Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

[Hiro]

Try this for example - what good would it do to "save the environment" (which, by the way, does not need saving in the first place...)

 

What do you mean by "does not need saving" - do you think that the environment is indestructible? You can't possibly pollute the air, or dump chemicals into water? Whatever you do running roughshod over ecosystems you can't negatively impact them?

[Audio_ELF]

Eloise

That's exactly what the Australian Federal Government led by U.K. born Tony Abbott is doing to Australia.

He disbands , or attempts to disband, any advisory Scientific board who dares to disagree with his Government's stand on this. He was even pissed off by a speech Obama made on climate change when in Australia recently.

Alex

There's no need to blame it on him being British born ... Or I'll start mentioning all the bad things the Australian born Murdoch does...

 

Oh and "you" (meaning Australian's) voted him in!

[sandyk]

There's no need to blame it on him being British born ...

 

Why not ? These days you appear to be a nation of sceptics ! (grin)

[gmgraves]

You are ahead of us ? If your figures are correct you are way behind us.

Do you have cigarettes out of view in stores, plain packaging with health warnings and photos of diseased lungs etc on the packets ?

Do you have cigarette advertising on TV etc. ? We don't permit it..

These aren't the latest figures either.

 

http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/Factsheet-Smoking.pdf

 

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=cigarette+packaging+australia&biw=1280&bih=566&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=PiX0VIiLJsXcmAX7goHwCg&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&dpr=1.5

 

 

In the US, we don't allow cigarette advertising on TV or radio, either. I think they are still allowed in print and on billboards, but I must admit that I haven't noticed either in a number of years, but that could be because I'm inured to such ads and don't pay any attention to them. Yes, cigarettes are kept out-of-sight and out-of-reach in stores. We do not require plain packaging and cigarette brands can still use their normal packaging; but I don't see the point of plain packages. It's not like people don't know what's in 'em! The US was the first (to the best of my knowledge) to federally mandate a health warning on cigarette packs, but we don't do pictures of diseased lungs. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but one thing the US does do is tax the hell out of cigarettes. When I was in college, a pack of cigarettes was a quarter (US$0.25), now they are about US$5.00 a pack. Talk about a disincentive to smoke! You really have to be addicted to pay those prices. Luckily, I have never smoked cigarettes in my life!

Are we behind Australia WRT this? I don't think so. We just have a different approach - I.E. not so heavy handed. As quickly toward a more totalitarian "nanny state" as the US is heading, we're not there yet and in that arena, I will admit that we are certainly behind many countries in the world, including Australia. I, for one, thank whatever gods may be for that small blessing.

[Jud]

Let me turn that around, why would I want someone who doesn't know how to govern setting up public policy, rules, and restrictions - all backed by the full force of the federal government?

 

-Paul

 

Indeed, why would anyone want men of science like Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin involved in government? That could never work!

[gmgraves]

What do you mean by "does not need saving" - do you think that the environment is indestructible? You can't possibly pollute the air, or dump chemicals into water? Whatever you do running roughshod over ecosystems you can't negatively impact them?

 

Actually, if the natural history of the world has shown us anything, it's just that. The environment is, most assuredly, indestructible! Now wether or not the environment can be damaged so badly that people can't exist in it any more is another matter. Many times in the past, some natural environmental catastrophe has rendered this planet "momentarily" (geologically speaking) uninhabitable. Such disasters have included global ice ages, volcanically, extremely active eras where the atmosphere was so poisoned that all but the heartiest of life survived, etc. But the earth has always bounced back. I suspect, that until the sun extinguishes it's supply of fusible hydrogen and starts to expand into a red giant that encroaches upon, and eventually consumes this planet's orbit, that it likely always will.

[Jud]

Paul, is not your example proving that there is very little political influence in the scientific community?

 

Without turning this into a "is climate change real" debate, the prevailing opinion amongst scientists would be that it does exist and is caused by humans. If the scientists were influenced so much by politics and political expediency, would not concerns over "wrecking the economy" override that opinion much more?

 

...

 

The Koch-brothers-funded website Paul cited the last time we discussed this says not.

[Hiro]

Actually, if the natural history of the world has shown us anything, it's just that. The environment is, most assuredly, indestructible! Now wether or not the environment can be damaged so badly that people can't exist in it any more is another matter.

 

For the record, I wasn't talking about tearing the entire planet into small pieces. As for your comment about the possibility of damaging the environment "so badly that people can't exist in it any more", it is not in the slightest reassuring.

 

It would be of little comfort to someone who, for instance, contracted cancer after working with asbestos, if we said to them, hey, we've failed to test the toxicity of this material before allowing it into use, but the humanity has survived.

[Audio_ELF]

The Koch-brothers-funded website Paul cited the last time we discussed this says not.

I did say "prevailing opinion"...

[Audio_ELF]

Actually, if the natural history of the world has shown us anything, it's just that. The environment is, most assuredly, indestructible! Now wether or not the environment can be damaged so badly that people can't exist in it any more is another matter. Many times in the past, some natural environmental catastrophe has rendered this planet "momentarily" (geologically speaking) uninhabitable. Such disasters have included global ice ages, volcanically, extremely active eras where the atmosphere was so poisoned that all but the heartiest of life survived, etc. But the earth has always bounced back. I suspect, that until the sun extinguishes it's supply of fusible hydrogen and starts to expand into a red giant that encroaches upon, and eventually consumes this planet's orbit, that it likely always will.

Of course IF there was once life on Mars, then it shows that a significant event could destroy an environment totally ... Or at least sufficiently to extinguish all life.

[Paul R]

I'm glad you realize this. And I don't need to mention that I concur 100%.

 

What does religion have to say about, for example, environment? I really would like to know.

 

Depends - mostly there are threads about stewardship of the environment, so far as I know. Some religions have very intense beliefs about the environment. That's why you need politicians, their job is to figure out the most acceptable, or perhaps the least un-acceptable, solution for any particular situation.

[Paul R]

The Koch-brothers-funded website Paul cited the last time we discussed this says not.

 

Hey- I do not believe I put any references up from any web site Jud - that was your contribution. Not that I am keeping track..

[Paul R]

Paul, is not your example proving that there is very little political influence in the scientific community?

 

Without turning this into a "is climate change real" debate, the prevailing opinion amongst scientists would be that it does exist and is caused by humans. If the scientists were influenced so much by politics and political expediency, would not concerns over "wrecking the economy" override that opinion much more?

 

Oh and policy decisions should be made on the basis of expert opinions not what flies well in the headlines...

 

There is incredible political influence in the scientific community. The science would wither and stop without funding, and like it or not, governments are where a very great deal of the money for all science activities comes from. You have to pay the devil his due.

 

The fact that the AGW proponents are not considering the economy and the effect on human societies *more* is actually a good argument to keep them out of government as well..

[Audio_ELF]

What does religion have to say about, for example, environment? I really would like to know.

Well the meek will inherit the earth... So we'd better destroy it before they get the chance.

[Audio_ELF]

There is incredible political influence in the scientific community. The science would wither and stop without funding, and like it or not, governments are where a very great deal of the money for all science activities comes from. You have to pay the devil his due.

 

The fact that the AGW proponents are not considering the economy and the effect on human societies *more* is actually a good argument to keep them out of government as well..

I'll agree to differ if you will...

[sbgk]

Obama says there's snow in all 56 states due to global warming, I'm sure it's backed by the best science money can buy.

[Paul R]

What do you mean by "does not need saving" - do you think that the environment is indestructible? You can't possibly pollute the air, or dump chemicals into water? Whatever you do running roughshod over ecosystems you can't negatively impact them?

