Republican Congressman says anti-abortion legislation would create jobs

Democratic opponents of a new anti-abortion bill moving through the House of Representatives criticized Republicans on Wednesday for fast-tracking a socially divisive piece of legislation that "does not create a single job." But Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said that he believes legislating against abortion does, in fact, create jobs.

"I would suggest that it is very much the case that those of us in the majority support this legislation because it is the morally right thing to do, but it is also very very true that having a growing population and having new children brought into the world is not harmful to job creation," Goodlatte said at the committee mark-up of the bill. "It very much promotes job creation for all the care and services and so on that need to be provided by a lot of people to raise children."

Conventional wisdom does not support the idea that abortion restrictions boost the economy. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that an anti-abortion bill passed by the House last summer, a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, would cost the federal government $225 million in Medicaid spending over the next decade.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/15/bob-goodlatte-abortion-jobs_n_4604169.html

Since when has the debate on abortion had anything to do with creating jobs?

Since now, apparently. I guess next we'll be hearing that it prevents terrorism, or has fewer calories, or whitens teeth!

It always annoys me when people try to argue from certain stand-points that completely miss the point.
The abortion debate is about whether it's right or not to allow abortion. It's an ethical issue. Not an economic issue and not a health issue.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Democratic opponents of a new anti-abortion bill moving through the House of Representatives criticized Republicans on Wednesday for fast-tracking a socially divisive piece of legislation that "does not create a single job." But Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said that he believes legislating against abortion does, in fact, create jobs.

"I would suggest that it is very much the case that those of us in the majority support this legislation because it is the morally right thing to do, but it is also very very true that having a growing population and having new children brought into the world is not harmful to job creation," Goodlatte said at the committee mark-up of the bill. "It very much promotes job creation for all the care and services and so on that need to be provided by a lot of people to raise children."

Conventional wisdom does not support the idea that abortion restrictions boost the economy. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that an anti-abortion bill passed by the House last summer, a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, would cost the federal government $225 million in Medicaid spending over the next decade.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/15/bob-goodlatte-abortion-jobs_n_4604169.html

The stupidity of some(99.999) members of the GOP long since ceased to surprise me I am afraid

краљица од Хартс wrote:It always annoys me when people try to argue from certain stand-points that completely miss the point.
The abortion debate is about whether it's right or not to allow abortion. It's an ethical issue. Not an economic issue and not a health issue.

I would argue that we're beyond the point of considering the ethics of it. Or, maybe we're not there yet? Here's my take:

We live in a world in which, sadly, pregnancies aren't always happy news. As long as that is true, there will be people (women AND men) seeking to terminate pregnancies.

Given that, should society force abortions to be performed by unlicensed people who operate on the wrong side of the law, or should abortion be safe, legal and well-regulated?

Side note -- "pro-life" side aggravates me for so many reasons -- they act like women don't think about it before having an abortion; they act like banning abortion will prevent it from happening (which has worked so well with all other crimes) and they act like banning abortion is the only way to address their desire to see fewer of them performed. Going back to my first point, if we were to make society into the sort of place where fewer pregnancies were unwanted, that would be the most effective way to stop people from having abortions.

 

ONLY goes to prove that many of those Republicans really DO live off in another universe somewhere, far, far away from reality...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

краљица од Хартс wrote:It always annoys me when people try to argue from certain stand-points that completely miss the point.
The abortion debate is about whether it's right or not to allow abortion. It's an ethical issue. Not an economic issue and not a health issue.

I would argue that we're beyond the point of considering the ethics of it. Or, maybe we're not there yet? Here's my take:

We live in a world in which, sadly, pregnancies aren't always happy news. As long as that is true, there will be people (women AND men) seeking to terminate pregnancies.

Given that, should society force abortions to be performed by unlicensed people who operate on the wrong side of the law, or should abortion be safe, legal and well-regulated?

You can't just legalise something purely because people will do it illegally.
It would be like saying legalising slavery would cut down on illegal human trafficking.

