Do you agree with the march for science?

>marches are pointless if they aren't used to organized people into a movement.
So... given your Tea Party example and the rise of the unthinking jingoists, wouldn't you say they succeeded in making a difference?

yes.

>The whole idea of science is that it is verifiable

popsci kiddie detected.

Nice try at minimizing. But the truth stands. Predictable, modeled shit happens despite your political or religious leaders telling you otherwise.

The most obvious off these idiots are of course the flat-Earthers, although I suppose some of those just want to see if anyone has their brain engaged.

t. classcuck

Not in the mainstream, I don't think. Usually it's just the vegan wackos who think that new shampoos use a pound of caustic soda until we see it kill enough puppies.
You could ask people if they accept the consensus on transgenic crop safety, but that's not a strictly liberal thing either, seeing as how often the woo crowd attacks them on here.

No.

I already talked about this in the previous threads, but this "march for science" is NOT really about bringing scientific awareness to the public and pushing for evidence based policies.
But foremost about pushing a clear leftist agenda as a backlash against the right leaning US government.

If you dont believe me read their own website.

It is an aggregation of free people and the people trying to organize are making many tragic tactical errors. Make your own sign and stay on topic, or better yet throw a small protest, voice your dissent, that's the acts that really make a difference.

As it happens, the "right leaning US government" is very anti-science. If you consider science as "leftist," then that's your way of passing science off as a trivial pursuit to justify your own laziness.
But it's not an accurate analysis.
You should try an immerse yourself in say, NASA, replete with right-wing, God-fearing folk. Science is not about politics. It's problem-solving, and modeling of our world to understand it.
You're just a simpleton and can't get past the fact that others have brain capacity. Sorry!

FUCK no. It's an attempt to get people to think that leftism is scientifically supported. Leftists are just tagging on a name to their shitty march to make it seem more 'right'. They would call it 'march for activated walnuts' and it would change NOTHING about the movement. The left is trying to co-opt science and get people to think that leftism is the only 'scientific' political view.

The thought proccess they're trying to achieve in the average joe:

> see march for science
> know I like science
> see that there's a bunch of scientists for leftism
> leftism must be a pretty darn sensible choice if a bunch of scientists are marching for it
> become less defensive to leftism.

Inb4 there's a bunch of non scientist people in scientific looking labcoats just to project an image.

Just to be completely clear: the Marc I for science has NOTHING to do with science.

There's poison in the water. I doubt a lot of scientists from non-politicized fields (eyes on climate scientists) will be there anyway. These kinds of hyper-public Facebook-tier "for science" events tend to wind up with a lot of narcissists with intellectual superiority complexes who couldn't tell you the SI unit for pressure.

www.marchforscience.com/marcher-pledge/
>We will:

>Fight discrimination, exploitation, and inequity in the scientific community.

>Work to make sure that scientific research and scientific careers are made more accessible to people from historically underrepresented and marginalized backgrounds.

www.marchforscience.com/diversity-principles/

>Inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility are central to the mission and principles of the March for Science.

>Systems of privilege influence who becomes a part of the science community
> some scientific endeavors have been used to harm and oppress marginalized communities
>Political actions -- such as gag orders for government science agencies, funding freezes, immigration bans
>Science itself can drive our conversations about the importance of diversity
>We pledge to amplify the work of underrepresented scientists

Creationism makes more sense than neo-Darwinism. But too many atheists are philosophically inept and emotionally unstable to even debate.

Also Ken Ham actually has a science degree in biology whereas Nye is a mechanical engineer and hasn't actually published at all.

But both Ham and Nye are popularizers. It's telling because evolutionists never make citations of more credible and better educated creation scientists.

>But foremost about pushing a clear leftist agenda as a backlash against the right leaning US government.
Because the anti-science crews are mostly right. Anti-evolution in schools, anti-climate change in policy, anti-funding of scientific programs in general to account for inflation in particular (which is currently the line being used to increase military spending).
That doesn't exclude the left from nonsense such as anti-vax and anti-GMO.
It just so happens that this particular government is looking to slash funding to most scientific federal agencies, you better believe that would mobilize them even independent of the anti-science policies of the administration.

Other industries do this all the time - banking, insurance, agriculture, manufacturing. The point is to start lobbying like business interests since that is increasingly how the right thinks science should operate.

Scientific information moves at a snail's pace compared with sensational articles posted rapid fire on the internet, usually with few ways to check the claims made. Science has to adapt to that changing climate, or fade into complete obscurity.

>You're an idiot. The whole idea of science is that it is verifiable regardless of political, religious, or emotional perspective.

>2017
>still can't tell if eggs are good for you
>still can't tell if soy is good for you
go to Veeky Forums, watch people throw shitty exercise journals at each other, then conclude that 1g/lb bodyweight protein consumption + squats + deadlifts is the only way to go
this is your (((science))) and (((critical thinking))) at work

This

As as a pretty far right guy it really piss me off that idiot liberals are always trying to co-opt science

It's pretty big stretch to call Climate change "science" considering how polarized it is now.

>It's pretty big stretch to call Climate change "science" considering how polarized it is now.

The goalposts keep moving. A decade ago the "question" was whether climate change existed, now it has since moved to if the climate change we see is human caused or part of some natural cycle.
Agricultural communities in almost all parts of the United States will tell you that their growing seasons are longer (or shorter) with strained water resources and changing environment which affects the crops that can grow there. Wine vineyards from California will "emigrate" East, rice fields in South Carolina to the West, and avocado production will simple cease to exist in many parts. And these were staple crops for some of these regions since the Civil war or even earlier, the Revolutionary War.

The Florida everglades ARE going to disappear shortly, and chronic flooding now threatens almost any beach adjacent property there (its also why some Republican legislators in Florida recognize climate change).

This isn't a partisan issue. It's purely manufactured to appear so.

>some pun about poles
It's a pretty big stretch to call 0.99...==1 "math" considering how polarized it is now.

It's sponsored by Verily (owned by Alphabet aka Google), so no.

Please read again what I said. I think you misunderstood completely.

To summarize: The "march for science" is not about science but foremost about leftist politics. Read their website.

>Because the anti-science crews are mostly right.
So fucking what? Does that mean that EVERY criticism against them must be from the left.
Especially, as you stated, because the left has their science denialists too.

You can argue for evidence based policies WITHOUT arguing for leftist policies.

There is no inherent connection between wanting policies based on science and far left policies.

...

What a bunch of faggots.

What is your problem?

I don't think you realize that the "march for science" should have NO political ideology and that not everyone who isnt a member of the far left is a nazi.

Do you really not understand that I am not arguing for any kind of policies but instead I argue that the "march for science" should be about science and ONLY science?

>that definition of fascism
There was nothing fascist in there

But it is.

The far left has the need to label anyone who opposes them as a fascist.

That pic is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen.

Communism has already wrecked many nation and killed hundreds of millions and they are attempting to normalize their totalitarian ideology by defining anyone who opposes them (aka. has a brain) as a nazi.

t. economically illiterate faggot

Not for any person who is either sane or has any knowledge about politics.

Whats up fellow stormcuck

You have to go back

>National Socialism
>right wing

>stormcuck

Are you schizophrenic? Nothing I said relates to specific policies or has anything to do with right wing ideas.
I only said that I want to have NO politics in science.

Either you should seek professional help or realize that your ideology makes you hate everyone who doesnt hold the same viwes as you.

Intelligence was never a strong point of the far left.

>Either you should seek professional help or realize that your ideology makes you hate everyone who doesnt hold the same viwes as you

You should def do that, yeah. Oh, you werent asking for advice?

Don't be silly user and stop projecting.

Please tell me what I said that in ANY way relates to me being even moderately right wing.

Not some strawman, actual quotes.

>implying I'm far-left because I acknowledge that national socialism isn't a leftist ideology
>implying I'm leftist at all

Is a leftist ideology*

I was talking about that retard who made the pic...

Cuck.

That makes more sense

>philosophically inept
This is a virtue

>Neo Darwinism
I'm guessing you mean modern synthesis, and I completely don't see why you'd have a problem with that

>educated creation scientists
Oxymoron

>science degree in biology
He just has a bachelor. That doesn't make him an expert on the subject.
He also believes that the Universe is 6000 years old which is pretty unscientific.

> This is a virtue
Thank you for signaling how retard you are. This complements your last comment.

Redditfag

My point was that Ham is more qualified than Nye to speak on the matter. At least Ham is familiar with the arguments for evolution whereas Nye just shows up for the money.

