons complain that science is liberally biased. It's a convient excuse when they realize their beliefs are fucking ridiculous.
I agree with Jack be nimble that the climate change thing is biased (although I wouldn't say liberally). But there's nothing wrong with being more careful about how you treat the earth.
Saying that global warming is bias is like saying that evolution is bias
Although I believe global warming is happening, I would say that many people use this info to further their own cause. That's what I mean by biased, not that the actual science is biased.
jackbenimble (JBN) made a comment on this blog. I am grateful for his support of evolutionary science (even though he has a misguided sense of the scientific meanings of "theory", "fact", and "law"). I do have a rather strong disagreement, however, on his characterization of Global Warming.
First let me say that I am a biologist. I have no formal expertise in Global Warming, but I have taken the time to familiarize myself with the data behind it to the best of my ability. While there are things that I do not fully comprehend, I feel like the science behind Global Warming is very strong. So strong, in fact, barring dramatic results showing the contrary, it is unreasonable to not believe that humans are significantly changing the climate by producing Greenhouse Gasses (GHGs). The most important anthropogenic GHG is CO2 primarily from fossil fuels.
I am defending this here instead of below JBN's post because I will need to display graphs and I want the space to be as wide as possible.
But there is at least one area of science that has a liberal bias and that is climate science. The global warming theories are being advanced more like a religion than a properly disciplined scientific process of discovery. Inconvenient facts like the Medieval Warming Period which discredit key aspects of the theory are routinely and very unscientifically discarded from the data-set to make graphs like the hockey stick work.
The first question one might ask here is, "What is the Medieval Warm Period?"
This is a graph showing the relative global temperatures between the years 0 to 2004. Each different color on the graph represents data from a different paper published in peer-reviewed climatology journals calculating the global temperature. Each paper was independent calculation of that temperature. Notice the agreement between the studies. The importance of this is that each technique used to calculate the data is subject to errors. But no two techniques are subject to the same error. Thus, agreement using a variety of techniques gives us reason to believe that the data is generally correct.
Between the years 800 to 1200 there is an upward hump on the graph. This is the Medieval Warm Period. Notice that following it there is a downward hump on the graph between 1200 and 1800. This is the Little Ice Age. Following 1800 there is the sharp increase in global temperatures that show no signs of decreasing. This is what climatologists refer to when they discuss Global Warming.
1800 corresponds to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when humans first greatly increased their usage of fossil fuels. Today we use more fossil fuels than we ever have.
The second question to ask is, "What is the 'Hockey Stick Graph'?"
This is it. It was work published by Mann et al. in 1999. They were the first to try to determine past temperatures. They used data from thermometers and extrapolated data from tree rings, ice cores, and coral growth.
The data shows a fairly long period of time in which the climate was relatively stable with a period of rapid temperature increase since 1850.
Things to be aware of from this early study is that they used only 4 different techniques and strictly speaking is only applicable to North America, not globally.
However, science builds upon itself. Their work sparked a collective database of a variety of different sources that is applicable globally. That is why we get improved graphs like the first one I showed above. Notice that it too has the "hockey stick" feature. It includes data from the Medieval Warm Period and absolutely NOTHING about Global Warming is discredited because of it.
Discredited scientific claims such as the idea that the 90's were the warmest decade on record when in fact it was the 1930s and that 1998 was the hottest year on record when in fact there was an equally hot year in the 1930s, are routinely and systematically repeated even after they have been discredited in a blatant use of the propaganda technique known as repeating a lie often enough causes it to be the truth.
Er ... Globally the 1990's WERE the warmest decade on record. But that is only because we aren't done with the 2000's for another year. Here is a graph showing the global temperatures:
While there was a peak in the early 1940's the temperatures now clearly exceed that one. In fact, the 11 warmest years on record have ALL occurred in the last 14 years
I suspect what JBN is referring to is the error in Jim Hansen's data on UNITED STATES temperatures. He failed to perform the proper normalization on a set of data. When that was done it produced a figure that was .003o C lower for 1998. This change, although miniscule was enough to make 1998 a touch cooler than 1934. See graph below:
Even with this change the 1990's still remain the hottest decade on record even for the United States. Global temperatures were unaffected by the error.