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Side note -- "pro-life" side aggravates me for so many reasons -- they act like women don't think about it before having an abortion;

There are some people who ignorantly think that all women just get abortions on a whim and not give a shit about it but on the other side of it you can't deny that there are some people who do get abortions and not give it a second thought.
It's besides the point anyway because whether people give it deep consideration or if they do it on a whim it doesn't really answer the question as to whether abortion is ethical.

Ben_Reilly wrote:they act like banning abortion will prevent it from happening (which has worked so well with all other crimes) and they act like banning abortion is the only way to address their desire to see fewer of them performed. Going back to my first point, if we were to make society into the sort of place where fewer pregnancies were unwanted, that would be the most effective way to stop people from having abortions.

That's like saying theft should be legalised because banning it doesn't prevent it from happening.
It would be great if we didn't live in a society where some people have to resort to committing thievery but that hardly means theft should be legalised because of it.

@QoH
not quite, Both your example effect someone else. (theft and slavery are crimes you commit against someone else)

First term abortions affect Primarily The woman (and possibly the potential father)
The blob of cells that is removed in no more capable of indenpendant life than a tumour.

There are fair Arguments that can be raised about the ethics of 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions as you are now talkign about a more developed life form.

There is no reasonalble arguments against 1st term abortions that have been performed since the Egyptian Era. The only argument is religious one and that has no place in democratic secular society.

veya_victaous wrote:You have to be religious to be pro-life

Wow.

I'll respond to everything else in that post when I have time.

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:You have to be religious to be pro-life

Wow.

That seems a rather unfair interpretation of what Veya said -- you stripped it of all context and nuance.

@QoH
You have to religiously indoctinated (or just uneducated) to think that a zygote is a vaild life form.

you are not alive until you are born. (or at least 3rd trimester where your body could possibly survive with out the 'host' life form, if need be.)

Termination of Zygotes is quite natural, in some speices of mammals Females seem to have the active capacity to terminate zygotes through regulation of hormones.


And there is no pro-life side.  :-:bravo:-:  :-:bravo:-:  :-:bravo:-: 
there is Pro-choice and Pro-poverty ::troll:: ::troll:: ::troll:: ::troll::

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

Wow.

That seems a rather unfair interpretation of what Veya said -- you stripped it of all context and nuance.

I said I would respond properly later, which I will.

veya_victaous wrote:

And there is no pro-life side.   :-:bravo:-:  :-:bravo:-:  :-:bravo:-: 
there is Pro-choice and Pro-poverty  ::troll::  ::troll::  ::troll::  ::troll::

You could also interpret it as pro-life and pro-murder couldn't you?
If we're going to talk about this like that then maybe I shouldn't bother.

This sort of attitude just stops any sort of discussion on the topic and only leads to shit-flinging which helps nobody.

@QOH
Notice the Troll Face  ::troll::  ::troll::  ::troll:: 

And No I already Countered the Murder Argument with Clear Scientific Information that a Zygote is Not a Baby in fact it doesn't meet the minimum qualifications for a independent life from. At best it could be a Symbiotic life form.


I personally would not want any of my offspring aborted (and am willing to make the sacrifices to raise them) but Emotion Driven responses do not alter Scientific knowledge about reality. I do Not think there needs to be a discussion, rather like Climate change there are too many ignorant people that cannot grasp the Facts (or basic scientific process), and constantly default to ingrained emotional or religious resposnses.
I have said it before
VOTE 1 SKYNET

veya_victaous wrote:@QOH
Notice the Troll Face  ::troll::  ::troll::  ::troll:: 

Troll face was never funny.

veya_victaous wrote:
And No I already Countered the Murder Argument with Clear Scientific Information that a Zygote is Not a Baby in fact it doesn't meet the minimum qualifications for a independent life from. At best it could be a Symbiotic life form.  


I personally would not want any of my offspring aborted (and am willing to make the sacrifices to raise them)  but Emotion Driven responses do not alter Scientific knowledge about reality.  I do Not think there needs to be a discussion, rather like Climate change there are too many ignorant people that cannot grasp the Facts (or basic scientific process), and constantly default to ingrained emotional or religious resposnses.
I have said it before
VOTE 1 SKYNET

Saying that there should not be a discussion on a topic solely because you think that people who disagree with you are stupid is just arrogance.
If the opposition is legitimately ignorant then simply ignoring them and leaving them unchallenged is just going to keep them ignorant, isn't it?

