Wherein the IFLS crowd shows how much they Fucking Love Science by actually shooting at some real scientists. Renowned scientist Dull-witted self-important kiddie TV show actor Bill Nye only wants to jail people for having a different reading of climatological data (which generously assumes he actually has read the data rather than regurgitating the opinions of the numerous people who are significantly smarter than he is). The renowned scientist hack political attorney general Eric Schneiderman just wants to harass scientists into silence and extract a few billion from oil companies. The Science Marchers are much more action-oriented.
To paraphrase Niven and Pournelle, “Think of it as Progressivism in action.”
Thanks OMWC, that was depressing.
I hadn’t realised Saturday was supposed to be Earth Day, but some college kid wearing a fundraising beggar apron confronted us.
The dumb anecdote goes like this, and had me sniffing my own farts afterward about how satisfying the conclusion was:
FUNDBEGGAR: Okay, so you guys look like reasonable people.
ME: How would you know that?
FUNDBEGGAR: Well you seem like reasonable people. Happy Earth Day by the way.
ME: Oh, likewise.
FUNDBEGGAR: Okay so, as reasonable people, you care about the environment and nature, right?
ME: No, I hate it. It’s stupid. That’s why I’m in the city right now, to get away from nature.
FUNDBEGGAR: …
Would like pics of Fundbeggar’s face.
GIS’d ‘fundbeggar’. This came up. Not relevant but also very satisfying.
http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/77000/Nancy-Pelosi-Beggar–77246.jpg
It looked something approximately like this.
My wife is from Hong Kong and was like “what the hell was that all about?”
They’re like the charity beggars you can get rid of on Saturdays by paying HK$2, except they waste more of your time.
Mention Ira Einhorn.
Different Einhorn?
Jim Carrey is a god damn homophobe.
I keep meaning to try one of those Einhorn rainbow coffee milkshakes.
Well you seem like reasonable people
Me: no.
“Let me now assault you with a baseless pathetic appeal”
Man he was a total greenhorn.
Reminds me of the time I was stopped – in Ann Arbor, of course – sometime in the 90s?
Man with clipboard: Excuse me, sir, would you like to help the people in Rwanda?
Me: Oh boo-hoo *keeps on walking, soaking in the shock on the clipboarder’s face*
Wife to me: I’m surprised people don’t beat you up.
Wife to me: I’m surprised people don’t beat you up.
I think our wives have been comparing notes.
Hey post-genocide Rwanda orphans, Lord Humungus had a message for you.
Correct link
*hangs head in shame*
I was on campus yesterday for the boy’s soccer game and they have posters plastered everywhere asking, “What have you done to destroy White Supremacy – in your life, classes…”
I don’t understand? Were they pro or con?
In my defense it was a 90+ degree day, crowded (Ann Arbor Art Festival) with hippies, and I was in no mood to help anyone but myself – to a glass of cold, cold beer.
Or maybe I’m just an ass.
Saying outrageous things to them really works, and I have a similar story.
Running into people with a clipboard is a weekly occurrence where I work (SPLC has been out in force recently). I don’t fit their preferred mark (being old, white, and male), so most of the time ignoring them is enough to avoid having my time wasted. But once in a while they will flank you like a pack of wolves, and you’re forced to interact with them.
So this one greenpeace clipbot somehow manages to make eye contact with me, while her buddy corals me towards her. She gives me her spiel about how Mother Gaia is burning and it’s all my fault, and I simply look her in the eyes and say: “Sorry, I don’t negotiate with terrorists”. And then I simply walked away as her brain was trying to make sense of what had just happened.
Another fun incident was someone asking me to sign a petition to get a local democrat on the ballot. Their opening line was about how their awesome candidate was going to take down the evil NRA. Informing them that I was a life-time member of the NRA made them skedaddle before I had the chance to leave 🙂
I have to know, is your accent obviously of the European persuasion, and if so, does that add to the befuddlement?
Unfortunately (in this instance) I have a pretty passable American accent, so I’d have to whip out the ole’ green card to really persuade someone. Something I’m not keen to do, because I don’t want lunatics knowing anything about me. And faking a Danish accent feels weird to me, so would probably come off as pretty unnatural sounding.
Now, a few times I’ve started to just speak in Danish to people like that and use body language that makes it look like I don’t have a clue what they’re saying. They then start arguing with me, telling me they know I understand what they’re saying.
