Posted by: @gavin

I can't agree with either of those things. He's not supposed to help people because they are in Africa, but it would be OK for him to do so if he was black? You don't have to be stupid to need or accept help.

And no, "pro-science" does not mean "reckless arrogant blind faith in every and any new technology." If you define pro-science in this way, you have to be "anti-science." Gates' approach to science appears to be rational and actually pretty cautious, but he has supported research into mRNA vaccine technology in the past, so I can see how you would have problems with that.

I am talking about what "pro-science" has come to mean to Democrats recently. I am PRO SCIENCE, but my definition is different than theirs. Democrats think they are pro-science if they go along with anything the experts in power say. Even though most of them know nothing about science or health, and don't want to learn. They want to have blind faith in experts. But experts, no matter how powerful, are often wrong or motivated by money and status.

Our science and medical industries have become increasingly arrogant and reckless, especially in genetic engineering. What goes on inside living cells is mostly far more complex than any scientist could hope to understand. Just the DNA is mostly not understood (whatever they can't understand they call "junk"). But there is so much more than DNA. The intelligence within cells is unfathomable, and makes our most complex software systems look simple.

Genetic engineers aren't even computer scientists, generally. How can they appreciate that kind of complexity? How can they understand the dangers of messing with systems you barely understand?

I worked as a software developer for 20 years. I have a PhD in cognitive linguistics. I have been reading about various areas of science all my life. I am really pro-science. Most of the Democrats who call themselves pro-science are not.

@polly

Well, political party shouldn't really make a difference, but I suppose it does to some extent given the direction that the Republican party has taken recently. In this post, I think you may be guilty of a little of the arrogance that you decry. I think I sometimes fall prey to the same thing.

Posted by: @gavin

@polly

Well, political party shouldn't really make a difference, but I suppose it does to some extent given the direction that the Republican party has taken recently. In this post, I think you may be guilty of a little of the arrogance that you decry. I think I sometimes fall prey to the same thing.

I don't see how it's arrogant to say why I am qualified to talk about science. Am I supposed to pretend I don't have a PhD? Why?

In the 1860's Mark Twain described Israel as one of the most desolate, barren, and lifeless places on earth. Now the desert blooms not only fulfilling Isaiah's prophesy but also Ezekiel's prophecy of Israel becoming a nation again... 

"10 Earths" Gavin...? Lol, now you're making my point for me.

Abel took inventory of all that God had "freely" provided and gave thanks. He then made himself a good steward of it and became a shepherd. Cain claimed the earth as his own and made it produce as he desired. Then, in his arrogance, he expected God to be impressed... then he killed Abel.

Posted by: @polly

Posted by: @gavin

@polly

Well, political party shouldn't really make a difference, but I suppose it does to some extent given the direction that the Republican party has taken recently. In this post, I think you may be guilty of a little of the arrogance that you decry. I think I sometimes fall prey to the same thing.

I don't see how it's arrogant to say why I am qualified to talk about science. Am I supposed to pretend I don't have a PhD? Why?

Nothing to do with you having a PhD. I was referring to your dismissing of Democrats as an amorphous mass, all with the same foolish beliefs, lack of knowledge and lack of desire to learn. Also, your claim that geneticists are incapable of understanding complexity because they are not "even" computer scientists like you.

I don't want to get into an argument on this level. I should have phrased my post better to avoid it. I can certainly agree that there is much that scientists don't understand. Most will admit that. Any that don't should.

Posted by: @japov

In the 1860's Mark Twain described Israel as one of the most desolate, barren, and lifeless places on earth. Now the desert blooms not only fulfilling Isaiah's prophesy but also Ezekiel's prophecy of Israel becoming a nation again... 

"10 Earths" Gavin...? Lol, now you're making my point for me.

Abel took inventory of all that God had "freely" provided and gave thanks. He then made himself a good steward of it and became a shepherd. Cain claimed the earth as his own and made it produce as he desired. Then, in his arrogance, he expected God to be impressed... then he killed Abel.

Yes, Israel is able to grow things in the desert thanks to irrigation. Continued access to enough water to do this is one of the major concerns of those who worry about expanding populations.