@QoH
No Science (ie facts) disagree, it is not personal opinion.

Yes Yes we can try an educate them but that is taking a very long time and Personally i don't think it is worth the effort if they were inclind to learn they would have educated themsleves already.
It's not like there isn't access to information in this day and age.

I would point out that Christianity(the cause of many of these issues) was spread by the point of a sword even though that it is direct contridiction of the teachings of Christ.
To spread Science but the point of a sword is not in contridition to it's teachings. If Christians saw it as acceptable even though it was hugely Hypocritical of them, why shoudln't Science?

veya_victaous wrote:@QoH
No Science (ie facts) disagree, it is not personal opinion.

Yes Yes we can try an educate them but that is taking a very long time and Personally i don't think it is worth the effort if they were inclind to learn they would have educated themsleves already.
It's not like there isn't access to information in this day and age.

Just because you slap a science label onto something that doesn't make it fact.
There are a lot of things that were considered fact but are now debunked as pseudo-sciences.
I'm not disputing any facts though, just saying for the record.

Anyway, you can point out all the facts relating to abortion if you want but that doesn't really say whether abortion is right or not.
Abortion is an ethical issue.
Ethics are not objective and therefore neither factual or scientific.
A child nine month's in the womb is clearly a living human for example. That doesn't say whether or not it would still be right to abort it at that stage. It's solely a fact.

veya_victaous wrote:
I would point out that Christianity(the cause of many of these issues) was spread by the point of a sword even though that it is direct contridiction of the teachings of Christ.
To spread Science but the point of a sword is not in contridition to it's teachings. If Christians saw it as acceptable even though it was hugely Hypocritical of them, why shoudln't Science?  

You talk about science as if it were an ideology.
Science is simply the study of the world around us. To try and learn new things and acquire knowledge.
Nothing more.

@QoH
Someone has to try and start the revolution   
Science IS an ideology too. You can Make pretty fair statement that Science and Technology is also a Faith. I for example have Complete faith in the advancement of technology, I honestly look to it for 'heaven'. I beleive in 'Deux Ex Machina'("God from the machine") it is only a case of 'creating' it. and then all the fairytales can go away.  :::grouch::  :::grouch::  :::grouch:: 

Anyway, you can point out all the facts relating to abortion if you want but that doesn't really say whether abortion is right or not.
Abortion is an ethical issue.
Ethics are not objective and therefore neither factual or scientific.
A child nine month's in the womb is clearly a living human for example. That doesn't say whether or not it would still be right to abort it at that stage. It's solely a fact.

Actually there are pleanty of Facts that aid in determining the ethics,
Can it feel it? Can it Survive (in the most theoretical example) on its own?
What sort of Neurons and Nerve Structrueas are developed? and at what point?

like i said in my first post, fair arguments can be made against 2nd and 3rd trimester Because as an Embryo you do have the beginings of a nervous system and brain, and a fetus is almost fully functional is perfect conditions it could survive with out it's 'host' any longer.
So 'Science' has nothing against Zygote abortion because the Facts say we cannot classify it as 'life' yet , so you are not killing anything. It will inflict no pain and there is not even the structure needed to create thought let alone memory yet.
Science however Puts forward strong ethical arguments against later term abortions as it has 'graduated' to Living Organism, that means it does have feeling and possibly thoughts. So you are killing it and it is a Sentient life form.

Queen Of Hearts wrote:Just because you slap a science label onto something that doesn't make it fact.
There are a lot of things that were considered fact but are now debunked as pseudo-sciences.
I'm not disputing any facts though, just saying for the record.

What debunks pseudo-science? Real science. If you can't tell the difference between valid conclusions based upon rigorous experimentation and research on the one hand, and a bunch of abracadabra bullshit that some slapped a "science" label upon, on the other, you're the one at fault, not scientists.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Queen Of Hearts wrote:Just because you slap a science label onto something that doesn't make it fact.
There are a lot of things that were considered fact but are now debunked as pseudo-sciences.
I'm not disputing any facts though, just saying for the record.