In general I find that American progressives, even when they know I’m Danish, like to tell me I’m wrong about Denmark and Scandinavia. I’ve more than once had to tell a person that they are saying “Denmark”, while describing “Venezuela”, and been told how wrong I am, or that it isn’t “what they believe”. I mean, you can’t really argue with that.
Amazing “that’s not how your country works” condescension.
What’s an American accent?
“Who wants lottery tickets, Y’all???”
“What’s an American accent?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt4Dfa4fOEY
The best news is usually the worst news.
Speaking of Bill Nye….
Goddammit, you know I can’t access twitter during the day. What is it?
Lemme see if I can find a work around.
IT’S SO FUCKING AWESOME
My favourite part of it was her high kicks. Very sassy.
I’m 100% certain that her vagina does in fact have vocal cords.
If they would mic that shit up, it probably sounds a little like this: “PAAAAAAHHHHHHH FLAP FLAP FLAP”
Literally a woman singing about being gender flexible in a very vulgar way.
From 1 to even I just can’t.
“singing”
They couldn’t even get, like, that Hamilton guy to rap about it?
The content is atrocious, but you’d think they’d put more effort into the delivery. Just bizarre.
Aren’t you the lucky one. You really dont want to know.
Don’t listen to this guy, you should watch it when you get home.
Can you do Youtube?
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/24/bill-nyes-bizarre-video-on-transgenderism-bombs-on-youtube-video/
Yes. Wish I hadn’t.
No. Nope, no. I’m done.
Oh boy… I thought Bill had hit rock bottom, but apparently he pulled out the jackhammer and just kept going.
Its remarkable isn’t it? How they always manage to find a shovel after hitting rock bottom.
Oh god why?
Wait, is that real?
Also, a link to a twitter user with an anime avatar and “88” at the end of their twitter name raises my hackles. Just sayin’.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/24/bill-nyes-bizarre-video-on-transgenderism-bombs-on-youtube-video/
Welp. I was honestly hoping it was an elaborate fake.
There’s no hope for this world, is there?
Honestly, I just needed that to be real.
It’s reassuring that no matter what I do, there’s always somebody making worse choices than I am.
There’s no hope for this world, is there?
The pendulum is swinging in the other direction with the youths. I get the feeling that twenty years from now transgender propaganda is going to be looked at like the way we look at hippie bullshit from the 60s.
That’s sad. I like Rachel Bloom. The title of “Pictures of your Dick” gives away that gag, but, I just worked the word “gag” into that sentence.
Yup, lots of red flags on that feed.
/drops cigarette from lips stunned.
Sorry Bill. I’d still rather have a bagel with lox.
That, “We (heart) Experts!” poster is so awesome.
Especially since they made sure that everyone knew they reserved the right to pick “which” experts get to be experts in the fine-print (“Experts With Evidence!!”) I assume the fine-print has even more fine-print below that in tiny script (“Evidence that WE approve!”)
Experts is an appeal to authority. We <3 people with experimental data and the protocols they used to obtain it. We don't give a fuck what they are expert at.
That last fine print doesn’t need to exist. It goes without saying.
The people who think the world is going to end soon because Revelations foretells it have evidence. What matters is how testable your evidence is, not whether you have it or not.
I hate experts – unless they are actually experienced in their field; with tangible results. Just like I wouldn’t trust a first year EE grad student to wire anything.
should say – I hate “experts”
Progressives are self important twats who have an inflated sense of their own intelligence. When they see someone smarter than themselves (while still spouting progressive dogma, of course) they project God like levels of omniscience onto them.
OMG If we could make Neil Degrasse Tyson (PBUH) President he would literally solve all of the world’s problems in a month. Then he would DESTROY the remaining Reuthuglikkkans using only his tweets
“I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!!!! That’s why the only science class I took in college was Biology for non-majors which was a Gen Ed requirement for my BFA. I got a C in it. I love science so much that is also why Algebra II is the highest math course I have completed. I like to bludgeon my political opposition with statistics, but I don’t understand statistics and sure as hell wouldn’t step foot in a stats classroom. All of you assholes who actually majored in science or engineering and disagree with my politics are stupid backwards deniers.”
/progderp
People that don’t know me get into arguments all the time about climate science, and I know I have won the moment Bill Nye comes up.
“BILL NYE HERP DERP!”
“Oh, so you trust Bill Nye to give you the facts cause he has a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering?”
