Thursday, November 17, 2016

is science or preconceived conclusions?

I'm just going through the science headlines on PhysOrg and some of them seem to reach the PC conclusions if they are investigations on sociology or climate change.

Query: Which came first the chicken or the egg? They decided to study something that they already knew what they wanted to find, and voila they found it?

uh, that is not how the scientific method works.

Climate change will stop the cooling of the planet from volcanoes.

all theoretical, and based on previous papers that claimed less sulfur into the stratosphere when the earth is warmer, and theoretical models of climate change... GIGO? (garbage in/garbage out).

and how many degrees are we talking about?

this is not science, which takes an idea and then experiments to find if it is true. It is manipulating data that might or might not be correct to find a conclusion that is pleasing to the present day meme.

If this is true, ice core sample, tree rings etc. from the past when the earth was warmer, might support this conclusion, but this paper does not.

ditto for arctic sea ice and beluga whale migration.

we weren't supposed to have any arctic ice by now, according to previous predictions, but never mind.

finally, I read that China will be angry if the US doesn't keep the global warming treaty

Two comments:

One: the constitution doesn't allow a dictatorship by the president's pen. It requires the consent of Congress. The US Senate (and it's isolationist people) tend to turn down these things: League of Nations anyone?

Two: If you think China will keep it's promises on global warming, you are a fool. They traditionally lie about such things, and have their usual idiots proclaiming how wonderful they are. I remember when a NYT editorial praised China for being green, at a time when the pollution in their cities was horrible and there were major health crises from smog, dumping chemicals into the environment, and substituting cheap toxic chemicals in everything from dog food to heparin to baby milk.

and, I wonder, how much of the "global warming" payments will go to help poor people in poor countries, and how much will end up in the bank accounts of their corrupt politicians?

finally, proof that years of PC haven't changed the minds of everyone:

Study of college-age white men reveals cultural awareness deficit...White identity had virtually no meaning for a group of white males in a new study by a University of Arizona researcher, and such individuals largely ignored or downplayed issues of race and instances of reported racism.....
were these incidents real, very minor stuff that goes on all the time, including against those of the same race, or were they instituted by the victim to prove racism?
"During these conversations with white men, 'white' was a relatively meaningless social category," said Cabrera, who is teaching "Whiteness in Education" during the spring semester.

yup. Ordinary Europeans consider themselves "American" or "hyphenated American" if they are ethnics. Does this prove the men are racist, or are you racist for assuming they don't notice these things (i.e. that they are racist because they don't notice race)?

or maybe it proves that your subject matter don't fit neatly into your preconceived idea, i.e. that white men consider themselves white men. That would negate any observation in science, but then, a lot of sociology is not science but propaganda disguised as science.

And I had to laugh at this:
"The time that 'white' had a substantive meaning to them was when they felt racially marginalized, or when they experienced 'reverse racism,' which is largely a myth." 

uh, reverse racism is not a myth: I lost my medical school scholarship 50 years ago to reverse racism... to those from more affluent families. Bakke decision anyone?

Which is why Asians were considered pseudo whites by the Boston forced integration school system, as were my Spanish speaking Metziso sons, because they had an "anglo" name.


sort of related matter: The US Catholic bishops are collecting money again for "the poor", but a lot of this is going to activist groups on the left.

Has anyone checked if they are paying for groups that are political, or are anti Catholic/pro abortion? Or if they are the Alinsky type methods? Or if they are paying for groups that are protesting the election?

NYTimes on how bishops switched from hands on serving the poor to funding activists on the left. The NYTimes article says the bishops didn't see service to the poor as important> This is a lie. The church ran schools, hospitals, social service and parish outreach to help the poor. But post Vatican II, they deicded this was old fashioned... so instead of promoting Catholic institutions that helped the poor, they hired Alinsky trained activists to change society to utopian socialism.

more HERE. (right wing site)

EWTN showed a film about Alinsky and his methods...

So political correctness/ marsism not only distorts science, it distorts religion.

No comments: