53, Portsmouth, Ohio
If they believed in Science they wouldn't support Senile Joe.
How'd those Sciencey Types Not notice Ol' Joe's Lost His Danged Mind ... https://youtu.be/DYSxdu9CGJISanjay Gupta saw it ...
Even with advanced dementia, as you guys loudly posture and trumpet, he and his team are logically and intellectually streets ahead of 'it will get cool, you scientists don't know' Trump. The pro-Trumpeters clutch at a straw of assertion of dementia. Trump boasted that he could pass the cognitive competency test. I questioned my physician and underwent one too a while ago, and both he and I cracked up about it. But Trump boasts about it. Genius. Internal lighting? Disinfectant? Competence? Nah.
The pro-Trumpeters clutch at a straw of assertion of dementia. Bullshit.It's LEFTISTS(!) who've raised the issue of Joe's Dementia and warned that if 'Crats ran a candidate for Prez who's "lost his danged mind" The Don will "make mincemeat of him". ...https://youtu.be/nOmvHPbr7ck
Scientific American has gone to crap a while back!
@mic it's not THE LEFTISTS but perhaps one or two. I won't bother looking, a singleton youtube is no evidence. Exaggeration is expected,it's ok. That is not the single source of the whispers, and in fact they are shouts not whispers. However the fact is that people like you (plural) spread and repeat it without basis as your ploy to get the incumbent re-elected. You've got buggerall else to boast about.
science the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=science+definitionPolitics is the way that people living in groups make decisions. Politics is about making agreements between people so that they can live together in groups such as tribes, cities, or countries.https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/PoliticsI should bloody well hope that science is used as a tool in the political decision making process as it creates the opportunity for informed choice. I suspect that science, in some form, or another, however accurate, or inaccurate has always been used in political decision making processes.Scientific American is justified in pointing out that Trump, as president, is ignoring some scientific information at his disposal. His choices and decisions are often being informed by something else.That 'something else' will have it's own 'science', or areas of discipline which will come under the broad headings of psychology, psychiatry, sociology, etc. There has always been an caveat to the American Psychiatric Association's code of practice whereby remote diagnoses were considered unethical. Within a few weeks of Trump's inauguration that two line clause was extended to several pages of limitations.The issue with this limiting stipulation is that it doesn't take into account two things: certain personality traits are perhaps better observed remotely; & advances in technology have provided a wealth of remote material to observe.This means that certain very relevant areas of science were well and truly gagged soon after Trump took office. Clearly, Scientific American has bypassed some of that silencing and has spoken out. Many scientists have grappled with their ethical obligations to humanity and with respect to the current presidency. This statement is perhaps the way they have chosen to do express a multitude of concerns.I totally agree with their decision to point out Trump's failings and dangerousness. I'm not sure I agree with their promotion of Joe Biden, but I can see why they have done it: without that endorsement the message will not have made headlines and voting Joe Biden into office is the quickest and most practical means of getting Trump out of office at this stage.I would have preferred to see the condemnation of Trump followed by a description and assessment of the alternatives, such as voting for a third party, spoiling ballot papers, etc.. As scientists I imagine those behind the statement would have preferred to openly explore and critique the alternatives, but perhaps the US, and consequently the world, is perceived to be in such crisis that the authors felt it justified to make a statement in the strongest terms possible.I don't think Joe Biden is an appropriate presidential candidate, but perhaps the US will better survive him for the next four years than Donald Trump. On the other hand, Trump will provide a platform for revolution and maybe that's the kind of shake-up the US needs to become a more civilised society.
I wonder why a magazine like Scientific American wouldn't back an anti-science candidate like Trump?
Well I would argue that Trump and Brexit reflect the more intuitive way people want to live their lives. But in scientific theory communism worked. There will always be a pushback against the intellectual mission to make society tense, nervous and unhappy. To make all people as self-conscious and uncomfortable in their own skin as white nerds, this is the point of white privilege. Unearthy people and that cynically intelligent and suspicious society they create. They used to call these people the Jews but really it's just the soullessness of the urban mind, a life analysed and sterilised to death.
