Why the Right Wing Rejects Science

For a fetus to be a "person" with rights the law says it has to be born.

And that makes sense. IF it was a "person" before birth it wouldn't/couldn't have more rights than the woman it's in so if she wants it out, out it goes.

 

This is how the status of a fetus stands to date. It confirms that a fetus is NOT considered a 'person', along with all the rights a person possesses, until birth. A developing human is not even called a fetus until after eight weeks gestation.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fetal+Rights

 

So when the law changes and says that after 8 weeks it is a "person" then you will accept that without complaint.

Good to know.

 

Whatever helps you sleep easy at night.

 

That is an extremely naive understanding of Science. Science is Universal. But it's also useful (BTW, Psychology and Economics are Science.)

Mixing chemical elements as in a recipe book is not Science. The question Science responds to is not "what will happen if I mix A with B?" That is just an observation. It doesn't matter how many times you mix A and B to produce C. You haven't even started to do any Science at that point. You're even far from the part where you formulate a hypothesis. If you tried to pass this as an elementary school Science project, any respectable Science teacher will give you a big F.

I don't even know how to begin explaining Science to you. Here are some of the basic general concepts that you miss in your post: Science is inductive. It takes a large number of similar observations and attempts to formulate a general rule that can be used to make predictions about future. By "future" I mean observations that have not been made, but can be anticipated by Deduction

A complex Scientific Theory, such as Global Warming, has many elements to it. Each and every one of those elements has sub-elements, each of which needs to be proven independently. And then replicated. It takes over a Century of studies and replication of those studies, to arrive at the Consensus position that the Global Surface temperature of the Earth is warming, and that human activity is the cause. All the requirements have been met. And I can assure you not by somebody in a lab mixing A and B to see if it still produces C

 

Of course you ignored: "" IF it was a "person" before birth it wouldn't/couldn't have more rights than the woman it's in so if she wants it out, out it goes."

With all the rights we have , WE ALL have restrictions.

We cannot use another person's body to sustain our life.

NO one can force YOU to give them your blood or your heart or your kidneys without your consent, they don't have that right and neither does any other PERSON.

So AGAIN, if the fetus is deemed a person, the woman it's in has every right to withdraw consent to sustain it's life.


So whether a fetus is a person or not abortion should remain legal.

 

No. But its rights can be equal to the mothers.

 

Why didn't you quote me so I would know you replied? Scared?

...and NO, you want the fetus to have greater rights with NO restrictions....You want it to have MORE rights than the woman it's in...



Maybe you could show me where or what in my post led you to that inane statement:

"" IF it was a "person" before birth it wouldn't/couldn't have more rights than the woman it's in so if she wants it out, out it goes."

With all the rights we have , WE ALL have restrictions.

We cannot use another person's body to sustain our life.

NO one can force YOU to give them your blood or your heart or your kidneys without your consent, they don't have that right and neither does any other PERSON.

So AGAIN, if the fetus is deemed a person, the woman it's in has every right to withdraw consent to sustain it's life.


So whether a fetus is a person or not abortion should remain legal.

 

You certain of that? IIRC, if you begin performing CPR on a person you canNOT choose to discontinue performing it if you are able.

 

That's a load of hooey (DUH especially if the person dies, THEN you can quit but you can really quit any damn time you choose to)


............. BUT it has nothing to do with using another person's physical body.

I gave you examples, and you still didn't get it.

Can you HONESTLY answer ONE question?


Would you mind if you were forced to give blood, or your heart, liver, etc., , so another person could live ?






Here's the rest of my post that you ignored for some reason

...and NO, you want the fetus to have greater rights with NO restrictions....You want it to have MORE rights than the woman it's in...





"" IF it was a "person" before birth it wouldn't/couldn't have more rights than the woman it's in so if she wants it out, out it goes."

With all the rights we have , WE ALL have restrictions.

We cannot use another person's body to sustain our life.

NO one can force YOU to give them your blood or your heart or your kidneys without your consent, they don't have that right and neither does any other PERSON.

So AGAIN, if the fetus is deemed a person, the woman it's in has every right to withdraw consent to sustain it's life.


So whether a fetus is a person or not abortion should remain legal.

 

Blood not at all. That sounds like a great idea.

It is virtually painless and poses no physical threat

 

OK, obviously you know you lost the argument so now you're just babbling goofy crap.......

 

What's wrong with taking blood from people?

After all, it was meant to circulate.

 

democrats think bruce jenner is actually a woman..... lol science > democrats

 

Make that bet at Harrahs. Tell us how that goes.

 

Psychology and Economics are not "Sciences." The fact that they might employ the scientific method does not make them Sciences.

If Psychology would be a Science, then you would be able to predict with 100% accuracy who will become serial killers and who won't. But you cannot do that, so Psychology is not a Science.

You missed the entire point, which is that Science is predictable and verifiable; other people can replicate your claims.

If you cannot make accurate predictions and verify claims, then it isn't true Science.

Well, the good news is that you don't have to, since I was at one time, a petro-chemical engineering major.

 

Medicine is a science and yet it can not predict with 100% accuracy the outcome of a greal deal of medical procedures. But.....do you go to the doctor when you are sick?

 

What?

Of course they are Science if they use the Scientific Method!!!

Anything that uses the Scientific Method in its entirety is Science.

This absolutely absurd! Where did you get this? Please quote somebody... anybody...

I will make a "Scientific" Prediction with 100% accuracy: you can't!!!

In the "arena" of Scientific epistemology there are debates as to what is and what is not considered Science. Nobody... absolutely nobody of any relevance would take that position.

No no no... you read something, somewhere, and you didn't understand what you were reading.

With everything you write it becomes clear that you have no idea what Science is. Starting by the terminology. The "words" you use are in the wrong context and order. "Verifiable" is not usual terminology to describe Science. If you mean that the conclusion in an experiment needs to be "replicated" in order for it to be accepted, then yes... But experiments are not used for making "claims" (another weirdly used word). They are meant to test a certain particular hypothesis. But tested hypothesis are only useful if they can be used to form a "general rule". And that general rule can be used to make predictions. If those predictions can be tested again and again in situations that can be verified, then it is safe to assume that it will work also in situations where it can't.

Here I started writing a long example, but I just don't know how to explain Science to somebody who thinks that Science exists only if it predicts with 100% accuracy. That is the most anti-Science statement anybody has ever made.

So let's do this: of all the words you have read about Science (and use incorrectly), here is the most important one of all, if you ever hope to understand how Science works: Deduction.

Ok. So if I take x ounces of chopped apples, add y amount of suger, z of... this other ingredient, put it in a pie crust and bake it for N amount of minutes at a certain temperature, I predict that I get an apple pie. I have made a prediction, you can verify it, you can repeat it as many times as you want. So, according to you, that's science?

And don't get too hung up on the example. You can use anything you want: building cars using the same materials, flying airplanes on the same route, punching an on-duty police officer in the nose.... they always produce the same verifiable and repeatable results. But they are not Science.

Unbelievable!

And petro-chemical engineering is Science???

Wow! Have you got your cables crossed!

 

Psychiatry can't use the scientific method because that would require observing the psyche.

Skinner saw this problem and developed what is now called 'radical behaviorism' in an effort to save psychiatry. He refused to go into what happens in the ol' noggin, and went entirely with behavior. Whatever we are thinking is termed "private behavior" and ignored in favor of what can be observed.

Economics requires models. The models are used as both a hypothesis and as the predictive element of science, but if a particular model doesn't predict what will happen, then the model must be thrown out. The problem is that the models are merely massaged until they can predict stuff.

We can call that science, but so far, the predictive elements are lacking. Some people predicted the 08 crash, like Peter Schiff. Did his Austrian model become an acceptable model while throwing out the Keynesian model? Nope. The reason why keynesians are still with us is because it gives power to the state, and the state loves power.

 

That premise is ridiculous.

 

What a compelling argument!

Do you deny my examples of conservative positions. They are all based on fear and insecurity and seek to control others for the sake of one's own safety.

How do you explain the irrational rejection of science. Many righties aren't even skeptical. They just deny the evidence and play amateur [crackpot] scientist.

It is reasonable to argue that there is still a margin of 10%-15% that leaves room for doubt. If you can justify the logic of betting against an 90-10 bet with the future of the human race in the balance, be my guest.

To simply reject the science based on conspiracy theories is irrational. It shows an inability to reason.

 

It is not an argument. The premise that the Right Wing rejects science is ridiculous. It's waste of time and irrational to engage in a discussion of such a silly statement

 

A great example of ignorance of science and bad argument.

Please explain how you figure that a single human cell is a "Person".

When you are done that - explain how "We don't know otherwise or well it might be true" is good justification for law ?

 

A fertilized ovum is a human life. Very simple. Anyone who does not accept that must then define how many days are required before that fertilized ovum becomes a human life and then defend why fertilized ovums one day "younger" are not human life.

 

Im a conservative who practices medicine.

Huffpo lied to you. You are in real danger of realizing this.