There's Dawkins won't debate scientists like Sarfati.

> 6000 years old
Which it is. However it's unlikely you are familiar with the arguments for a young-Earth. creation.com or answersingenesis provide the evidence and relevant studies to back up their claims.

This has to be bait

>Thank you for signaling how retard you are
Name one accomplishment of philosophy
Oops

>This complements your last comment
That was my first comment itt

>Redditfag
Says the person using reddit spacing

It's not a march for science, it's a march for 'progressive' politics using science as a veneer of impartial credibility.

What the fuck do you expect when trump defunds the EPA and Pence is a young earth creationist, who wants to teach it as an alternative in schools

why the fuck would I even want to march for science. I want to rot in the lab, leave me alone

The anti-nuclear left is easily the most ignorant, damaging anti-science force in politics. They are more to blame for climate change than everybody on the right put together.

ha.
ha.
ha.

>However it's unlikely you are familiar with the arguments for a young-Earth.
I am familiar with it. It moslty comes down to religious, theological or philosophical arguments which are not scientific arguments. It doesn't explain the observations of nature duch as radiometric dating, geological observations of the formations of mountains, orogeny, astronomy ... The earth is around 4.5 billion years old.

What's more likely to happen is average joe who hates being called a racist by the media 24/7 now also hates science because it is associated with leftism

See Stop supporting anti-science or stop whining

yea no thanks

>What the fuck do you expect when trump defunds the EPA and Pence is a young earth creationist, who wants to teach it as an alternative in schools
I expect (and I honestly believe that this is justified) that protest FOR science should not be about a certain clearly leftist political agenda.

Leftist may protest as they wish but they SHOULD NEVER be allowed to do that by abusing science.

You realize that this "march for science", led by leftist ideologues hurts the public image of science and the appeal of science a lot more then it helps?

Do you honestly think that it is a good Idea that science should be a tool used by ideologues? Do you really want that? Ideologues have always used "science" to push their ideas, Stalin did it, Hitler did it and both times it significantly HURT science. Why? Because SCIENCE HAS NO IDEOLOGY and equipping it with one is the most unscientific thing you can do.

Yes. I'm a scientist and I'll be marching.

Listen to yourself. You're telling people on the math and science board to stop being anti science. This is the extent of the left's mental gymnastics. We're whining for a good reason.

You're assuming everybody on a math and science board support math and science, and aren't just low-IQ trolls visiting from the white supremacy board.

stop being a brainlet

>You're telling people on the math and science board to stop being anti science
There are people obviously people here who support the republicans, who are like the anti science party of the entire fucking planet

The conservatives should fucking stop denying it, maybe that's the solution, rather than leftists supporting science

It's again,
actually does sound very reasonable and they shouldn't appropriate science to push their agenda, but the problem in the first place, and the reason this is possible is science denial by most of the republican party

Leftists at their finest. Saying that if you support republicans you must be anti science. You are Litterally fucking retarded, did you know that?

Fascism as a historical movement always comes from capitalism in decay. It amounts to the uncritical, absolute defense of capital under the weight of its own contradictions, and appropriates left-wing rhetoric and iconography to this end. It serves only to smash imminent proletarian revolution.
You kind of have to understand the state as a device of class rule in the first place, or you're hopelessly unequipped to grasp any of the 20th century

(You)

You said it yourself, if you're against them you're a Nazi.

>one of these men is an actual scientist
>the other is a clown on TV for little children

Hmm, which one would I rather listen to?

>only retards think that supporting the anti-science party in its anti-science policies makes you anti-science

>no position on any issue can ever claim to be scientific, "pro-science," or in line with the scientific consensus and best evidence we have, and anyone who disagrees is literally hitler

>Please tell me what I said that in ANY way relates to me being even moderately right wing.
The assessment you made here >The far left has the need to label anyone who opposes them as a fascist.
is a pretty uniquely right-wing position.

>As as a pretty far right guy it really piss me off that idiot liberals are always trying to co-opt science

Bingo. I'm doing a PhD in a STEM field, it pisses me off when I hear a bunch of left-wing journals and bloggers (who majored in humanities or arts) lecture me about how they "support" science or whatever.

>and the rise of the unthinking jingoists

But the antifa faggots have managed to accomplish even less than OWS ever did, so what's your point retard?

