A more important question is this: Can science survive “liberalism”?
You are goring a lot of Freepers. “The Bell Curve” references coming in 3...2...1....
The Rats have made a point to pay for science findings that support their agenda for a long time.
The question really should be: “Can honest, un-compromised scientists get their message/ findings out through peer review procedures that also have been compromised, or through the media that does the bidding of the Left?
The Left, over the years, has meticulously stacked the deck in favor of their propaganda, not honest science.
Here is the Liberal “Truth” pecking order:
It is TRUE if:
1. It helps me get re-elected.
2. It increases my wealth.
3. It helps other Democrats get elected.
4. ...
5 ...
6 ...
...
99. It is true based on the best available evidence.
Liberalism can’t survive the truth. Fortunately for most liberals they’re immune to facts.
1. Willful Self-Determination
2. Wicked Self-Deception
3. Woeful Self-Destruction
I think those are a universal truth and a scientific way of measuring anything in our world, but especially useful for my thoughts and me, as well as for other individuals, groups, businesses, societies and governments, etc.
Violate the laws this world runs by and sooner or later something’s gonna break ... it’s just that way.
And by that measure, the demonrat party is in a very bad place.
It’s hard to be more wickedly self-deceived about things than they are now, but I bet they can find a way!
So, maybe it’s a good time to be a safe distance away from them and what’s coming ... asap if not sooner.
If interested, that Adrian Rogers sermon can be heard here:
https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/love-worth-finding/custom-player/the-lost-world-571284.html > The Lost World
Collectivism is the temporary suspension of truth. After 3-4 generations, people grow weary of it.
“Let start with their insistence on classifying and grouping individuals — the only real unit of humanity — based on a handful of traits or behaviors and acting as though these groups — their own creation — are actually real in some physical sense.”
This is BS. Both classifications are valid and useful, it doesn’t have to be one or the other. If I want a good hunting dog I’ll choose a pointer rather than a poodle. If I want a scary watchdog I’ll go with a pitbull rather than a chihuahua.
If I had to randomly pick somebody good at math, I would take my chances with an Asian over a black, whereas if I had to pick a basketball player I might opt for the opposite.
The guy that wrote this tripe also neglects the great affinity people have for their group or tribe, and there’s no group people identify more than their race.
I’m willing to bet that he lives in a lily white neighborhood and that most of his friends are white.
If you’re looking for reality, that’s reality, and we have to deal with it, not pretend it doesn’t or shouldn’t exist.
John, I too believe in science - with the emphatic ‘caveat’ that science is skepticism. Anyone can post a claim, but only replicable claims are science. A claim which cannot be disproven is not a scientific claim.Note that three words describe poles of skepticism:
It is “intuitively obvious” that cynicism is “extreme skepticism.” Obvious but, IMHO, quite untrue. Untrue because skepticism is about doubt - and cynicism is actually not doubt at all. Rather, cynicism rejects doubt about the negation of whatever you are cynical about.
- naiveté,
- skepticism, and
- cynicism
Thus, in a backhanded way, cynicism is naiveté. Cynicism is therefore just as uscientific as is naiveté.