Another "scientist' exposed as fake

[SpiralHawk]

Big surprise, wouldn't you say?
:eyes: :eyes:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-giberson-phd/evangelicals-and-science_b_975821.html

[JHB]

1. Who are you referring to as the fake? the Discovery Institute?

The column is about evangelicals' ploys to paint scientists as just another ideologically-driven group and their arguments as just so much rhetoric. Nobody is accused of being a fake, or at least no individual. The Discovery Institute is singled out over a recent case of misrepresenting what a scientist said, but that's nothing new. Creationists have been doing that for decades.

[SidDithers]

2. Boy, that fake psychic thread really struck a nerve, eh?...

There are no psychics. Mysticism is bunk.

Unrec for (bad) copycat thread.

Sid

[trotsky]

3. The Discovery Institute has far more in common with psychics and woo...

than it does with actual science. So thanks for yet another example of REAL SCIENCE winning again!

[Archae]

4. Science works with evidence.

Creationism, (of which the Discovery Institute is pushing,) and "psychics" work on faith.

"Ya just gotta BELIEVE! And then you can fly!"

[SpiralHawk]

5. It is quaint that you so devoutly believe in Materialism

And one must immediately concede that the world does indeed have it's share of fake scientists.

Just as the world has a share of fake psychics.

But a smattering of fake anything, does not disprove everything.

Therefore, as the self-appointed Ultimate Expert on these and all vaguely related matters, I hereby declare that everyone may safely unbunch their undies over the fake poutrages and granfalloons of the day.

[SidDithers]

6. There might be fake scientists out there...

but there's no such thing as a non-fake psychic.

Sid

[SpiralHawk]

11. Prove it

I want to see some hard evidence of your 'claim.'

[SidDithers]

14. Prove a negative. LOL...

Be pretty easy to disprove my claim though. Go for it.

Sid

[Desertrose]

16. Actually your claim is not a negative. So, prove it...prove that ALL are fakes.

Go for it.

[SidDithers]

18. " no such thing as a non-fake psychic."...

That's a negative statement, dearie.

All it takes is one to prove me wrong. So, whatcha got?

Nuthin', is my guess.

Sid

[Desertrose]

19. Semantic games.

Saying no such thing as a non-fake psychic is actually saying that all psychics are fake.

Not a negative at all, dearie.

[SidDithers]

20. You understand language about as well as you understand science...nt

Sid

[Fuzz]

21. You are kidding, right?

[SpiralHawk]

27. Thanks for admitting that the sweeping statements about psychics are indefensible

I admire your honesty.

Until someone proves that they are all fake, those of us who know differently -- and who also know personally gifted individuals of honor and integrity -- will continue to respect the truth.

[LadyHawkAZ]

24. What would you consider "proof"?

[Archae]

10. Except science is self-correcting. Woo is not.

Good example being that "doctor" Wakefield, who said he had evidence that autism was caused by vaccines.

Turns out his "scientific" evidence was exposed as fake, by other doctors.

So scientifically, Wakefield has been exposed as a fraud, but Wakefield continues pushing his woo to the suckers.

[Abin Sur]

25. What's "quaint" about Materialism?

Just wondering...

[pokerfan]

26. xkcd 808

[themadstork]

31. Who said anything about materialism?

[Major Nikon]

8. There you go

Couple this with the fact that the GOP is now controlled by the crème-de-la-dumb, and it doesn't take much abstract thinking to figure out why they throw sound science out the window in favor of hocus-pocus superstitious nonsense.

[SpiralHawk]

28. The OP does not attack science at all. It simply states that there are some fake scientists

and if you want proof of that get thee to a googlery...so don't go off track about something that is not in the OP.

[Major Nikon]

30. I'm not claiming anything of the sort

I'll thank you not to make false claims about what I said and then argue from that false premise.

[snooper2]

7. "There is no obvious reason why evangelical faith commitments should motivate the faithful to"

reject climate science. "


Sure there is, first off they are all ignorant. I mean, not just your normal ignorant, really fucking stupid. Second, you have a captive audience of millions to help push your agenda.

Easy pawns...

[Lucian]

9. I can't help but think that anyone who denies science has an IQ of about 40.

I'll take my evidence over mystical bunk any day.

[SpiralHawk]

12. The OP does not deny science in any way whatsoever.

It states a fact: there are fake scientists. Some of them fudge data to get phony results. There are also fake psychics. These are just facts of life. The truth is hard for some people to accept. But it remains important to state the truth, even if people choose to 'believe' otherwise.

[AngkorWot]

13. Did you even read the article?

It's about the "Discovery Institute"

Creationism. No tangible difference between Creationism and the goofy mysticism you yourself subscribe to.

[jberryhill]

15. Busted irony meter, apparently

The article linked in the OP is about what happens when a spiritual agenda infects scientific inquiry.

[jberryhill]

17. Yep, he was really selling spiritual hogwash

The interesting thing about science is that its results are independently reproducible, and don't depend on the character or ability of any one person.

[LeftyMom]

22. Even if you could somehow disprove science*, that wouldn't prove psychics are real.

You have to prove psychic stuff all on it's own, and you haven't.

*which is silly all on it's own, because science is an approach to evaluating information, not a static body of knowledge

[SpiralHawk]

29. No one is trying to prove psychics are real

Where did you get that?

Using the kinds of rational 'scientific' criteria that materialists demand to measure transrational phenomena, is like using a yardstick to determine how many calories are in a loaf of bread. Wrong tool for the job. But that doesn't stop Materialist Zealots from using them and then 'claiming' that they are somehow 'right' in their denunciations of subtle realities.

[Matariki]

23. Ha! Excellent post!

:rofl: