(September 12, 2011 at 7:03 pm)Epimethean Wrote: So we should accept a bunch of cockamamie garbage dreamed up by inventors BEFORE such things can be vetted through proper channels, and this has what benefit on science? Science fiction is great stuff-and some of it does affect the directions science takes, but let's call a duck a duck here, and I see quackery in boldface.
Wait a minute. I didn't bring science fiction in here, Rhythm did. Are you saying the science all those neuroscientists whose work it was said to be based on is quackery? Are you saying the guy who is waiting to get his own version of such out there but can't because of the political climate is a quack? Even if they both were total frauds, is anyone denying that the knowledge and ability to do it for real exists?
Nobody in the article was denying the science of the article. The point is that they didn't like the implications of the science so they didn't want it done, just like Gloria Steinem freaked when EO Wilson came out with Sociobiology because she didn't like what it said about gender equity.
This shit's been happening all over the map for decades. What is the point of insisting it isn't?
Is being gay learned or inherited? On that one, the rationals and the relativists are against the mythics, unless any of you out there are into the praying away the gay way, which I highly doubt.
The point is that there are two fronts to the ant-science battle ya hear about, and they aren't the same. The fundie rail against climate change and the relativist rail against the intelligence and other social issues are both challenges, yes, but they aren't coming from the same place.
The fundies don't agree with the relativists on the intelligence issue and the relativists don't agree with the fundies on climate change and so on.
I'm not doing anything more than talking about the terrain. I'm not saying who's right or wrong in the least. I'm just describing the landscape it's all taking place on.
