What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

How much science can you deny before you can be labeled being a science denier - a poll (1 Viewer)

How much science must you deny before becoming a denier?

  • Any one bit

    Votes: 7 33.3%
  • The above plus Quantum Mechanics Many Universe Interpretation

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • The above plus The Big Bang

    Votes: 6 28.6%
  • The above plus Einstein's Theory of Relativity

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • The above plus Genetics

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The above plus On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favour

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • The above plus Math

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The above plus The Earth is Round

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • All of the above

    Votes: 4 19.0%

  • Total voters
    21

msommer

Footballguy
A spinoff of an exchange that happened last night when I implied that rejecting that polling in general is science based (i.e. it works when you understand the presmises) was a bit "science denying"-y which some took a bit of objection to.

As a consequence I decided to post a poll to determin how much sience you have to deny before you can be said to be a "science denier"

Looking forward to seeing the results of the braintrust in here!

:popcorn:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wouldn’t call someone who doesn’t understand the basics, interpretations, or limitations of polling a science denier.  Doesn’t think is evolution is real ....?  Yes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wouldn’t call someone who doesn’t understand the basics, interpretations, or limitations of polling a science denier.
What if the ignorance (to be concise) is used to proclaim that that specific bit of science doesn't work/apply/matter? Isn't that technically denying science?

 
I sometimes chuckle at articles where paleontologists make very definitive claims about dinosaurs. Mostly when they counter previous assertions made by other very certain scientists. 

I sometimes make decisions regarding outdoor activities that my wife thinks are nuts because she shows me a few different weather reports. 

I definitely brush off plenty of "new" discoveries about foods that have been eaten for hundreds of years. Especially when they counter a "new" discovery from five years ago. 

Where do i rank? 

 
I sometimes chuckle at articles where paleontologists make very definitive claims about dinosaurs. Mostly when they counter previous assertions made by other very certain scientists. 

I sometimes make decisions regarding outdoor activities that my wife thinks are nuts because she shows me a few different weather reports. 

I definitely brush off plenty of "new" discoveries about foods that have been eaten for hundreds of years. Especially when they counter a "new" discovery from five years ago. 

Where do i rank? 
In the "not familiar with how science gets consensus" group, I believe.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem with science is that it’s right only until it is wrong.

To take the first poll entry, quantum mechanics only exists because of experiments for which traditional mechanics were incapable of explaining the results. 

QM works to predict things within our current understanding, so is usefully “true.”  Put me in the camp of suspecting there is a yet more elegant explanation waiting to be found that will make QM look like phlogiston and epicycles, making interpretations like “many worlds” highly speculative in the absence of experimental evidence for them.

Denier?  If skepticism of untested hypotheses is enough, sign me up as a charter member.

(To answer the OP I think somewhere between the big bang and relativity is the point where we pick up enough experimental support to allow firm belief.  Although Darwin’s model of evolution was sufficiently primitive that I’m not sure quoting the book itself as a reference is the best way of defining your continuum.)

 
Denying global warming, evolution, vaccines, round earth, etc. makes one a science denier, as there seems to be very little debate on these subjects in the scientific community, and they are stances that skeptics seem to have done a little research in.

Denying quantum physics - that's not settled, and not all that important WRT policy decisions.

Denying polling data- file that under willful ignorance.  That's a different animal altogether.

 
I sometimes chuckle at articles where paleontologists make very definitive claims about dinosaurs. Mostly when they counter previous assertions made by other very certain scientists. 

I sometimes make decisions regarding outdoor activities that my wife thinks are nuts because she shows me a few different weather reports. 

I definitely brush off plenty of "new" discoveries about foods that have been eaten for hundreds of years. Especially when they counter a "new" discovery from five years ago. 

Where do i rank? 
This is all healthy skepticism, not denial. Also, you probably just don’t care as much about the weather as your wife

 
This is all healthy skepticism, not denial. Also, you probably just don’t care as much about the weather as your wife
I couldnt stop caring about the weather if i wanted to. Painting houses before cell phones had data plans probably made me obsessive. Nothing like waking up at 4:57 just so you could watch the local forecast on the 8's right away. Then you were pretty much on your own for the day.  I also know when it comes to smaller cities internet weather reports arent the most accurate. One of my favorite things to ask google when it is raining outside is "hey google, is it going to rain today?" At least one out of ten times google will say it isnt forecasted to rain today. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top