Science!

[dreamer_easy]

Global warming deniers caught in fibs

Less sex as bugs enjoy the good life: "researchers believe the growth of agriculture is causing many insects to abandon sex in favour of cloning, reproducing asexually."

The science of ice cream headaches

From New Scientist: Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comments

[hiraethin.livejournal.com]

Am I a global warming denier if I am sceptical about a piece of evidence, a theory or an argument presented by persons or organisations advocating action to tackle global warming? Am I a global warming denier if there are questions that I wish to pose on the subject of global warming and anthropogenic global warming?

I saw recently that the definition of a troll is a person in an internet fora who deliberately asks questions which are off-topic, provocative or the subject of previous (and by consensus settled) discussion. So I suppose even if I am not considered a global warming denier, I am by this definition a troll. This was something that bothered me at the time and still does: because the intention of troll hangs on intention, which is not verifiable in an internet context.

I am concerned that individuals such as myself who are not insensible to the safety and well-being of present and future humanity may be delegitemised and consigned to the lunatic fringe on the basis of a lack of agreement on political policy, where they can be denied a voice and participation in debate and safely ignored.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... when one scientist disagrees with another over some detail of evolution, are they a Creation Scientist? Or should we reserve that term for those who engage in a campaign of lies and distortion against well-established science?

[hiraethin.livejournal.com]

The question hinges on whether the term is used for self-identification, categorisation or as a pejorative.

If one is arguing against individuals or groups allegedly engaged in a campaign of lies and distortion against well-established science, then one may well use the term 'creation scientist' both to categorise and as a (deserved) pejorative. (Pejoratives can be true, after all.)

My original comment stemmed from your use of the term 'global warming denier'. The article doesn't use the term in its title, filename or text, though I see it in at 'related link' at the bottom of the page. Even that related article doesn't use the term except in its title and filename.

Scientists who wish to engage in debate regarding some aspect of the theory of natural selection, Darwin's writings, or natural history, should be debated and have their views treated on their merits. That is, after all, part of what is now accepted as the process of doing science. Permit ideas to compete freely in an open marketplace, where the weak can visibly fail and the strong can endure, until they are in turn replaced by stronger ideas.

The term 'global warming deniers' suggests that (rather than engaging in debate) the individuals referenced are simply refusing to admit facts, or are perhaps generating their own "studies" intended to support a predetermined conclusion (such as the Discovery Institute creationists, or revisionist holocaust historian David Irving). As the articles themselves don't use the term, I rather suspect the subjects of the stories might be better termed 'global warming sceptics'.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

"Allegedly?" They were lyin' their ass off, man. :)

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

"The science of ice cream headaches"

They missed a couple of bits from the advice section at the end, e.g.: "Upon waking up to find yourself unexectedly trapped in a cryogenic suspension system, avoid opening your mouth wide to shout useless things like "Doctor!" or "What's happened?!?", as the resulting intake of breath will draw cold air swiftly into contact with your palate, causing immediate crossing of the eyes and loss of consciousness. (See training video 4C)"

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

*snerf*