Birmingham (Alabama) mayor denies gay parade permit

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's also a lot of delusion out there nowadays on scientific subjects (not only GW or genetics, but the denial of Evolution Theory) facilitated by unbridled access to an infinite amount of information via the internet. All of which relies on this idea that there must always be two sides to every argument and that they are all equally valid. When science is attacked with pseudo-science - it causes a lot of confusion; indeed - that seems to be the point.

I agree.

Information is great, but we must all remain cognizant of what we are qualified to speak to and what we are not.

The problem is precisely that lay people (in general) don't have the expertise to sift through all the information in a given field to offer an expert opinion on it. That said - I think a lot of these debates on a lot of these subjects are phoney anyway, because the counterpoint arguments don't really reflect the current state of scholarly thought. More specifically they become pervasive because they rely on the average person not knowing that and (via some form of intellectual political correctness) giving equal credence to wacky ideas.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Number 6

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I find that statement presumptuous given that we can't declare irrelevant what we do not yet know

How so when the possible causes are limited to known possibilite ? Are you suggesting their might be some other theory of what makes humans homosexual which is as yet undetermined? A virus?

I'm not speculating. I'm not qualified to do that, and clearly you aren't either.

I'm simply stating that we can not declare irrelevant a fact that doesn't exist yet.

The problem is precisely that lay people (in general) don't have the expertise to sift through all the information in a given field to offer an expert opinion on it.

Right. And the mass media has convinced them they can, and that their amateur readings mean something. They don't.

[Jenn! 918]

I haven't been honest with you all. I'm a geneticist. And I've isolated the gay gene. More news to come...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Everything I just said. Forget it. Jenn is about to set us straight. No pun intended.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's like saying stuff falls, that's how it is, so why find out why? That line of reasoning would have led to never discovering gravity.

Scientific pursuit is always worth it, even when the benefits are not immediately obvious.

That's not what I meant - what i was getting at is that the cause of homosexuality is irrevant to social policy and relative morality.

I find that statement presumptuous given that we can't declare irrelevant what we do not yet know.

How is it presumptuous? The fact remains that homosexuality has a degree of tolerance and indeed acceptance in our society (regardless of why a person is gay). As I said its self-evident from the simple fact that we're talking about homosexual marriage, and we're no longer locking people up for buggery or "perversion".

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

That's like saying stuff falls, that's how it is, so why find out why? That line of reasoning would have led to never discovering gravity.

Scientific pursuit is always worth it, even when the benefits are not immediately obvious.

That's not what I meant - what i was getting at is that the cause of homosexuality is irrevant to social policy and relative morality.

I find that statement presumptuous given that we can't declare irrelevant what we do not yet know.

How is it presumptuous? The fact remains that homosexuality has a degree of tolerance and indeed acceptance in our society (regardless of why a person is gay). As I said its self-evident from the simple fact that we're talking about homosexual marriage, and we're no longer locking people up for buggery or "perversion".

It's presumtuous because attitudes towards homosexuality today are a product of what we know today. You are attempting to declare irrelevant future knowledge - facts and knowledge that don't even exist yet. You can't do that.

[eekee 182]

That's like saying stuff falls, that's how it is, so why find out why? That line of reasoning would have led to never discovering gravity.

Scientific pursuit is always worth it, even when the benefits are not immediately obvious.

That's not what I meant - what i was getting at is that the cause of homosexuality is irrevant to social policy and relative morality.

I find that statement presumptuous given that we can't declare irrelevant what we do not yet know.

How is it presumptuous? The fact remains that homosexuality has a degree of tolerance and indeed acceptance in our society (regardless of why a person is gay). As I said its self-evident from the simple fact that we're talking about homosexual marriage, and we're no longer locking people up for buggery or "perversion".

It's presumtuous because attitudes towards homosexuality today are a product of what we know today. You are attempting to declare irrelevant future knowledge - facts and knowledge that don't even exist yet. You can't do that.

right, and since we don't know--it is not relevant to a discussion today.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I find that statement presumptuous given that we can't declare irrelevant what we do not yet know

How so when the possible causes are limited to known possibilite ? Are you suggesting their might be some other theory of what makes humans homosexual which is as yet undetermined? A virus?

I'm not speculating. I'm not qualified to do that, and clearly you aren't either.

I'm simply stating that we can not declare irrelevant a fact that doesn't exist yet.

The problem is precisely that lay people (in general) don't have the expertise to sift through all the information in a given field to offer an expert opinion on it.

Right. And the mass media has convinced them they can, and that their amateur readings mean something. They don't.

Certainly - but I think it also goes beyond that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's like saying stuff falls, that's how it is, so why find out why? That line of reasoning would have led to never discovering gravity.

Scientific pursuit is always worth it, even when the benefits are not immediately obvious.

That's not what I meant - what i was getting at is that the cause of homosexuality is irrevant to social policy and relative morality.

I find that statement presumptuous given that we can't declare irrelevant what we do not yet know.

How is it presumptuous? The fact remains that homosexuality has a degree of tolerance and indeed acceptance in our society (regardless of why a person is gay). As I said its self-evident from the simple fact that we're talking about homosexual marriage, and we're no longer locking people up for buggery or "perversion".

It's presumtuous because attitudes towards homosexuality today are a product of what we know today. You are attempting to declare irrelevant future knowledge - facts and knowledge that don't even exist yet. You can't do that.

But we're basing our dialog on this issue with what we know today. In 20,000 years - civilization might collapse and interracial marriage might be illegal again, or conversely polygamy might be legalised. You can't control these things - you make the best (fairest) decision you can with the information you have at the time.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Number 6

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Again, I don't disagree about the basis for decision making today. If you guys think I do, you're misreading me.

[Nasturtium 500]

Science can not prove or disprove anything. Science is just a tool to use in order to attempt to come up with support for theories. Science is using observation and experiments which can be replicated (and MUST be able to be replicated or they are discounted). Science is like a wrench. The wrench in itself does not make anything.

Science can not prove or disprove religion in that it cannot prove or disprove anything, as well as the basic fact that religion is based on faith, and faith has no testability scientifically-- you cannot replicate it. Moses saw a burning bush, OK. I can stand and you can stand and we can all stand for eternity and try to replicate this... but chances are very low that we ever would no matter how much you believe or do not believe in G-d. That also doesn't DISPROVE religion-- again it just means by experimentation, it cannot be supported. Any real scientist would know you cannot touch religion with real science.

Faith in itself is not a bad thing either. Many people pass down stories from their parents or grandparents. Unless you were there to witness this event yourself, or speak with many other witnesses and have a way to replicate this testability, you are taking it on faith, of course based on the fact that you believe in the credibility of the source. That is not science though, nor does it pass any kind of scientific test. History is not science.

I am surprised that no one on here is into the hard sciences enough to bring up the point of what science really is and what makes science and what science can do, and how that does not involve "proof" of anything. That is the kind of mistake people make which causes those who also do not understand science to think scientists are "lying" or "misleading" people because they "change" their answers. Scientists do not PROOVE anything, and thus when a better theory comes along which is even better supported by experimentation, the theories are revised.

It would also help is the majority of peoples around the world realized that the Discovery Channel and the like are not "filled with science" but rather "filled with media sensation". Sure they are a lot easier to watch than a good scientific journal is to read, but that doesn't mean they are just as reliable.

I have noticed that Americans are really confused as a whole as to what science is and what it can do-- whether they are for it, against it, find it useful, or think it is of the devil. They tend to think things like medicine, psychiatry, etc. are science. They are really confused when something like the former uses science but is not actually a science in itself. Then we have so much misinformation about theories and what they encompass, the "scientific community" and popular thought, media coverage, pseudo-science, and other things thrown into the mix. Stir that, add some religion, and you probably have the average person's understanding of science. It's rather deplorable and illogical at best. If people would jsut take the time to actually learn what science is and what it can do at the most basic level, as well as what terms ACTUALLY mean and encompass (such as instinct, etc), I think there would be less misinformation spread.

[Nasturtium 500]

I haven't been honest with you all. I'm a geneticist. And I've isolated the gay gene. More news to come...

Now, if only we could find a DNA illustration with one of the nucleotides replaced with a pink, feather boa. That would be an awesome picture to have now.

Edited May 28, 2008 by julianna

[Jenn! 918]

I haven't been honest with you all. I'm a geneticist. And I've isolated the gay gene. More news to come...

Now, if only we could find a DNA illustration with one of the nucleotides replaced with a pink, feather boa. That would be an awesome picture to have now.

Have you been hacking into my research?

[Peikko 1,575]

I thought we knew what science does/is.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

Has anyone thought what would happen if there was in fact a gay gene and we figured out how to test for it? My God, they kill babies in the womb (and out) in other parts of the world when they find out it's a girl!!!