What debunks pseudo-science? Real science. If you can't tell the difference between valid conclusions based upon rigorous experimentation and research on the one hand, and a bunch of abracadabra bullshit that some slapped a "science" label upon, on the other, you're the one at fault, not scientists.

That's true but how is the average person meant to know any better if they're thought that anything regarded as science can not be questioned?

Also even with real science you often have disagreement among scientists who contest each-other's claims so it's hardly as clear cut as "scientist said thing so thing is correct".

Not to mention how data is often manipulated or presented in a certain way to give a biased result.

Science and scientists should always be allowed to be questioned.

veya_victaous wrote:@QoH
Someone has to try and start the revolution   
Science IS an ideology too. You can Make pretty fair statement that Science and Technology is also a Faith. I for example have Complete faith in the advancement of technology, I honestly look to it for 'heaven'. I beleive in 'Deux Ex Machina'("God from the machine") it is only a case of 'creating' it. and then all the fairytales can go away.  :::grouch::  :::grouch::  :::grouch:: 

Believe whatever you want just don't be obnoxious about it.

veya_victaous wrote:

Anyway, you can point out all the facts relating to abortion if you want but that doesn't really say whether abortion is right or not.
Abortion is an ethical issue.
Ethics are not objective and therefore neither factual or scientific.
A child nine month's in the womb is clearly a living human for example. That doesn't say whether or not it would still be right to abort it at that stage. It's solely a fact.

Actually there are pleanty of Facts that aid in determining the ethics,
Can it feel it? Can it Survive (in the most theoretical example) on its own?
What sort of Neurons and Nerve Structrueas are developed? and at what point?  

Yes, that's true. It HELPS determine what's ethical.

veya_victaous wrote:
like i said in my first post, fair arguments can be made against 2nd and 3rd trimester Because as an Embryo you do have the beginings of a nervous system and brain, and a fetus is almost fully functional is perfect conditions it could survive with out it's 'host' any longer.  
So 'Science' has nothing against Zygote abortion because the Facts say we cannot classify it as 'life' yet , so you are not killing anything. It will inflict no pain and there is not even the structure needed to create thought let alone memory yet.

Last I checked cells were living things according to biology.
It's something that is developing into a human child.
At the very early stages it might not have the capacity for pain, thought, memory, etc but I don't see how that means anyone who is against killing it is someone ignorant to those facts.

veya_victaous wrote:
Science however Puts forward strong ethical arguments against later term abortions as it has 'graduated' to Living Organism, that means it does have feeling and possibly thoughts. So you are killing it and it is a Sentient life form.

Yeah.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

краљица од Хартс wrote:It always annoys me when people try to argue from certain stand-points that completely miss the point.
The abortion debate is about whether it's right or not to allow abortion. It's an ethical issue. Not an economic issue and not a health issue.

I would argue that we're beyond the point of considering the ethics of it. Or, maybe we're not there yet? Here's my take:

We live in a world in which, sadly, pregnancies aren't always happy news. As long as that is true, there will be people (women AND men) seeking to terminate pregnancies.

Given that, should society force abortions to be performed by unlicensed people who operate on the wrong side of the law, or should abortion be safe, legal and well-regulated?

Side note -- "pro-life" side aggravates me for so many reasons -- they act like women don't think about it before having an abortion; they act like banning abortion will prevent it from happening (which has worked so well with all other crimes) and they act like banning abortion is the only way to address their desire to see fewer of them performed. Going back to my first point, if we were to make society into the sort of place where fewer pregnancies were unwanted, that would be the most effective way to stop people from having abortions.

Of course women should be allowed to have abortions if the need/want to - but there seems to be an epidemic of gender-based abortions happening lately in the UK, can't remember where I read it, think it was on Sky News. Now that's just wrong. And tbh there's really no need nowadays for abortions when you have the morning after pill even if you've slipped up on the contraception side.

Tess. wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

I would argue that we're beyond the point of considering the ethics of it. Or, maybe we're not there yet? Here's my take:

We live in a world in which, sadly, pregnancies aren't always happy news. As long as that is true, there will be people (women AND men) seeking to terminate pregnancies.

Given that, should society force abortions to be performed by unlicensed people who operate on the wrong side of the law, or should abortion be safe, legal and well-regulated?

Side note -- "pro-life" side aggravates me for so many reasons -- they act like women don't think about it before having an abortion; they act like banning abortion will prevent it from happening (which has worked so well with all other crimes) and they act like banning abortion is the only way to address their desire to see fewer of them performed. Going back to my first point, if we were to make society into the sort of place where fewer pregnancies were unwanted, that would be the most effective way to stop people from having abortions.

Of course women should be allowed to have abortions if the need/want to - but there seems to be an epidemic of gender-based abortions happening lately in the UK, can't remember where I read it, think it was on Sky News.  Now that's just wrong.  And tbh there's really no need nowadays for abortions when you have the morning after pill even if you've slipped up on the contraception side.

Exactaly however THE republicans say the morning after pill is murder and they don't want women to be given the pill free to help stop abortions
But men are allowed viagra??

I suspect if (republican) men got pregnant they would be posting out the pill to every man
IMO its up to the woman (within certain common sense time scales )

Queen Of Hearts wrote:Also even with real science you often have disagreement among scientists who contest each-other's claims so it's hardly as clear cut as "scientist said thing so thing is correct".

Not to mention how data is often manipulated or presented in a certain way to give a biased result.

Science and scientists should always be allowed to be questioned.

I'm sorry, could you please provide some examples of data being manipulated to give a biased result? If it happens often, as you say, you should have no problem.

Science IS questioning. Please read this before you go on any farther:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Peer_review

@tess
Gender based abortion will balance out
Look at China now. so many young men with no hope of getting a wife.
Girls literally have the choice of half a dozen suitors. There would have to be a few wishing they had a daughter that could set them up for life by marrying into money. (econimics was a large part of wanting boys in the first place)

And 'Technically' the morning after pill is a chemical abortion if the argument is about the sanctity of a zygote it would still mean that is wrong too. (it is not wrong in my opinion)

veya_victaous wrote:@tess
Gender based abortion will balance out
Look at China now. so many young men with no hope of getting a wife.
Girls literally have the choice of half a dozen suitors. There would have to be a few wishing they had a daughter that could set them up for life by marrying into money. (econimics was a large part of wanting boys in the first place)

And 'Technically' the morning after pill is a chemical abortion if the argument is about the sanctity of a zygote it would still mean that is wrong too. (it is not wrong in my opinion)

if I remember correctly the  morning after pill doesn`t work on a fertilized egg anyway ? it stops fertilization so is not a abortion pill and won`t work as such

@QoH

Believe whatever you want just don't be obnoxious about it.

Well I could follow the Monothiest example and Burn people at a stake   

There are Christian Fundamentalists that beleive Gay people should all die and go to Hell, that women should not avail themselves of the latest in medical technology and responsible planned parenting. Have no problem raping the planet because 'god' put it there for them, That would deny the Science while reaping its benifits. Why should I not hate and mock them? or people that support them? many of them would hate me for supporting homosexuals and Denying their Fairytales in favour of Peer Reviewed, Mathimatically supported Facts. What reason do I have to not hate them back, I don't claim to follow a man that said 'turn the other cheek' ?

DO you think Denying someone else a right because 'the christian' believes an Invisible Skygiant thinks it is wrong is any less Obnoxious?

Korben Dallas wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@tess
Gender based abortion will balance out
Look at China now. so many young men with no hope of getting a wife.
Girls literally have the choice of half a dozen suitors. There would have to be a few wishing they had a daughter that could set them up for life by marrying into money. (econimics was a large part of wanting boys in the first place)

And 'Technically' the morning after pill is a chemical abortion if the argument is about the sanctity of a zygote it would still mean that is wrong too. (it is not wrong in my opinion)

if I remember correctly the  morning after pill doesn`t work on a fertilized egg anyway ? it stops fertilization so is not a abortion pill and won`t work as such

@KD
you are correct for the more common ones, they use hormone called levonorgestrel but is only effective for upto 5 days and only really effective in the first 48 hours

there are others that use mifepristone and misoprostol to terminate a pregnancy. that will work upto 9 weeks (still in first trimester)
http://www.bpas.org/bpasknowledge.php?page=151

Science can do a lot of things      

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Queen Of Hearts wrote:Also even with real science you often have disagreement among scientists who contest each-other's claims so it's hardly as clear cut as "scientist said thing so thing is correct".

