John Stossel: The left's war on science

G-VilleTider · Apr 11, 2018

I found this interesting and since it is from Fox, I thought many of you who might find it interesting would never see it otherwise

But John Tierney, who's written about science for The New York Times for 25 years and now writes for the Manhattan Institute's City Journal, told me in my latest online video, "The real war on science is the one from the left."

"People talk about this Republican war on science, but if you look around, my question is, where are the casualties? What scientists lost their jobs?" asks Tierney. "I can't find examples where the right wing stopped the progress of science, whereas you can look on the left and you see so many areas that are taboo to research."

Some research on genetically modified foods became taboo because of protests from the left. That may have prevented a second Green Revolution to feed Africa.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/04/11/john-stossel-lefts-war-on-science.html

Don't "automatically" discount it because its from Fox. Stossel is as libertarian as they come.

I find many of the far right's positions absurd, but the far left's more dangerous.

CharminTide · Apr 11, 2018

This is absurdly dumb.

CDC gets list of forbidden words: Fetus, transgender, diversity

Words banned at multiple HHS agencies include ‘diversity’ and ‘vulnerable’

Energy Department climate office bans use of phrase ‘climate change’

Trump's Budget Proposal Cuts NIH Funding by 20 Percent

E.P.A. Cancels Talk on Climate Change by Agency Scientists

Edit: To be clearer: the far left certainly has idiots (anti-vaccination folks and the like), but they're nowhere near political power. The far right is in charge of the U.S. government, which makes a comparison of their relative threat to science, in a word, dumb.

G-VilleTider · Apr 11, 2018

CharminTide said:
This is absurdly dumb.

CDC gets list of forbidden words: Fetus, transgender, diversity

Words banned at multiple HHS agencies include ‘diversity’ and ‘vulnerable’

Energy Department climate office bans use of phrase ‘climate change’

Trump's Budget Proposal Cuts NIH Funding by 20 Percent

E.P.A. Cancels Talk on Climate Change by Agency Scientists

Edit: To be clearer: the far left certainly has idiots (anti-vaccination folks and the like), but they're nowhere near political power. The far right is in charge of the U.S. government, which makes a comparison of their relative threat to science, in a word, dumb.

Hmm, seems to be leaning left to me.

jthomas666 · Apr 11, 2018

G-VilleTider said:
Hmm, seems to be leaning left to me.

Look like the right side is determined to drag down the rest of the ship...

AlexanderFan · Apr 11, 2018

G-VilleTider said:
Hmm, seems to be leaning left to me.

He didn't deny the article, dare I say he deflected your attention....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bodhisattva · Apr 12, 2018

Far too many people don't understand the science they claim to oppose/support.

CharminTide · Apr 12, 2018

AlexanderFan said:
He didn't deny the article, dare I say he deflected your attention....

No, I don't deny there are scientifically dumb people on the far left, and I stated as much. But the premise of this article is stupid. The far left isn't cutting NIH funding, banning scientific words from publications, or preventing government scientists from appearing at conferences because it conflicts with political ideology. This entire line of thought is a deflection from the reality of right wing anti-intellectualism.

jthomas666 · Apr 12, 2018

CharminTide said:
No, I don't deny there are scientifically dumb people on the far left, and I stated as much. But the premise of this article is stupid. The far left isn't cutting NIH funding, banning scientific words from publications, or preventing government scientists from appearing at conferences because it conflicts with political ideology. This entire line of thought is a deflection from the reality of right wing anti-intellectualism.

More to the point, there's a critical difference between being scientifically dumb and systematically undermining the very idea of science (and, by extension, book learnin' in general).

seebell · Apr 12, 2018

Guess the author forgot about embryonic stem cell research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy

Much of the criticism has been a result of religious beliefs, and in the most high-profile case, US President George W Bush signed an executive order banning the use of federal funding for any cell lines other than those already in existence, stating at the time, "My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs," and "I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator."[SUP][3][/SUP] This ban was in part revoked by his successor Barack Obama, who stated "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly." [SUP][4][/SUP]

RammerJammer14 · Apr 12, 2018

seebell said:
Guess the author forgot about embryonic stem cell research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy

Much of the criticism has been a result of religious beliefs, and in the most high-profile case, US President George W Bush signed an executive order banning the use of federal funding for any cell lines other than those already in existence, stating at the time, "My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs," and "I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator."[SUP][3][/SUP] This ban was in part revoked by his successor Barack Obama, who stated "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly." [SUP][4][/SUP]

Well there is a lot of science you can do if you decide you don’t need to hold any ethical standards. I am sure the Nazis learned a lot about human limits testing pressure and nerve agents on Jews.

92tide · Apr 12, 2018

RammerJammer14 said:
Well there is a lot of science you can do if you decide you don’t need to hold any ethical standards. I am sure the Nazis learned a lot about human limits testing pressure and nerve agents on Jews.

correct, stem cell research is just like the holocaust

RammerJammer14 · Apr 12, 2018

92tide said:
correct, stem cell research is just like the holocaust

You can laugh, but acting like someone’s concerns about conducting research on individual human lives is “anti-science” is frankly disingenuous. In fact the whole concept of embryonic stem cell research is itself anti scientific, but I won’t go into that.

CharminTide · Apr 12, 2018

Bodhisattva said:
Far too many people don't understand the science they claim to oppose/support.

^ Indeed.

cbi1972 · Apr 12, 2018

RammerJammer14 said:
Well there is a lot of science you can do if you decide you don’t need to hold any ethical standards. I am sure the Nazis learned a lot about human limits testing pressure and nerve agents on Jews.

Did Josef Mengele Produce Any Useful Medical Research?

plenty of Nazi-era research that doctors have used and built on ever since. But the data gathered in the concentration camps tended towards the gruesome, unscientific, and fairly useless. Two cases where these experiments did have some clear public-health application, though, involved phosgene gas and hypothermia. The latter was part of German efforts to save Luftwaffe pilots downed in the North Sea: working at Dachau, SS doctor Sigmund Rascher had prisoners strapped down naked in freezing weather or submerged in ice water for hours at a time; blood, urine, and mucus samples were taken regularly while their body temperature dropped. On one hand, Rascher obtained data that no responsible researcher ever could, and he developed the life-saving hypothermia treatment technique called rapid active rewarming. On the other hand, he killed as many as 90 people to do it.

JAMA April 6, 1970: Rapid Active External Rewarming in Accidental Hypothermia

Three patients with marked hypothermia resulting from exposure to cold after heavy alcohol consumption were rewarmed in less than eight hours by means of a hyperthermic mattress. Electrocardiography and physical abnormalities reverted to normal during the rewarming period. There were no sequelae. We conclude from the literature and from our experience with these three patients that immediate, active, rapid external rewarming is a simple and effective method of therapy in accidentally cooled patients.

CharminTide · Apr 12, 2018

cbi1972 said:
JAMA April 6, 1970: Rapid Active External Rewarming in Accidental Hypothermia

This is used almost daily in nearly all hospitals across the country.

TIDE-HSV · Apr 12, 2018

RammerJammer14 said:
You can laugh, but acting like someone’s concerns about conducting research on individual human lives is “anti-science” is frankly disingenuous. In fact the whole concept of embryonic stem cell research is itself anti scientific, but I won’t go into that.

Why not? I'm curious...

TIDE-HSV · Apr 12, 2018

Catfish · Apr 12, 2018

TIDE-HSV said:
Why not? I'm curious...

Me, too. This should be good...

RammerJammer14 · Apr 12, 2018

TIDE-HSV said:
Why not? I'm curious...

In short because it ignores or denies that embryos are in fact human life. The actual process is of course scientific. But the premise is faulty. The scientist is creating a human life, halting its development, then destroying that human life in order to get some potentially manipulable stem cells in the name of saving lives with the research later. So they are deliberately killing an innocent in the name of saving lives. It is circular. Moreover, while embryonic stem cell research is pushed due to its potential of starting with “blank” stem cells, it is actually adult stem cells that have proven to be the more promising avenue. I believe it is impermissible to commit an evil act such as creating innocent life and taking it in order for some good in the future.

I don’t particularly expect anyone here, especially those who have liked 92’s comment above, to agree with me. That was not the purpose of my comment. Nor was it my intent to turn this into a discussion on the particular ethics of stem cell research. My intent was to argue that there are reasonable beliefs on the limits of the ethical employment of science and that such a view is not inherently anti scientific. It is not anti scientific to say “I think we have evidence that is a human life and I don’t think we should be killing humans for research”. Seebell brought up embryonic stem cells, I simply don’t think that is a good example. An example of an anti-scientific view expresses on the “right” would be something like young earth creationism, or flat earthers. They deny the science in the face of reason. I would argue that proponents of embryonic stem cell research are the ones ignoring science in that situation. Now the rest of y’all can continue snide remarks on how I compared the deliberate destruction of human embryos to the deliberate destruction of Jews and other undesirables in the holocaust. [emoji4]

92tide · Apr 12, 2018

RammerJammer14 said:
In short because it ignores or denies that embryos are in fact human life. The actual process is of course scientific. But the premise is faulty. The scientist is creating a human life, halting its development, then destroying that human life in order to get some potentially manipulable stem cells in the name of saving lives with the research later. So they are deliberately killing an innocent in the name of saving lives. It is circular. Moreover, while embryonic stem cell research is pushed due to its potential of starting with “blank” stem cells, it is actually adult stem cells that have proven to be the more promising avenue. I believe it is impermissible to commit an evil act such as creating innocent life and taking it in order for some good in the future.

I don’t particularly expect anyone here, especially those who have liked 92’s comment above, to agree with me. That was not the purpose of my comment. Nor was it my intent to turn this into a discussion on the particular ethics of stem cell research. My intent was to argue that there are reasonable beliefs on the limits of the ethical employment of science and that such a view is not inherently anti scientific. It is not anti scientific to say “I think we have evidence that is a human life and I don’t think we should be killing humans for research”. Seebell brought up embryonic stem cells, I simply don’t think that is a good example. An example of an anti-scientific view expresses on the “right” would be something like young earth creationism, or flat earthers. They deny the science in the face of reason. I would argue that proponents of embryonic stem cell research are the ones ignoring science in that situation. Now the rest of y’all can continue snide remarks on how I compared the deliberate destruction of human embryos to the deliberate destruction of Jews and other undesirables in the holocaust. [emoji4]

well, since you did actually make the comparison, i don't think the remarks are that snide.

John Stossel: The left's war on science

Suspended

Hall of Fame

Suspended

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Senior Administrator

Senior Administrator

Attachments

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!