Even though the error makes no difference in the overall conclusions, Global Warming denialists have claimed that it was a "serious error". Ironically, they are doing just what JBN accuses the scientific community of doing ... "a blatant use of the propaganda technique known as repeating a lie often enough causes it to be the truth."
A three one thousandth's of a degree error in data for the United States does NOTHING to conclusion that the GLOBAL temperatures are at the highest levels ever. That result has been verified and continues to do so.
And the statistics are routinely manipulated so that the graphs all show a sharp upwards trajectory. Rather than starting from a fairly average decade the most common deception is to start from the 1970s which is one of the coldest decades this century.
This is an error. As all the graphs I have shown you CLEARLY demonstrate, the 1970's are not the reference years. These data span many decades. Some span thousands of years. ALL of them show the unprecedented upward deflection seen since 1800.
To give you an idea of HOW dramatic the rise is, this graph comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report 4 (IPCC AR4)
This graph covers a 10,000 year time span. At this level of graphing the sudden rise in global temperatures is very obvious.
Anybody who understands statistics and graphing techniques understands how these presentation techniques can be used to distort the truth. Even the use of very short data-sets and trying in draw inferences about climate which is a very long term phenomena is highly suspect.
Again JBN is mistaken here. The data now covers very long time periods as is shown in the graphs I have presented.
For example there is lots of discussion about the ice melting in the Arctic. The studies routinely begin in the 1970s (abnormally cold) partly justifiably because that is when the satellite monitoring began. But there is a great deal of alarm-ism being spouted while forgetting to mention that the Northern Arctic Sea Passage melted and opened to shipping 3 times in the 20th Century and has yet to do so in this decade.
Er .. no. Look at this picture:
The top picture is from 1979, which if you look at one of the graphs for global temperature above was a year that was above average in warmth (ie it is above the 0 line), compared with ice from 2003. That is a dramatic reduction.
It has gotten worse since then.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3340633/Arctic-ice-melting-'faster-than-predicted'.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3337693/Northwest-Passage-lur...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3318239/Arctic-ice-'could-be-gone-in-five-years'.html
In fact, in 2007 the fabled Northwest Passage opened up for the FIRST TIME IN RECORDED HISTORY.
This is already having potentially devastating consequences. Ice flows are too far from shore for Polar bears to swim out to. But it on these ice flows that seals can be found and seals are the polar bears main source of food. For the first time wildlife biologists report seeingsome polar bears actively hunting and eating other polar bears
When discussing a phenomena like climate and trying to pretend that it began in the 1970s and not provide any of the obscure but certainly known historical context for the previous century is outrageously deceptive.
But as the evidence clearly demonstrates this is not the basis for climatology.
And then there is the moving target on language. The climate scientists used to talk about Global Warming caused by an increase in greenhouse gases. At least that met the scientific definition of a theory with a testable hypothesis. The scientific method requires theories to be tested with empirical facts and the problem is for the high priests of global warming theory is that a great deal of the empirical data is starting to suggest that their theory doesn't work.
Er ... scientists still use the term Global Warming. I did a Google Scholar search using the term and got over 300,000 hits.
An important term that scientists use along with Global warming is ANTHROPOGENIC, meaning man-made. It is a very testable hypothesis and it has been tested. The hypothesis says that the most important Anthropogenic GHG is CO2
Here is a graph of atmospheric CO2 concentrations going back 450,000 years and the association with estimated global temperatures:
Notice the close correlation. That is very consistent with the findings dating back to the 1800's that CO2 is a GHG
Here is a shorter timescale of the atmospheric CO2 concentrations:
This is data taken from measurements high on Mauna Loa in Hawaii. They have been continuously made since the late 1950's. The up and down oscillations are caused because of the seasons and can be clearly seen.
Notice the overall rise. This rise matches very well with the expected rise from human use of fossil fuels.
But does it actually come from fossil fuels? Well that can be (and has been) tested too. To explain the basis behind the test requires a little biology.
Living organisms use a lot of carbon. They incorporate the carbon by biochemical reactions. Virtually all biochemical reactions are mediated by enzymes. Enzymes are molecules that move atoms into positions that are favorable for them to react in certain specific ways. At that scale weight is important. An enzyme can work faster and be more efficient if the atom is lighter than if it is heavier.
Carbon atoms come in two stable isotopes, 12C and 13C. 12C has 6 protons and 6 neutrons in its nucleus. 13C has 6 protons and 7 neutrons in its nucleus. Thus, 13C is heavier, and 12C is lighter.
Since living things can incorporate 12C more easily than they can 13C, they tend to be enriched in 12C.
What is the point of all of that? Well fossil fuels are derived from living things. Thus, we would expect the carbon in them to be enriched in 12C as well. And if the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is due to burning of fossil fuels then the atmosphere itself should be enriched in 12C over what it was before.
Fortunately ice cores can be dated and they house within them bubbles of the atmosphere that was around when they formed. We can compare the isotope ratios from present-day atmosphere with atmospheres from the past. Guess what? We DO see the expected 12C enrichment.
Rather than admitting that the theory is flawed which is a highly respected scientific conclusion, they have merely manipulated the language to talk about "climate change".. Of course the climate is ALWAYS CHANGING. This new theory is about as scientifically valid as the religious Rights theory of "Intelligent Design". Essentially they are trying to convince us that there hypothesis is that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause a greenhouse effect that will cause the Earth to warm so if there is any unusual weather anywhere whether it is warming or cooling or hurricanes or even such ridiculous stuff as earthquakes, it proves that they are correct. That is religion, not science.
Except the theory isn't flawed. The data strongly supports it. This is not the case with Intelligent Design.
Global warming's effect on hurricanes is not a part of the core of the theory. It is true that the data is not as secure on that point, but climatologists have only recently been working on that. New data and better models will be worked out and we will have a much better idea shortly.
There have been some very speculative reports concerning Global Warming causing earthquakes. But that is the nature of the popular press' reporting of science. I don't take that seriously at all. (I do take global warming's effect on hurricanes seriously). Perhaps something significant will be worked out in the future. But I haven't even invested any time looking into the claims behind them because I don't see the connection right now. In other words, I don't take it seriously at all. I have not seen to much to indicate that mainstream climatologists do either.
Whether or not Global Warming can affect earthquake activity, has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Global Warming as a phenomenon is real. The data shows overwhelmingly that it IS real. We are changing our climate at least a 10 fold faster rate than it has ever changed in detectable history. Mass extinction events have been associated with normal climate changes. The largest mass extinction, the Permian, eliminated about 95% of all genera. That would probably correspond to 99% of all species. Sure evolution replaced the lost diversity ... after 10 million years or so.
This is evidence that climate changes can have DRAMATIC effects on the Earth. And we are doing NOTHING to attempt to mitigate it. In fact, worse ... we are denying that it is even a problem!! This is simply unacceptable. The best, most reliable data we have overwhelmingly supports the idea that it IS happening. Instead of continuing to try and show what has already been all rights shown, we should be shifting focus to trying to determine what the effects of Global Warming will be (I think it is way too late to prevent it from having any effect), and to ways that we can mitigate adverse effects, and live with the unavoidable ones.
There is indeed some left wing bias in science because highly dubious climate science is being used to justify a left wing political agenda. Further there is an effort to silence the growing group of scientists that are sceptical of this non-science.
There is NOT a growing group of scientists that skeptical of Global Warming climatology. As best as I can tell they are the same old ones, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Fred Singer, Ross McKittrick, Stephen McIntyre, Bjorn Lomborg et al. VIRTUALLY ALL climatology studies published over the last 20 to 30 years support the idea of anthropogenic Global Warming.
Until these Global Warming Skeptics actually come up with some data, they will not be taken seriously ... especially by the people who DO come up with the data.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I agreed. It is sort of like saying that the tobacco scientist are more trustworthy than the 95% of scientist said that smoking cause cancer.
I just want to said that I do not opposed the teaching of intelligent design in class so long as the flying spaghetti monster also get taught along side it while the teacher wears a pirate outfit.
YEAH! Sorry, I just agree completely here. Creationism can be taught at a private school, but not not publicly.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
to want science to just a have a reasonable bias?
"The heart's memory eliminates the bad and magnifies the good."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Love in the Time of Cholera
http://www.progressiveu.org/012450-old-and-gold-times-change-my-immigran...
so long as it is not liberal
REASON (logic, proof and those other little things)
"No, not rich. I am a poor man with money, which is not the same thing." - Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Love in the Time of Cholera Fudge "It's the hard-knock life..."