Fauci is anti-science. — fishfry
Counterpunch advocates scientism. — Banno
tarot cards, astrology, ouija boards, haruspex, divination — counterpunch
Fauci is anti-science.
— fishfry
No need to say anything further, that speaks volumes. — Wayfarer
Fauci is not even a scientist. He has an MD but never practiced medicine. He's been a bureaucrat all his life. Surely you can't hold him up as a scientist. And his endless politicized flipflops speak for themselves.
I read in the weekend papers that the Lab Escape theory is being re-considered. If that turns out to be the case, then so be it, although presumably it might have serious ramifications for China. — Wayfarer
So - you're either pro-science, or you're relegated to pagan superstition. They're your choices. — Wayfarer
fishfry is talking about politics and policy but calling it science. — Banno
Fauci is not even a scientist. — Fishfry
Anthony Stephen Fauci is an American physician-scientist and immunologist who serves as the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the chief medical advisor to the president.
As a physician with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Fauci has served the American public health sector in various capacities for more than 50 years, and has acted as an advisor to every U.S. president since Ronald Reagan.[1] He became director of the NIAID in 1984 and has made contributions to HIV/AIDS research and other immunodeficiency diseases, both as a research scientist and as the head of the NIAID.[2] From 1983 to 2002, Fauci was one of the world's most frequently-cited scientists across all scientific journals. — Wikipedia
That's simply th converse of treating policy as if it were science. — Banno
What we've been treated to over the past year is science laced with rat poison. — fishfry
Next organism might be much worse. COVID-19 was a lucky test run. — frank
Unfortunately we learned that large swaths of America didn't evolve due to the test run, which is weird. Cultural flaw revealed, I guess. — frank
Full disclosure, I didn't read the entire article. — fishfry
Only that finally, after a year, people are starting to admit the possibility. — fishfry
Science works by saying, "Let's keep an open mind and look at the facts." Not, "Let's decide on one conclusion in spite of available facts, and deplatform and smear anyone who dares to differ." That's anti-science, and that is what happened over the past year. — fishfry
Fauci is a political hack who changed his mind and flipflopped with the wind. Fauci is anti-science. — fishfry
A year ago, when people suggested a lab origin, they were deplatformed, fired from their scientific jobs, and labeled conspiracy theorists. That's politics, not science. — fishfry
I did not say she got what she deserved. I questioned your comparison to what happened to a man who was killed by having his neck kneeled on for over nine minutes. — Fooloso4
Then why make claims about what you didn't read? — Fooloso4
Only that finally, after a year, people are starting to admit the possibility.
— fishfry
And why do you think that is? — Fooloso4
In addition to not bothering to read the article you linked to it seems you have not bothered to find out the facts either. — Fooloso4
It was the political hack who was elected President who suppressed the facts and forced Fauci to play by his rules. He is not anti-science and has the credentials to prove it. — Fooloso4
What evidence did they have? What did Tom Cotton know? On the one hand you — Fooloso4
I am criticizing those who in the past year constantly called policy by the name of science. — fishfry
A test run of man-made bioweapon — fishfry
For the majority of the past year your man Trump was in office. — Fooloso4
What evidence do you have of that? Again, you hear part of something and make up your own story or blindly believe conspiracy theories as if the are "alternative facts". Even if it came from a lab that does mean it was deliberately released as a test run of a bio-weapon. — Fooloso4
am not going to continue playing a part in another of your political rants, conspiracy theories, and alternatives to facts. — Fooloso4
I'm seeking out those who disagree with this proposition: Science is a good thing, to see what their arguments are. — Banno
Without the scientific research of modern psychology and sociology there would be no propaganda, or rather we would still be in the primitive stages of propaganda that existed in the time of Pericles or Augustus. Of course, propagandists may be insufficiently versed in these branches of science; they may misunderstand them, go beyond the cautious conclusions of the psychologists, or claim to apply certain psychological discoveries that, in fact, do not apply at all. But all this only shows efforts to find new ways; only for the past fifty years have men sought to apply the psychological and sociological sciences. The important thing is that propaganda has decided to submit itself to science and to make use of it. Of course, psychologists may be scandalized and say that this is a misuse of their science. But this argument carries no weight; the same applies to our physicists and the atomic bomb. The scientist should know that he lives in a world where his discoveries will be utilized. Propagandists inevitably will have a better understanding of sociology and psychology, use them with increasing precision, and as a result become more effective. — Jacques Ellul, 'Propaganda' (1965)'
Our entire much-praised technological progress, and civilization generally, could be compared to an axe in the hand of a pathological criminal. — Albert Einstein, (1917)
In 2009 the AAAI (Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence) held a conference that dealt with the dangers posed by the development of artificial intelligence, and as possible remedies the participating scientists considered "limits on research," the confinement of some research to "a high-security laboratory," and a "cadre" that was to "shape the advances and help society cope with the ramifications" of artificial intelligence. It's hard to tell to what extent all this was a public-relations effort and to what extent the scientists actually believed in it, but in any case their proposals were hopelessly naive.
[...]
In any case, however sophisticated the propagandists' arguments may be, everything relevant that I've seen in the media up to the present (2016) seems to indicate that most scientists' thinking about the social and moral implications of their work is still at a superficial, or even juvenile level.
[...]
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak thinks that "robots taking over would be good for the human race," because they'll be "smarter than us" and will make us like "the family pet and taken care of all the time." — Ted Kaczynski, 'Technological Slavery' (2019)
Yep.Science is used for evil — darthbarracuda
most scientists do not know and/or care — darthbarracuda
Not peer-reviewed scientific journal studies, but it does purport to contain witness testimony, and for those who accept its premisses, it presents a coherent worldview, notwithstanding that it doesn’t meet the criteria of scientific empiricism. Besides, we all believe more than we can plausibly prove or know for certain. — Wayfarer
I think you know what I meant. The "good Germans" we heard so much about, as in "Where were the good Germans?" Now that I've seen the past few years in the US, I understand better where they were. — fishfry
Well then we're all in agreement. Personally I don't resist cops, I comply and act polite. That's because when I was young and foolish, I sassed off to a cop and got a night in the Oakland, CA city jail for my troubles. Got my Ph.D. in the criminal justice system that night. Now that I'm old and foolish, I'm polite to cops. — fishfry
The only alternatives to science are — Wayfarer
So - you're either pro-science, or you're relegated to pagan superstition. They're your choices. — Wayfarer
counterpunch buys into the pop story of Catholic anti-scientific practice. — Banno
It's partly right, of course, but the story is much more complicated. — Banno
He rejects the Haack article without providing any critique. Counterpunch advocates scientism. — Banno
Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, which he called the "primeval atom". — counterpunch
By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism.[35] However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[36][37][16] Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's scientific advisor, persuaded the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly, and to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[38] Lemaître was a devout Catholic, but opposed mixing science with religion,[38] although he held that the two fields were not in conflict.[39] — Wikipedia
I reject the concept of scientism as an attempt to put science back in a box in which it doesn't belong in the first place - a box formed (in large part) by 400 years of religious anti-science propaganda. — counterpunch
The fact that you take it to mean that, only confirms what I said previously - that proponents of scientism will generally fail to recognise what it means. Daniel Dennett says the same: 'Scientism: I don't know anybody who is guilty of it. Scientism is a strawman used by people who object to science 'poking its nose into places it shouldn't be.'
I think we're done, Counterpunch - we're plainly just talking past one another. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.