I'm not going to discuss your biblical references. That's a matter of belief founded in faith, not logic. It doesn't need me arguing about it 🙂

Posted by: @gavin

Posted by: @polly

Posted by: @gavin

@polly

Well, political party shouldn't really make a difference, but I suppose it does to some extent given the direction that the Republican party has taken recently. In this post, I think you may be guilty of a little of the arrogance that you decry. I think I sometimes fall prey to the same thing.

I don't see how it's arrogant to say why I am qualified to talk about science. Am I supposed to pretend I don't have a PhD? Why?

Nothing to do with you having a PhD. I was referring to your dismissing of Democrats as an amorphous mass, all with the same foolish beliefs, lack of knowledge and lack of desire to learn. Also, your claim that geneticists are incapable of understanding complexity because they are not "even" computer scientists like you.

I don't want to get into an argument on this level. I should have phrased my post better to avoid it. I can certainly agree that there is much that scientists don't understand. Most will admit that. Any that don't should.

No, most of them don't even know how much they do not understand. As they learn more and more of the details, they seem to understand more. But actually, as the systems look increasingly complex, they understand less. You have a very idealistic image of the typical scientist today. And that is BECAUSE you are a Democrat! Really, I have been observing this for a long time. Democrats have become increasingly "progressive," more educated, less religious, more trusting of big government, more politically correct. Those are some of the reasons for the Republican backlash. 

Lol... I've never met an educated idealist 😉

"Also, your claim that geneticists are incapable of understanding complexity because they are not "even" computer scientists like you."

I did NOT say that!! No one is capable of understanding the complexity of living systems. But a biologist who does not understand computer science is very unlikely to know the dangers of messing with complex systems. THAT is what I obviously said and meant.

I most certainly do NOT claim to understand complex living systems! But at least I am aware that nature is more intelligent than we are. Of course, as an educated Democrat, you WILL DENY that nature is intelligent!!!! I guarantee it!!!!

And THAT is where our society's problems begin.

Nature v/s science, Hmmm....

Every form of governance that has ever existed on this planet has always followed one simple pattern; The many, subjugated by the few, who pledge fealty to one. The first thing government always claims control of  is agriculture... Does this suggest that 95% of people need to be led? Have the vast majority of people throughout history been too stupid to plant fruit trees? 

If necessity is the mother of invention then why has science so obviously failed humanity?

@polly

Whether a biologist is or is not capable of understanding the dangers of messing with complex systems is not determined by whether they have studied computer science. I would certainly agree with you in expecting those who have studied computer science to have an appreciation of how altering one part of a system can affect other parts, although in this case, it is most likely not a matter of what they don't know, but what they have overlooked due to the sheer complexity of the system. Good design can reduce this risk, but not eliminate it. That's why they test software, although they still sometimes miss things.

As for your guarantee, you are defining me without knowing me and getting it wrong.

I'm going to take a break from this discussion now, not because of anything anyone has said, but because I really should be getting on with other things 🙂

Here's a stupid science question... If this Wuhan virus truly did naturally evolve from bats, then why isn't it still spreading? Why hasn't the world waged war on rodents? Why are we so focused on testing and experimenting on humans instead of assuring the world that the infected animals have been eradicated?

BECAUSE IT WAS MADE IN A LAB!

Posted by: @japov

Here's a stupid science question... If this Wuhan virus truly did naturally evolve from bats, then why isn't it still spreading? Why hasn't the world waged war on rodents? Why are we so focused on testing and experimenting on humans instead of assuring the world that the infected animals have been eradicated?

BECAUSE IT WAS MADE IN A LAB!

https://www.foxnews.com/world/chinese-virologist-coronavirus-cover-up-flee-hong-kong-whistleblower

Posted by: @japov

Here's a stupid science question... If this Wuhan virus truly did naturally evolve from bats, then why isn't it still spreading? Why hasn't the world waged war on rodents? Why are we so focused on testing and experimenting on humans instead of assuring the world that the infected animals have been eradicated?

BECAUSE IT WAS MADE IN A LAB!

It is still spreading, bats aren't rodents, and exterminating an entire species, even if it were possible or justifiable, would serve no purpose when the virus is already circulating among humans.

@polly

Her story sounds very plausible, Polly.