Not to mention how data is often manipulated or presented in a certain way to give a biased result.

Science and scientists should always be allowed to be questioned.

I'm sorry, could you please provide some examples of data being manipulated to give a biased result? If it happens often, as you say, you should have no problem.

Science IS questioning. Please read this before you go on any farther:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Peer_review

Why should I take a wiki that's nothing but an atheist circle-jerk seriously?
Next you'll tell me you post on /r/atheism.

veya_victaous wrote:@QoH

Believe whatever you want just don't be obnoxious about it.

Well I could follow the Monothiest example and Burn people at a stake   

There are Christian Fundamentalists that beleive Gay people should all die and go to Hell, that women should not avail themselves of the latest in medical technology and responsible planned parenting. Have no problem raping the planet because 'god' put it there for them, That would deny the Science while reaping its benifits. Why should I not hate and mock them? or people that support them? many of them would hate me for supporting homosexuals and Denying their Fairytales in favour of Peer Reviewed, Mathimatically supported Facts. What reason do I have to not hate them back, I don't claim to follow a man that said 'turn the other cheek' ?

DO you think Denying someone else a right because 'the christian' believes an Invisible Skygiant thinks it is wrong is any less Obnoxious?

Why do you assume that I'm giving exception to the religious?

@QoH
do you think women should be allowed abortions?
Yes or No is fine , but you can qualify if you like.


Sometimes you got to pick a side and when you do there is nothing worng with fighting for it, Someone has to. If no one ever stands up for what they beleived was right because they were feared that some people might think they are obnoxious we would still be burning witches. you can defend traditions or fight for a BETTER future.

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Queen Of Hearts wrote:Also even with real science you often have disagreement among scientists who contest each-other's claims so it's hardly as clear cut as "scientist said thing so thing is correct".

Not to mention how data is often manipulated or presented in a certain way to give a biased result.

Science and scientists should always be allowed to be questioned.

I'm sorry, could you please provide some examples of data being manipulated to give a biased result? If it happens often, as you say, you should have no problem.

Science IS questioning. Please read this before you go on any farther:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Peer_review

Why should I take a wiki that's nothing but an atheist circle-jerk seriously?
Next you'll tell me you post on /r/atheism.

Nothing but an atheist circle-jerk, huh? Actually they have a lot of good information there, including that article I linked to. But feel free to read about peer review ANYWHERE on any site you like and then tell me how scientists aren't "allowed to be questioned" and how their "data is often manipulated or presented in a certain way to give a biased result." Bwahahahaha!

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

Why should I take a wiki that's nothing but an atheist circle-jerk seriously?
Next you'll tell me you post on /r/atheism.

Nothing but an atheist circle-jerk, huh? Actually they have a lot of good information there, including that article I linked to. But feel free to read about peer review ANYWHERE on any site you like and then tell me how scientists aren't "allowed to be questioned" and how their "data is often manipulated or presented in a certain way to give a biased result." Bwahahahaha!

Government agencies for the protection of children against abuse exist so that means child abuse doesn't exist anymore.

Your logic is just so illogical ... you do realize that child abuse is not nearly as rampant as it used to be, right? And that a lot of the credit goes to those agencies?

Ben_Reilly wrote:Your logic is just so illogical ... you do realize that child abuse is not nearly as rampant as it used to be, right? And that a lot of the credit goes to those agencies?

You're implying that because the likes of peer reviews exist means that all scientists are completely objective.
It's the exact same logic as the post you just replied to.

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Your logic is just so illogical ... you do realize that child abuse is not nearly as rampant as it used to be, right? And that a lot of the credit goes to those agencies?

You're implying that because the likes of peer reviews exist means that all scientists are completely objective.
It's the exact same logic as the post you just replied to.

