Monday, September 14, 2020

It's Not That We Don't Understand or Use Science,'s that we don't trust the Left/Progressives/Liberals (LPL).

That post nails it exactly. It always usually amuses me when the people who are hopelessly innumerate (incapable of handling anything more than basic math) and science-clueless (they've HAD some classes - usually the ---- Studies type) take it upon themselves to educate me about the Science in condescending tones.

I used to teach the Physical Science (Physical Science, Physics, Chemistry). I think it's fair to say that I have a better than average understanding of the basic principles, and can comprehend the level of science needed to make decisions.

But, it's fair to say that there is a difference between agreeing that something (let's say the processes that drive Climate Changes) is worthy of study, and insisting that Americans completely destroy their economy to implement ONE potential solution for a problem that may not exist, at least in a form that we can affect.

This country really does need to bring back old-fashioned academic skills, such as the ability to construct a logical and reasoned argument, and debate people using rational responses.

Rather than screaming incoherently that "YOU WANT US ALL TO D-I-I-I-I-E!!!!!!!!!!"

Or swearing and sputtering and calling all who have questions about your position "H8rs!!!!!!!"

They're children. Unfortunately, not actual children (usually), but over-aged, over-privileged, and ill-mannered persons who have reached a chronological age, but, alas, not emotional or intellectual maturity (something that used to be common in mere teens, and sometimes pre-teens).

I'm beginning to think that we need to have some standards for voting:

  • Ability to support yourself without resorting to public assistance or cash from Mumsy and Daddums. There are many of sufficient years, who cannot meet that standard. On the other hand, there are some young teens who could qualify.
  • Ability to explain the provisions of the Constitution, given a short passage from it. Heck, I'd be thrilled to find very many (some who currently vote) who could explain the Bill of Rights, and the limitations of it.
  • More than a year in the same town. Not necessarily owning a home, but showing roots in the place.


Francis W. Porretto said...

I refuse to enfranchise anyone who cannot solve a quadratic equation, both the roots of which are integers. (If you can determine the eigenvector of an arbitrary 3x3 matrix, you get two votes.)

But seriously, what we're seeing here is the substitution of a clever bit of circularity -- not even circular reasoning, just two assertions that are reciprocally justifying -- for the ability to reason from evidence. The two assertions are:

1) Global warming / climate change is undeniable, proved irrefutably by Science;
2) Those who accept this are intellectually and morally superior to those who don't.

The Leftist religion links many Assertions #1 -- all of them worse than doubtful; some unspeakably vile -- to Assertion #2 above. Note how the combination obviates actual thought. Thought isn't required for us who accept the Science! Why not? Because we're intellectually and morally superior!

Sigh. If it weren't for these damnable morals, I could really rake it in as a con man.

Linda Fox said...

I'd give a pass on the quadratic equation - after all, many sentient and perfectly capable adults never even took algebra - and even fewer remember very much about it.

I know Heinlein suggested much the same, but I'm not convinced that the qualification is fair. Perhaps a practical math question, involving calculating of the carpet needed to cover a room, or paint 4 walls? And, including what the cost would be, given a price per gallon?

How about an alternative logic-type question? Or, some other form of demonstration of sufficient brains to make the choices in a voting booth.

NOVA Shooter said...

It is my contention that Robert Heinlein had the right of it in Starship Troopers. We have to limit the franchise. I'm not saying that the way he described in the book is the best way but I can think of a lot of worse ways

We need to find a way to limit it to responsible citizens.

GaryMike said...

There are three types of planets and moons in this solar system:

> Planets/moons where an atmosphere interacts only with rock/ice (Mercury/Venus/Moon/Mars/Pluto, etc.).

> Planets/moons where an atmosphere interacts only with liquid (Jupiter/Saturn/Uranus/Neptune,etc.).

>Planets/moons where an atmosphere interacts with rock/ice & liquid (Earth/Titan, etc.).

(Etc. = future-proofing)

Ask any "climate scientist" which atmosphere is easier to model--the atmosphere that interacts with only solids, only with liquids, or with both.

Ask them how certain are they of their atmospheric modelings of Venus or Jupiter.

How are they so certain of their modelings of Earth's atmosphere, whose surface interactions are considerably more complex?