Nothing in your OP has anything to do with science. If it did it would be referenced to an academic level
That is how you open it. That is not science, that is the start of a political diatribe. If you want to talk politics, then take it to the political areas. This is the science area, where we discuss the science itself. Not blasting others over political differences. And trust me, in this I am completely unbiased. Others that have spoken up in here I have had issues for the same thing, and trying to have political bashfests from the other side of the political spectrum. And I see it the exact same way. Keep politics out, and stick to science. I have as little use for those that attack Republicans as I do those that attack Democrats in areas like this where there should be no politics.
I realize as a democrat, you're taught, that if things don't fit the democrat Agenda, that it couldn't possibly be some sort of democrat Science, but that isn't logical. and just because democrat politicians say someone isn't smart or their opinion doesn't matter if you don't have a degree, not everything has to be related to acedemics, to be scientific. duh?
I commend you for honesty in stating your post here is crackpot BS as well. And I will point out since your post above is crackpot BS by your admission, the exclusion of WillReadmore’s content is a crackpot BS exclusion as well and invalid. This is why science deniers from both “tribes” will never have a correct understanding of climate change. Because there is no capacity for logic or reason. Their opinions can be swayed by any appeal to emotion argument or other logical fallacy. Thanks for exemplifying this point so well. Until both sides are willing to look at the actual science and make logical conclusions based on data there will be no change. I’ve been re-watching Greta Thunberg’s speeches because she’s the topic of another climate thread here on PF. That’s one thing Greta gets right. The “climate warrior” tribe does not facilitate progress because they would rather play political and economic games with you proles (not proles in the sense of straight economic circumstances , but in the sense of being easily manipulated to benefit political classes).
I think you're confusing science with ethics. We "let" people be gay or trans because letting them be who they feel they are does less harm than trying to oppose them. Science is the best method for testing reality, but it doesn't really tell us what we should let people do - that's more an issue of ethics, which to me is logically derived. Live and let live.
Science is a process, not absolutes. That's real science. The processes of the biology surrounding being gay ARE STILL being studied - there are no absolutes at this point. So you are being disingenuous claiming it's all about imbalances. The study of global warming trends is still being studied - scientists know this - it's mainly politicians who are claiming absolutes. Child bearing is on the cusp of becoming not just confined to a female's womb as artificial wombs are being developed. That is the process of science. It's something that may someday solve some of the abortion problems. Politicians ( and random dudes on the internet) put absolute perimeters around science - scientists know it's a process, that why things are called THEORIES. So have your little rant about science - cause that's what you do - but don't blame your misconceptions on the scientists.
the non-absolutes, conspiracy theories, imbalances and mistakes, for some reason, tend to usually be on the liberal side of the political spectrum. Which is funny! Especially, since democrats are all about "following the science". I know, let's ask faccet? lmao.
No it's not science. It's a banality. Science is Pascal's barrel or Boyle's experiment with feather falling in vacuum.
That's procreation, as covered by biology. But, not everybody was born with the capability to procreate as adults. You are confusing the issues of being human and of procreating. This is a clear and purposeful misstatement of science.
Science is an organized methodology for finding how our universe works. In the cases you seem to most frequently bring up, I'd say you are attempting to challenge what has been learned by biological scientists throughout the entire world.
Oh! There is definitely science underpinning abortion - pity none of it is being acknowledged by the so called “pro-life” contingent
What part do WANT to verify with science? endocrinology, Obstetrics and Gynaecology are massive fields you know - not to mention embryology, psychology, neurophysiology, genetics etc etc etc
Hi, Roanokeillinois. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to help you out: Science Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster Regards, stay safe 'n well.
Mental health is a state of mental well-being that enables people to cope with the stresses of life, realize their abilities, learn well and work well, and contribute to their community.
Science is objective. Objectivity in science is an attempt to uncover truths about the natural world by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs.
What you describe is what I grew up with as science. It’s what science is supposed to be. I call it classical science. Today most of what is labeled science is what I refer to as neo-science—opinions of individuals or groups that have no supporting evidence or even sometimes overwhelming counter evidence. Classical science is still “practiced” by many researchers and publishers. It isn’t completely swallowed by neo-science, but it’s trending that way. Mostly evidenced by tendency to speak of “settled science” while no longer attempting to disprove new hypotheses, but rather attempting to come up with evidence to support the “settled science”. There are areas of neo-science where hypotheses that could challenge the “settled science” are not encouraged and sometimes even disallowed. It’s good to see you post what science really is. The more people understand what science is the more chance we have to save it from being swallowed by neo-science.
That's a pretty strong indictment to make against science. I do not believe there is a chance in the world that you can support that.
I have provided voluminous evidence many times on PF showing what is peddled as science often is in direct conflict with evidence produced through application of the scientific method. Check out my posts in the climate mitigation thread in this subforum. Oh, that’s right, you already know about a lot of them! You well know my indictment is not against science, but neo-science. I would never indict classical science. I’m defending it.