Of course that's not what I'm saying. I asked you to learn about peer review and consider that among the thousands of scientific papers published every year, a tiny percentage turn out to be fraudulent, and when they do, the world hears about it. Peer review guards against fraudulent claims and scientific malpractice. It's not perfect, nothing is, but it's very good and works the vast majority of the time.

@QoH
One Person cannot 'make' science,
it NEEDS to be PEER REVIEWED, unlike religious nonsense.
You need Multiple people to produce EVIDENCE that something is indeed the case. and that evidence need to be such, that anyone else with the competencies (Chemistry, Physic etc) can repeat what you did and get the same or at least very similar result.


You are just trolling Because you are not Even trying to educate yourself on the Basics of Science, I have read the Bible, Koran and Multiple Buddhist Hindu and Taoist texts. Even if you don't believe in something if you want to argue about it, at least educate yourself before you open your mouth.

And Scientists are NOT LIKE PRIESTS!!! you don’t have to agree with all of them and they don't even all have to agree with each other because there are areas of debate. No One is Science is Going 'here is book of ALL KNOWLEDGE nothing else can or needs to be learnt' Science is Far more like Buddhism than any of the Monotheist tripe, the eternal Struggle for Knowledge and Enlightenment. The Difference is Science also want Mathematical proof.

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

What debunks pseudo-science? Real science. If you can't tell the difference between valid conclusions based upon rigorous experimentation and research on the one hand, and a bunch of abracadabra bullshit that some slapped a "science" label upon, on the other, you're the one at fault, not scientists.

That's true but how is the average person meant to know any better if they're thought that anything regarded as science can not be questioned?

 

THERE is no longer really any such creature as your notion of an "average person" in this modern day and age - the majority of people (albeit a small majority..) are usually better educated and aware than in the 'good ol' days..'.

IF around 20-40% of a selected population don't want to be more open minded and analytical and chooses to be indoctrinated into some ignorant person's superstitious or mystical "anti-science" dogma instead, then THAT is usually their own business..

UNTIL they find themselves in a position where their ignorance can unfairly impact on the rest of us; (as is the case with the current governments in Britain, Canada, Oz and New Zealand, all Middle East governments and many African governments, and the Republican party in the US..); and with most of the bosses of many mining, oil, finance, agribusiness, and big pharma' corporations companies.   

AND, of course ~ all science IS open to question by sceptical, cynical and suspicious people; until proven to be a fact. Any reputable true scientist will tell you that genuine scientists enter a debate with both an "open mind" (in the true sense of the term..) and a healthy dose of rationalised scepticism.

I think it's perverse to act like information about the world obtained by many people exercising their senses and their minds, replicating or refuting one another's findings and systematically eliminating invalid conclusions, is somehow more psychologically or intellectually oppressive than hypotheses that people only accept because they were taught them as young children by authority figures. It's anti-human to suggest that we can't usually trust our senses, our logic and one another.

I also just have to shake my head at the idea that because a system or an institution sometimes makes mistakes, that means it's ineffective. Apple, the company that gave the world the Newton, the Pippin and the circular computer mouse, would have had to give up well before it invented the iPod, iPad and iPhone under that logic ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

You're implying that because the likes of peer reviews exist means that all scientists are completely objective.
It's the exact same logic as the post you just replied to.

Of course that's not what I'm saying. I asked you to learn about peer review and consider that among the thousands of scientific papers published every year, a tiny percentage turn out to be fraudulent, and when they do, the world hears about it. Peer review guards against fraudulent claims and scientific malpractice. It's not perfect, nothing is, but it's very good and works the vast majority of the time.

I know what a peer review is.
I just don't like the likes of Rationalwiki which are just massive circle-jerks.
And if you think I'm picking on just Rationalwiki I'm not. I hate the likes of conservepedia too.

Anyway, peer reviews do help the problem but it hasn't eliminated the problem. Bias, manipulation of data, false positives, etc are still things to watch out for.