 

Yes, the environment or the planet does not need saving. It will survive any catastrophe we could currently visit upon it. The Siberian Traps adequately proved that. We might not survive, or even most life on the planet. People need protecting.

[Paul R]

I'll agree to differ if you will...

 

Sure! That's one way to ensure that with discussion and research, we will come up with at least one answer than is better than either answer we started with.

[Paul R]

For the record, I wasn't talking about tearing the entire planet into small pieces. As for your comment about the possibility of damaging the environment "so badly that people can't exist in it any more", it is not in the slightest reassuring.

 

It would be of little comfort to someone who, for instance, contracted cancer after working with asbestos, if we said to them, hey, we've failed to test the toxicity of this material before allowing it into use, but the humanity has survived.

 

And yet - that is *exactly* the facts of the matter, no?

[wakibaki]

Personalities differ. They emerge from the undifferentiated unconscious under the influence of a variety of stimuli.

 

Part of the process of individuation is the reconciliation between conflicting world views which may have been incorporated in a child's personality. Some people never fully reconcile the thinking patterns and the datasets they employ in different aspects of their life, say, work and church. Elements of the personality remain compartmentalised.

 

Thus, a person can drive a car, or watch TV, or listen to a hi-fi, and still insist that the science on which all these depend is heresy, typically rejecting the ideas of Darwinian evolution, somehow dismissing the fact that all these things stand or fall as one. The critical introspective capacity which is intolerant of internal inconsistency is incompletely developed in such cases, and the personality remains suggestible.

 

Such inconsistent personalities nevertheless pass the tests of general competence in modern society, where few contexts are survival-critical.

 

In a fully integrated personality internal inconsistency is largely eliminated although indecision remains as a necessary component of developmental thought. The personality is, however, all-of-a-piece, not a collection of ill- or incompletely linked but distinct modules.

[Hiro]

Yes, the environment or the planet does not need saving. It will survive any catastrophe we could currently visit upon it. The Siberian Traps adequately proved that. We might not survive, or even most life on the planet. People need protecting.

 

So you say that the environment doesn't need protecting, but people do need protecting, huh?

 

Here's a thought for you to ponder: we are dependent on our environment.

[Hiro]

Depends - mostly there are threads about stewardship of the environment, so far as I know. Some religions have very intense beliefs about the environment. That's why you need politicians, their job is to figure out the most acceptable, or perhaps the least un-acceptable, solution for any particular situation.

 

What would be the job of politicians in this case, decide which religious beliefs are intense (or not) enough about the environment?

[Mir]

Because people have feelings, emotions, grievance, anger, hallucinations, etc. These things easily override logic and science.

[sandyk]

Are we behind Australia WRT this? I don't think so. We just have a different approach - I.E. not so heavy handed

Australia is presently leading the world in the fight against "coffin nails" Our figures for the drop in the number of smokers speak for themselves, and when later figures become available there will almost certainly be a marked further drop in the % of smokers. We also have restrictions about smoking in many public areas etc. It is also an offence to smoke with children in your car.

Perhaps "Big Tobacco" and it's lobbyists fund either or both of your political parties, so you are afraid to take stronger anti smoking measures ?

BTW, my first wife has terminal lung cancer from smoking. Apparently she didn't quit the habit soon enough.

now they are about US$5.00 a pack.

What a sick joke. Clearly, you guys are too scared to make them unaffordable to most !

 

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/cigarette-packets-to-cost-more-than-20-as-smokers-hit-with-53-billion-in-extra-taxes/story-fnihsrf2-1226689145482

[Priaptor]

Yes, the environment or the planet does not need saving. It will survive any catastrophe we could currently visit upon it. The Siberian Traps adequately proved that. We might not survive, or even most life on the planet. People need protecting.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

HIRO is so humancentric like man will matter to Mother Earth??

 

The easiest and most economical way to "improve" the ecological footprint of man now would be to tear down all the damns.

 

Hmm I wonder if all the green people would go for that. I would love it.