>Because the anti-science crews are mostly right.

The left literally thinks that truth doesn't exist because it is racist. You can't have science without truth existing. Also, unironically believing in climate change makes you a legitimate retard. Sorry kiddo.

This.

Dude, where's your argument?

>The point is to start lobbying like business interests since that is increasingly how the right thinks science should operate.

You do realize it has been operating this way for decades right? It's funny that you deride military spending when all of our most advance scientific research comes from the top secret black sector of the budget which gave us GPS and cellular technology. I don't see how myself not wanting someone to steal from me so they can use those resources to put shrimp on treadmills is "anti-science".

>The left literally thinks that truth doesn't exist because it is racist.
Yeah, that's the "social justice" crowd, and in no substantial sense are they "left." Subjective idealism is always a reactionary position which obscures the real mechanics of human society and stands at odds with historical materialism; /pol/ and tumblr merely substitute one identity group for the other in their politics.

Cliffnotes for the lazy

>The goalposts keep moving. A decade ago the "question" was whether climate change existed, now it has since moved to if the climate change we see is human caused or part of some natural cycle.

Sounds like its less goal posts being moved and a consensus is forming. The fact you called it moving a goal post, indicates that you reflexively moved to counter with emotions rather than thinking. Which just goes to show exactly how politicized the issue has become.

I don't know. I don't really care. I get that it affects me but it's also just a bunch of douchebags marching for their own interests. Wow, scientists support funding for science, who would have thought? It's almost as if people think whatever they do is really important and like being given money for it.

>You can't have science without truth existing. Also, unironically believing in climate change makes you a legitimate retard
ironing

>Dude, where's your argument?
It's laughable that the proportion of progressives who are anti-nuclear and don't deny science are more damaging to science than the fucking republicans. The fucking republicans, who believe vaccines cause autism, the world was made in seven days and want to teach creationism in schools, who deny climate change, who literally come up with whatever facts it takes to keep their shitty anti truth and alternative fact-based ideology afloat

I'm talking about americans, as I'm assuming you were. Here in europe conservatives can actually be vaguely reasonably about science sometimes

Science is not about consensus.

Yeah, it's about individual opinion, you just choose the idiot on youtube who agrees with your initial intuitions, that's how science is done

You misunderstood. I am arguing against the notion of science being "settled". Science is not about consensus, it is about evidence and the degree to which that evidence supports theory. The majority of evidence appears to agree with AGW theory, but it is grossly unscientific to refuse evaluation of research that suggests otherwise.

sounds reasonable
if experts agree however where the ecidence points then that's really the best approximation of reality, and it's what policy makers should look at

Conservatives are subject to much more ridicule for their retarded beliefs. Meanwhile, we're pissing money away at meme renewable energy projects because we have to appease screeching democrats who will never bother to understand nuclear power beyond "reactor = chernobyl = apocalypse."

>Conservatives are subject to much more ridicule for their retarded beliefs
And they currently have the fucking congress and everything, not enough ridicule maybe?
At least it's something, that democrat candidates don't deny climate change in the first place

>Implying their blind hatred of GMOs, nuclear power, wireless, fracking, pipelines, etc is any better

>any better
yes
here's two ways

1)AGW is a bigger issue than those things
2)there are some who have a 'blind hatred', but there's also a lot of people that don't

meanwhile, the only people who agree AGW is real on the right are OK with it since they think it will only affect people living around the equator - subhumans, so who cares
"fewer africans, indians, southern europeans, mexicans"
this is the thought process

Of course not. It's been coopted before it's even out the gate. I doubt it was ever "scientific" or about science policy. It's scheduled for Earth Day and the logo has a little Earth, so I'm going to guess it's climate change advocacy.

Nothing like thousands of people flying in on jets to raise awareness about global warming.

>meanwhile, the only people who agree AGW is real on the right are OK with it since they think it will only affect people living around the equator - subhumans, so who cares
>"fewer africans, indians, southern europeans, mexicans"
>this is the thought process
This is the thinking that got trump elected, painting people, even moderate people, into a corner as incredible racists

>moderate
are you going to pretend you aren't a /pol/fag right now

I actually support the democrats an awful lot, here in germany I vote SPD which is SocDem, but saying that racism is such a huge issue alienates moderates, it's simply true