Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Amendment Idea

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 1:37:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I was thinking there should be a separation of science and state. The Government has no right to dismiss scientific arguments, or promote scientific theories. That sets science back centuries.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 1:53:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 1:37:59 PM, DanT wrote:
I was thinking there should be a separation of science and state. The Government has no right to dismiss scientific arguments, or promote scientific theories. That sets science back centuries.



Yea... I agree.

Though I formed that opinion as a result of the ID debate, always frustrated me that a court deciding the ID was a religious doctrine was meant to have any bearing on the science.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 3:25:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
lol you two are ridiculous. Separation of science and state? That's like separation of reality and state. Separation of life and state. This is a centrist attempt to arbitrate a controversy, when the issue, frankly, has no room for mediation.

Science is observation. Religion is belief. If the government will not endorse and purport the observations gathered by the experts, then it is lost in stagnancy. Federal endorsement of science is the vehicle that progresses a society. Issues such as global warming, oil spills, harmful industrial chemicals, must have the highground of being heard and receiving with greater weight than any other. You can separate government from science like one can separate themselves from the laws of physics. Clearly an impossible and absurd notion.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 4:11:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 3:25:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
lol you two are ridiculous. Separation of science and state? That's like separation of reality and state. Separation of life and state. This is a centrist attempt to arbitrate a controversy, when the issue, frankly, has no room for mediation.

Science is observation. Religion is belief. If the government will not endorse and purport the observations gathered by the experts, then it is lost in stagnancy. Federal endorsement of science is the vehicle that progresses a society. Issues such as global warming, oil spills, harmful industrial chemicals, must have the highground of being heard and receiving with greater weight than any other. You can separate government from science like one can separate themselves from the laws of physics. Clearly an impossible and absurd notion.

Someone's failed their sarcasm detection test...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 4:21:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 4:11:22 PM, seraine wrote:
At 10/18/2011 3:25:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
lol you two are ridiculous. Separation of science and state? That's like separation of reality and state. Separation of life and state. This is a centrist attempt to arbitrate a controversy, when the issue, frankly, has no room for mediation.

Science is observation. Religion is belief. If the government will not endorse and purport the observations gathered by the experts, then it is lost in stagnancy. Federal endorsement of science is the vehicle that progresses a society. Issues such as global warming, oil spills, harmful industrial chemicals, must have the highground of being heard and receiving with greater weight than any other. You can separate government from science like one can separate themselves from the laws of physics. Clearly an impossible and absurd notion.

Someone's failed their sarcasm detection test...

They weren't being sarcastic.........

I hate when people correct me, ESPECIALLY when they're wrong, that just pisses me off.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 5:31:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 4:21:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
I hate when people correct me, ESPECIALLY when they're wrong, that just pisses me off.

The second comma in your sentence should either be a semi-colon or a full stop.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 6:15:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Y'all know science is a method, not an entity, right?

You are all just asking the government to throw away methodological naturalism.

Should we disband the NIH? Scrap immunity research programs?

I mean, wow, it's so hard to know when people are kidding.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 8:45:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 5:31:59 PM, Kinesis wrote:
What would this proposal entail in concrete terms?

Like I said; the state cannot act as a judge for the scientific community. That is like what the catholic church did during the Middle ages.
Politicians are neither qualified nor entitled to making those decisions, and it is contradictory to the scientific method.

This is not to say they can't use or promote science. They just can't be the judge of science, like they have tried to be countless times.

The amendment would probably read something like this;

"Congress shall make no law respecting a scientific theory, or prohibiting further debate on scientific issues; or abridging any other part of the scientific process"
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 8:51:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 6:15:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
Y'all know science is a method, not an entity, right?

You are all just asking the government to throw away methodological naturalism.

Should we disband the NIH? Scrap immunity research programs?

I mean, wow, it's so hard to know when people are kidding.

Not at all what I meant. I mean the Government shouldn't act as a scientific arbitrator, since they are not qualified to do so. They shouldn't promote one scientific theory over another, nor should they interfere with the scientific method.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 9:07:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 4:21:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/18/2011 4:11:22 PM, seraine wrote:
At 10/18/2011 3:25:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
lol you two are ridiculous. Separation of science and state? That's like separation of reality and state. Separation of life and state. This is a centrist attempt to arbitrate a controversy, when the issue, frankly, has no room for mediation.

Science is observation. Religion is belief. If the government will not endorse and purport the observations gathered by the experts, then it is lost in stagnancy. Federal endorsement of science is the vehicle that progresses a society. Issues such as global warming, oil spills, harmful industrial chemicals, must have the highground of being heard and receiving with greater weight than any other. You can separate government from science like one can separate themselves from the laws of physics. Clearly an impossible and absurd notion.

Someone's failed their sarcasm detection test...

They weren't being sarcastic.........

I hate when people correct me, ESPECIALLY when they're wrong, that just pisses me off.

...fvck

I misread his post.