Comments on: Presidential science debate: we need your help

By: Michal Mudd

Michal Mudd — Tue, 13 May 2008 23:38:42 +0000

I concur with the Gravel folks and those before who decried the efforts of Science Debate 2008 to ignore and disenfranchise third party candidates and those of us who support them!!
I was excited by the prospect of a non-partisan effort to interject concerns about scientific issues into the political maelstrom often taken over by frivolity, i.e. lapel pins and renegade ministers.
BUT now I see that this entire effort is no more than a thinly veiled ploy by the partisans, namely Democratic partisans, to get their candidate publicity and support that he/she apparently couldn’t care less about.
Meanwhile, assertions that it was only the McCain campaign that responded is patently wrong.
Three Green Party candidates responded that they would be available and quite interested in taking part, yet they were given the complete brush off!
Why won’t your organization schedule a debate and announce that minor party candidates will be in attendance and then see if the so-called “viable” candidates dare be represented with an empty podium and the scorn of the scientific community?
Or would you much rather just wait until they actually do nothing about our issues in office and get the “i told you so’s?”

By: Interesting Links (08-02-28) :: Dammit Jim!

Interesting Links (08-02-28) :: Dammit Jim! — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:23:10 +0000

[...] Potential Presidential Science DebateSounds like a good idea and it’d be in Philadelphia so maybe I could go. [...]

By: Nihilodei

Nihilodei — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:08:23 +0000

Irrational Zen,

Cool moniker that, my 14 year old thought she invented it.

Truth of the matter is, nobody wants non scientific subjects taught in science. We don’t want rubbish taught in art class and for Cod sake… we want English taught in English class.

It’s wasting the student’s time and the school’s resources teaching unpublished conjecture.

Personally, I set my students straight every year I get them. If they want to debate religion, do it at the appropriate time. I am totally willing to deconstruct what they want. Why, because 99% of religious people only talk the talk. I have only had one Adamist and one creationist (which is hilarious if you consider where I worked at the time).

Mind you, scientists do get funny ideas.. I worked with a physicist who was doing his PhD on photon energy measurement who was convinced the speed of light was slowing down (he turned out to be a creationist) and I work with a physicist now who thinks Lamarck had it right.

Neither of these two would teach that rot in a science class. Not because they fear talking about it, they just know its not substantiated.

Now that is no scare tactic and i am in a hurry to get to my apologist homeopath.. She gives me a recipe for vitamin C that will cure glomerulo-nephritis for only half a year… not like the charlatan down the street who gave me a trillion year script!

Afaeodontism, stand up for your roots!

By: Barton Paul Levenson

Barton Paul Levenson — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:50:23 +0000

GapStop writes:

[[Any religion = Explanation based on made up crap with no validity.]]

Don’t beat around the bush, Bones, tell me what you really think.

By: Rational Zen

Rational Zen — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:13:13 +0000

GapStop, you sort of missed the point.

I’m laughing that the rational, logical, skeptical people in the world are resorting to the same tactics (effective as they may be) used by those people they have been deriding for years.

On this blog alone how many times have you heard religious people and government called out for using fear to motivate people to turn to their cause.

I think it’s funny that it’s now being done right here right now. I was never equating science with religion, the ends are very different and in my mind mutually exclusive but that explanation is for a different day and place I’m sure.

I was pointing out that their means to their end happens to be the same, yet on one side they are called to the carpet but on the other it seems to be perfectly acceptable.

True skeptics would see right through the marketing hype and remain inactive like me The rest of the sheeple signed the petition.

By: Nihilodei

Nihilodei — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:29:11 +0000

There are two things I would like to point out here;

1) science is everything to us, if we were seeking grubs under a pile of leaf litter using a rock and a stick, your opening paragraph would be correct.
2) you are sinking deeper into a vernacular that is unnecessary on a scientific based site. I would suggest that if you were truly the author you claim you are, you would write in a manner that is both informative and interesting.

But until you get your points across in an appropriate manner, I will have to get “jiggy with you whitey”.

I truly hope that is not offensive.

By: GapStop

GapStop — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:16:50 +0000

I have nothing against fiscal conservatism, but Bush is not fiscally responsible. I doubt he does much with policy when he has a cabinet that he can turn to. As for replacing Science for Islam in that statement you run into a little problem. Science = Explanation of nature based on evidence. Islam / Any religion = Explanation based on made up crap with no validity. There is no equivalence among the two.