All I have been trying to say is that scientists are not always correct, scientists are human and can make mistakes or misinterpret results just like anyone else.

veya_victaous wrote:@QoH
One Person cannot 'make' science,
it NEEDS to be PEER REVIEWED, unlike religious nonsense.
You need Multiple people to produce EVIDENCE that something is indeed the case. and that evidence need to be such, that anyone else with the competencies (Chemistry, Physic etc) can repeat what you did and get the same or at least very similar result.


You are just trolling Because you are not Even trying to educate yourself on the Basics of Science, I have read the Bible, Koran and Multiple Buddhist Hindu and Taoist texts. Even if you don't believe in something if you want to argue about it, at least educate yourself before you open your mouth.

And Scientists are NOT LIKE PRIESTS!!! you don’t have to agree with all of them and they don't even all have to agree with each other because there are areas of debate. No One is Science is Going 'here is book of ALL KNOWLEDGE nothing else can or needs to be learnt' Science is Far more like Buddhism than any of the Monotheist tripe, the eternal Struggle for Knowledge and Enlightenment. The Difference is Science also want Mathematical proof.

Yes yes yes, because I point out that mistakes and corruption exist within the scientific community that surely must mean I don't know about science and think it's similar to religious dogma.

Fucking quality post.
I'm not arguing about the legitimacy of science and I never was.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think it's perverse to act like information about the world obtained by many people exercising their senses and their minds, replicating or refuting one another's findings and systematically eliminating invalid conclusions, is somehow more psychologically or intellectually oppressive than hypotheses that people only accept because they were taught them as young children by authority figures. It's anti-human to suggest that we can't usually trust our senses, our logic and one another.

I also just have to shake my head at the idea that because a system or an institution sometimes makes mistakes, that means it's ineffective. Apple, the company that gave the world the Newton, the Pippin and the circular computer mouse, would have had to give up well before it invented the iPod, iPad and iPhone under that logic ...

Like I said I'm not arguing about the legitimacy of science and I never was.
I just tried to point out that sometimes mistakes are made, sometimes scientists are commissioned by corporations to conduct tests with the intention of getting a certain result from the start and so on.

The problems I'm pointing out are the reasons peer reviews and the like exist in the first place after all.

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think it's perverse to act like information about the world obtained by many people exercising their senses and their minds, replicating or refuting one another's findings and systematically eliminating invalid conclusions, is somehow more psychologically or intellectually oppressive than hypotheses that people only accept because they were taught them as young children by authority figures. It's anti-human to suggest that we can't usually trust our senses, our logic and one another.

I also just have to shake my head at the idea that because a system or an institution sometimes makes mistakes, that means it's ineffective. Apple, the company that gave the world the Newton, the Pippin and the circular computer mouse, would have had to give up well before it invented the iPod, iPad and iPhone under that logic ...

Like I said I'm not arguing about the legitimacy of science and I never was.
I just tried to point out that sometimes mistakes are made, sometimes scientists are commissioned by corporations to conduct tests with the intention of getting a certain result from the start and so on.

The problems I'm pointing out are the reasons peer reviews and the like exist in the first place after all.

That is a fair point, fuel companies are always paying some scientists to try and deny Global warming, yet none of them are able to write a paper to refute any, but and this is a big but, it is far from the norm

I look at it this way -- you know the skills you use to determine that e-mail from the exiled Nigerian government official who wants to cut you in on his $50 million embezzlement is probably not legit? They help in other parts of life, too :D

Ben_Reilly wrote:I look at it this way -- you know the skills you use to determine that e-mail from the exiled Nigerian government official who wants to cut you in on his $50 million embezzlement is probably not legit? They help in other parts of life, too :D

Maybe so but some people have a habit of blindly accepting something that helps their argument, don't they?

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I look at it this way -- you know the skills you use to determine that e-mail from the exiled Nigerian government official who wants to cut you in on his $50 million embezzlement is probably not legit? They help in other parts of life, too :D

Maybe so but some people have a habit of blindly accepting something that helps their argument, don't they?

Yes, Fox News viewers spring immediately to mind. You should always make a point to verify information before running with it; if you don't you're a liar. That's why every issue that I talk about I either study up on from several sources, or admit that I'm not well-versed on the subject. I've been learning about climate change, for example, for well over a decade.