Best
110 Comments
Post
  • #3
    !
    Malarky. Science tells us we need a suitable environment to survive.(Common sense tells us that, too.) It is not foolish or anti-science to want to pass a suitable environment down to the next generation -- it is a survival trait of benefit to our species (and many others).
    As for nature vs nurture? I've never read anyone debate it in general and certainly not to the extent broad generalizations could be made about the political leanings of those involved. I would say a scientist claiming women's brains make them more inclined to dusting than men would need to have good data to back that up but then every scientific claim needs data to back it up.
  • #4
    !
    "Science for the People" was written in 1972. Perhaps it might be more relevant if citations were from this century.
  • #6
    !
    There are differences in the femal brain. No one denies this. Indeed a very good book by that very name, written by a women MD describes it. Even without a book, does any one deny they love to shop? As to dust, I can not say, but my current gf is the first that can enjoy sitting around my apartment without starting to clean it up. A pleasure, because once they start to clean they also start to complain about the mess.

    And the idea that it is unscientific to think we need clear air or water is nonsense. The propenet of this theory should drink a glass of water mixed with cyanide or breath air with cunide gas and test his theory that having clean air or water is not required.
  • #26
    !
    @Mogal lol. I didn't say we *do* like to dust more than men. Only that if a scientist claimed that was a verifiable gender difference, he or she would need to present data to back up that claim.
  • #2
    !
    Science never was the problem, just a way to deflect attention away from the problem. If science was ever a determining factor then abortion would be illegal and creationism would be taught in school.
  • #27
    !
    @hwyangel Throwing around random words does not make for proof. For instance, neuroscience means only "the science of the brain." It does nothing to back up creationism. If you meant neurotheology, then yes, that is an interesting field of research but it still does not have anything to do with creationism.
  • R Load more replies

  • #20
    !
    On most issues I lean conservative, but I'm very liberal in many ways. I believe global warming is real, I'm also convinced humans play a part in it...how much of one I can't say. I care about our environment and acknowledge we are killing ourselves off...but i'm also practical about it. We can't prevent clear cutting rainforests cause the people who LIVE there need the land to make money...we can't prevent poaching because there are too many people who want expensive things and/or parts for folk medicine. We can't prevent overfishing because we're gluttons, etc. We just don't have the science to solve the problems we've created, and every year that passes things will just get worse.
  • #29
    !
    This was written by, and misunderstood by, people who don't really understand science.
    Science is a way of thinking.
    Science is not Truth.
    Science just is a systematic method for approaching objective reality ever more closely.
    The purpose of science is to be able to predict the future.
    If your belief system isn't comfortable with that, I don't mind, but I have found that science and the scientific method work pretty well.
  • #21
    !
    Science is like AIDS and Cancer, both are political issues and neither will be cured until they stop being political issues. Both the left (crazy environmental wackos) and the right (earth in 6000 years old). Both sides are abusing science for their own political gains.
  • #92
    !
    I couldn't disagree more. Science is not political. AIDS, Cancer, AGW, you name it....there is the science and then there is the politicization of the science. Two different things. Anthropogenic global warming is not political, the question of what to do about it if anything is political.
  • #105
    !
    I notice the voting choice is limited here. I contend that most people would like to vote that they are not a problem in this aspect of their beliefs. The majority of this country is still Christian.
  • #97
    !
    They can believe anything they want, but when it comes to running a government, we should stick to accepted, peer reviewed science as exemplified by the National Academy of Science.
  • #96
    !
    I don't get why the left tends to lean more towards a "nurture" than "nature" interpretation. A "nature" interpretation is more in line with promoting equality. At the extreme if all our abilities are just from nature then nobody is responsible for any of their own achievements and everyone should get paid the same because doctors and scientists didn't put in more effort, they were just born with the right genes. Whereas if it's all nurture then since at some point you start self-nurturing that makes it your responsibility.
    As for women having brains different from men. That's called a "statistical average". We should treat people as individuals not statistical averages.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #77
    !
    Also the difference between far left and far right...the far right thinks that they are the messenger of god where the far left thinks that they are god.
  • #72
    !
    "One example: "cognitive creationism." That's the name Shermer gives to the idea that human character and intelligence are shaped entirely by nurture, not by natureBelief in the mind as a tabula rasa shaped almost entirely by culture has been mostly the mantra of liberal intellectuals,"

    Born good? Babies help unlock the origins of morality
    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/...
    http://www.amren.com/news/2012/11/born-good-b...

    "the left's sacred values seem fixated on the environment, leading to an almost religious fervor over the purity and sanctity of air, water and especially food."

    Organic food no better than conventional for kids, pediatricians say
    http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/22/14...
  • #46
    !
    Its funny that when you actually study science open minded, you don't need faith to come to a conclusion. Its there in front of your face.
  • #42
    !
    Personally, I believe in the purity and sanctity of air, water, food AND sex... all are designed by God to provide pleasure, comfort and existence. Oh, and I am a serious science buff.... I don't believe you have to be one or the other... despite the popular rhetoric to the contrary, most of our finest and genious scientists are/were believers of God.
  • R Load more comments...
Post