“YA AN HE’S MUCH MORE EDUCATUHD THAN YOU!”
“I have a Master’s Degree in mechanical engineering, and I design rockets. I think Bill Nye is 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound sack.”
“Duh….. YER STUPID! YER NOT ON TEEVEE LIKE SMART BILL NYE!”
I don’t have a degree in science or engineering (math+comp sci, instead) but wrong is wrong. I’ve made many mistakes in discussing science* and yet, if I point out that Nye or anyone else is wrong about something, and they’re wrong, then it doesn’t matter how much I do or do not know. It’s not an insult to a person’s existence**, it’s just a statement of fact. Get over it and stop being wrong.
* = Some of these can be chalked up to “different uses of terminology” but not as often as I’d like
** = Hence the whole problem with IFLS; if your entire identity is wrapped up in righteousness rather than empiricism, then you can’t take any criticism
I don’t mind an argument that is purely based in righteousness. I think that’s ok, and often times is warranted. What I mind is the pretense that one is not being self-righteous but is instead just practicing some objective and inarguable form of science.
The problem with self-righteousness is that if you wallow in it too long, you lose the perspective necessary to determine whether or not you’re actually, you know, right. Having the “courage of your convictions” is great and all, but you need to have enough humility to admit and accept when you’re wrong.
I would love to agree with climate AGW, I’m tired of being a contrarian. Just give me the raw, non-adjusted data for me to look over. I’m no Albert Hawkingson, but I can read a data chart. Oh you can’t release that data for public analysis. In that case, GFY, you might as well be selling perpetual motion machines.
I don’t even argue that the earth is warming. It is. We see it in the temperature records.
What my issue is has to do with the fact that they’re saying” WARMEST EVER!” when that means very little, given that we have less than a century of reliable temperature records, they’re saying “OUT OF CONTROL WARMING IS COMING!” when the actual records show nothing of the sort, and they’re saying “HUMANITY IS DOOMED!” when we’re the most adaptable species on the planet and will soldier on even if the doom and gloom predictions happened.
I don’t even argue that we’re not fucked. All I can argue is that (a) the fact that data shows that warming is occurring does not mean that I must support your entire slate of progressive opinions; and (b) just because the data is changing does not mean in and of itself that we can fix the problem by doing X, Y, or Z.
Relevant: Compare and Contrast
What bothers me most about the warmists is not that their central premises are wrong per se, but that they’ve decided they’re right sine qua non and thus can’t be challenged. No, fuck you, everything can be challenged. The satellite record says 0.1°C per decade, how can it possibly warm 4°C in a century? The “adjustment” of the ground record dwarfs the raw variance, how can you trust it? Every past prediction has failed to come true, why do you keep making such outlandish predictions? High Carbon sensitivity in global temperature has been disproven, why are we still talking about Carbon so much?
I object to the notion that “Trust me I’m a scientist.” It’s cute when Bill Murray did it. It’s annoying when we’re supposed to make policy on data we’re not allowed to see because we might draw the wrong conclusions or something.
The ice age is ending.
Science to silence to violence. Have the progs learned nothing from history? The pendulum will swing back, is swinging back.
And as it swings back, another chunk of freedom will get hacked out.
Poe actually wrote the pit and the pendulum as political commentary
Dull-witted self-important kiddie TV show actor Bill Nye only wants to jail people for having a different reading of climatological data (which generously assumes he actually has read the data rather than regurgitating the opinions of the numerous people who are significantly smarter than he is).
Well he can’t stand opinions of scientists smarter than him who also disagree
The only people Bill Nye does well against in debates are creationists. He’s smarter than a creationist, so he’s got that going for him.
Rockies are in 1st place. That is all.
For how long?
*ducks*
Oh, and I looked at total standings – both Central Divisions don’t look so hot right now.
Speaking of ‘science’. From Koch approved ‘libertarians’ at CATO
https://www.cato.org/blog/gao-weighs-countering-violent-extremism?utm_content=buffer111c5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
If you don’t count 9/11 then the most violent groups in the United States are ‘far-right’ extremists who happen to have no overlapping views or central leadership, but should still be lumped together. However, self-radicalized individuals should not be counted as part of radical Islam, because they happen to have no overlapping views or central leadership, thus disproving our original point. Where have I heard this before? The Koch approved version of ‘libertarianism’ (it should also be noted that this is the least successful version, in terms of electoral success) is really jumping the shark to appease the Left. I thought Bill Weld was as bad as it could get, but CATO continues to demonstrate that it will get worse.
Goddamn that’s disappointing. CATO’s actually put out some damn good articles before, such a shame to see them stoop to this.
I blame Trump.
I think in this example, its actually apropos to blame Trump. He has made a bunch of ‘professional libertarians’ feel that they need to “choose sides” when they never seemed compelled to do so before.
That’s not Trump’s fault, they made a choice, they choose to be hacks.
I was joking a bit there jt.
of course they’re responsible for themselves. my point was just that libertarians have long been pretty comfortable as outsiders who coax insiders to ‘do better’…. but seem to have decided that Trump, himself as an Outsider, is ‘uncoaxable’ and can only be reflexively opposed, never mind the fact that he’s actually doing at least a few things they should ostensibly support.
I think there’s a greater division between libertarians and the ‘professional libertarians’ that you mention above. Namely, most ‘professional libertarians’ live in major urban centers and operate in social circles of a vaguely left-leaning, possibly even pro-establishment backgrounds. Being the weirdo outsider than will never achieve anything is perfectly acceptable in those groups, because you’re harmless. But an Outsider that can actually succeed? Needs to be resisted at all costs.
I see most ‘professional libertarians’ aggressiveness towards Trump to be a result of them ignoring their ideology in favour of their social group.
The joke about cocktail parties and the like is not really that far off base. I think you’re right, John. What do these people have to gain from pushing against popular wisdom in their social circles? If they go with the flow they may get hired by the Washington Post or New York Times and get a raise.
I was being a bit facetious but not really – Trump has brought out the worst in many people. It’s his magic wizard spell.
It’s one of the few things I like about Trump. He forces people’s masks off, and you get to see what they’re really like under their public personas.
Of course, most of the results have made me more cynical about humanity in general.
Ignoring the whole ‘how this data defines attacks and right-wing extremism is bullshit’ point, that people have covered already…
What they’re actually arguing is that, even with their bullshit garbage data, that a population that makes up 1% of the American population is engaging in a quarter of the ‘violent extremist incidents’ over the past fifteen years. Whereas vague ‘right-wing’ groups, which make up, say, 40% of the population, are apparently only engaging in three times the incidents.
It’s almost like there’s a massive difference in per capita incidents or something.
Overall, this argument is so dumb. The only people who are pimping the notion that Muslims are responsible for all terrorism, always, and that all Muslims are inherently bad are marginal fringe figures. Bad faith arguments, like this one, only adds credence to their narrative.
If so-called libertarians could avoid identity politics (and stop referring to ‘free speech’ as a ‘culture war’) they wouldn’t look like hypocrites when they say that they are only concerned with the individual.
and stop referring to ‘free speech’ as a ‘culture war’
I don’t think it was the libertarians that decided free speech was a culture war, but there’s been plenty of ‘libertarians’ who have been utterly failing at defending it properly lately.
It kind of reminds of the bit in Jingo, when Vimes has been trying to prove that one of his fellow citizens was trying create a diplomatic incident in order to start a war, and when faced with his foreign counterpart, the foreign cop tells him “Hey, can’t you just accept that we’re as devious and evil as your countrymen.”
yeah, Greenwalt linked to it with approval, which was also disappointing since he can be a little more thorough than that.
But especially because the piece misleads about “lethal incidents” but actual number killed is higher of Islamists. (one of the resplies said the CATO report did not include the Orlando shooting altogether, not sure if that’s true or why they would exclude it.) Also, pretty sure this came up before, maybe at the old site?, and there was some discussion about some incidents being dumped into the “far right” extremist box, even though they were left-wing nut jobs. So basically the breakdown is really “People sworn to ISIS, vs Everybody Else we’ll call “right-wing” cuz FYTW)
From what I understand, they defined every terrorist attack as either right wing or Islamist, so shit like the Marxist guy who flew his plane into an IRS building was placed in the “right-wing’ column. In addition they had a lot of incidents in there that were not anything even remotely close to being terrorist attacks. Incidents of white supremacists killing other white supremacist and even one of a schizophrenic Muslim guy killing some people, the man was just genuinely crazy. The “study” was a complete joke.
I dont suppose they mentioned the masked commies running in the street beating people and setting fires as examples of violent extremists.
I know it’s reposted, but this seems like a more apt place to get people’s take on my assessment than the dead thread I’d originally commented in…
I was struck by last weekend’s March for Science demonstrations. In particular, I noticed that many of the slogans and positions were utterly unscientific. It was in thinking about this that I came to a realization: the march’s organizers and I see science in very different ways. Where I see science as a methodology, they see science as a set of institutions.
The methodological view of science tends to be shared by a lot of libertarians and some of the smarter conservatives. It views science as a structured approach to viewing the world empirically and assessing claims skeptically. From the methodological perspective, “diversity” in science is a non-issue. The methodology is what it is and the person making or evaluating the claim is secondary to the claim itself. For the methodological view, someone’s status as a scientist confers no special authority because anyone practicing the scientific method can be thought of as doing science. From the methodological perspective, the funding of scientific institutions is simply a decision to be made on a cost-benefit basis. It views openness of techniques, sharing of data, and outside review as key elements of good science.
The institutionalist view tends to be more popular with progressives. It views science as a set of institutions populated with learned men and women making discoveries and sorting out the nature of the universe in a rational unsuperstitious manner. It views the institutions of science as heroic leaders in mankind’s enlightenment. If you take an institutionalist view of science, you get some very different conclusions. From an institutionalist perspective, of course the institutions of science deserve our full support. That would go without saying. From an institutionalist perspective, it would make sense that the word of a scientist would carry extra weight, as would the consensus views of the scientific community. From an institutionalist perspective, you’d want to be sure that the scientific community itself is diverse. And from an institutionalist perspective, you’d want to be sure that the data or the methodologies that scientists need to do their work don’t get mangled by people who don’t understand science.
The funny thing is, it’s not really difficult to see where either side of this divide will think of themselves as the champions of science. The institutionalists will view the methodologists as taking a cavalier view of the value of science while the methodologists will see the institutionalists as selling out real science to power politics.
Well said.
they see science as a set of institutions
Yup. Not just science. This is the way they think about everything.
I believe the appeals to science amount to expedience. Specifically regarding your point, I would say that underlying the “institutionalist” viewpoint is a lazy appeal to the perceived credibility of science, rather than any principles determining their stance on the issue. I’d also guess that progressives’ apparent respect for scientists, however superficial, is just a shallow attempt to conceal their bias. It’s like they want to be scientists by association with scientists, rather than actually adhering to the scientific method or using rational means to form conclusions (coming as no surprise to anyone familiar with progressives).
As you may have noticed, the so-called institutionalists tend to ignore data and the findings of scientists when they’re inconvenient. They’re clingers-on to whatever title or name that can give them a precarious sense of justification for their unjustified beliefs.
To be fair, if you’re commenting here, you’re probably a libertarian and more likely a methodologist. So, skepticism of the institutionalists is what’s going to come naturally. I tend to come from the same perspective. But, I do notice that there are otherwise decent and intelligent people who tend to take the opposing view. They’ll cite Republicans’ tendency to accept creationism as evidence of their awful views on science, where a methodologist would view the matter with general indifference (that people have silly opinions on reality doesn’t change what reality is and are beside the point). And its the opinions of the scientific community, and not the finding of individual scientists that are of interest to the institutionalist.
I’m certainly not an authority on the subject, but in my interactions with people who make appeals to science I’ve noticed a general lack of rigor or concern for the underlying methods and data which led to the results they cite (this is some times true of scientists as well).
I suppose my primary contention would be whether they, generally speaking, truly believe the scientific community or are only choosing what and whom to believe when it suits them. Specifically, do they actually believe there are “learned men and women making discoveries and sorting out the nature of the universe in a rational unsuperstitious manner”, or do they only prop the scientific community up as authorities as long as it can be used to ‘win’ their arguments?
I suspect it’s a mess of both types but, given how common dishonesty seems to be, the former could be little more than a convenient excuse for the facilitation of the latter.
“Where I see science as a methodology, they see science as a set of institutions.” <— Bingo.
Somewhat OT: I am currently suffering through my company’s In-Depth HAZMAT training, including RCRA requirements. It makes me want to go burn tires in an oil spill TBH.
Climate change is real…I only found a pound and a half of morels.
.
I blame Trump.
If you don’t hate/blame Trump, you’re just like… *lowers voice to whisper* that guy. You know the one.
Mollie Hemingway?
Poppy?
I’M Poppy, dammit.
I’m Poppy.
I AM Poppy.