Quaint, indeed. Not only is FF wholly lacking in teaching qualifications for his little act of ingratiation and hoping to impress ladies, via braggadocio, on the fake, VERY fake alleged on line 'teaching' position. Teacher of ESL, ---as if. But now, without a trace of clinical qualifications, and having admired to fears of cognitive decline himself, he waxes ignorant, VERY ignorant, on how benign is sniffy, creepy, real racist Joe Biden's clinical situation seems to him. Trump Derangement-Hilary Deficit Syndrome, comorbid with the arrogance of low information base. VERY base. Prognoses guarded. And again we see others of the same political bent, even by the hottie noodles, likely also with sad personal history of life failures (and bad choices) in tow, and marginal relevant education, calling for revolution. Inter alias. Nice, revealing.All missing the point of this blog, and of the syndromic behaviors of SA, and so many, VERY many Dems. . Conrad and others seem to know of how SA once was a journal of scientific quality and format. No longer so, and the editorial move comports with the picture. Notably, this editor lacks relevant clinical training or judgement, as above, for her assertions of Red Man Bad hate.Yet, I agree in part with the new Popular Science-Popular Mechamics format of the rag. Of course, it was a response to failing readership, as with much of the altleft biased MSM. But it does have potential to spread science about.On a Vierk typically positive and helpful note, never ignoring arguments based on facts, rather than mere hate and other feelings, (VERY based, both writings), consider please. Far better to pose her biases as an editorial question, which after all, more matches the essence of scientific inquiry, ie, posing testable and refutable hypotheses. Then simply turning it over to the readership and authors, some with scientific and perhaps relevant clinical training, and hopefully clinical ethics. Then publishing an editorial based thereupon.Sadly, as with looting, hate speech, arson and violent rioting, not exactly the styles of the ueber lrefties, including virtue broadcasting, often based on failing self image. And likely unenviable stations in life. The call so often for use of the word PATHETIC gets old after a while. No?FF is spinning, not being able to censure this posting Suck it up, Poly-faker.
@fourcheesy in a millisecond scan dismissed your dysenteric flow - a few words at the top, and the last words were more than enough.. I am somewhat, but not very much, bemused that you so diligently waste your time generating this 'crap' - maybe dysentery isn't far off the mark. As usual you add nothing relevant or intelligent. I think I did recently see you post something less rant-like. There is still hope. (not much though).
@jac the alternatives - a third candidate or an effaced voting slip - halve the impact. A withheld vote counts as -1, a vote against counts as -2. This is no time for withholding a vote, it is time to oppose. In a proportional representation house voting for the third candidate makes sense, but not here. The American people chose these two as their primary candidates. So be it. But it does make one scratch one's head!
Most science long ago stopped being a pure search for answers through scientific research, but has been taken over by people who either have a political agenda, a pure profit motive or both. So hearing the truth from most scientist can be a hit & miss proposition. One must examine their political & profit motivations to weed out those with little to no credibility.
Scientific American must be deeper in the Crapper than the Public realizes!
@jac the alternatives - a third candidate or an effaced voting slip - halve the impact. A withheld vote counts as -1, a vote against counts as -2. This is no time for withholding a vote, it is time to oppose. In a proportional representation house voting for the third candidate makes sense, but not here. The American people chose these two as their primary candidates. So be it. But it does make one scratch one's head!Of course you are right, Fargo, it is an utterly desperate situation and I appreciate why Scientific American took this position.The thought of Biden being president (for a number of reasons) and being handed a conclusion without the usual exploration expected from a scientific body sticks in my throat, however. I'm not confident that Biden will win (or lose), but maybe something will come of Trump getting re-elected: it's only through hardship and extreme circumstances that people actively create societal change.It is, after all, very clear that Trump will create hardship, suffering and extreme circumstances. It's just a question of how much more.
Trump uses FOX and INFOWARS as his sources, why would he bother with science?
Exactly what bigjb said. There is so much money - much of it from taxpayer funded government grants and agencies - that has poisoned so many aspects of science. People push agendas that (they hope) will keep that sweet taxpayer funded cash flowing. There is also close links with many to pharmaceutical and medical companies and corporations(who want to make money, obviously). It's big business...The larger truth is that the modern political left is less science-led, and more AUTHORITY-led. Why otherwise would Big Tech companies (left-dominated) be actively stifling debate and suppressing information and deplatforming people if they don't have an "acceptable" opinion? This is actual fascism. Dissenting voices are suppressed and attacked. Debate is discouraged. The message is simple: "Agree with the people we deem authoritative, OR ELSE."And let's not get started on the fundamental denial of biological reality (again a very strong feature on the modern left) when it comes to the issue of trans people. Such activists put "feelings" ahead of scientific reality. Yet leftist politicians don't dare challenge this insanity, such has it mestastaticized in universities and out into the wider world.A healthy scientific environment is one in which debate is PROMOTED as a foundational principle, not stifled... So no, Joe Biden (or the left in general) is NOT the candidate of science. He is the candidate of shut up and repeat whatever we want you to say or we'll attack you.
All, yes, it's all another example of how Science, like most human endeavors, isn't free from human emotional and political influences. Just imagine that.But as with that picture of Lady Justice, blinded and holding her scales, some disciplines signal virtue about their alleged fairness. As if. I give a fact based report in response to the Blog, with suggestions, and to counter the hate, with reason. All can read some of the responses. Don't just take my words for it, as always. Read.And on topic concerning the ex VP, and his running/losing mate, not exactly a love fest of mental health here on CS postings. Do I digress?
Coronavirus was patentable. Ergo, it was man-made and Not natural.(The bats to pangolins to wet markets tale always did sound goofy ... )See @ 13:00 - 16:00 -https://youtu.be/Lto7XUbnBNcDid ChiComs Weaponize covid - Intentionally(!) deploy it to give their candidate, Ol' Joe, an advantage in the POTUS Election?See the 1st Three minutes -https://youtu.be/JRmlcEBAiIsIs the Covid Pandemic the Bio-Warfare equivalent of the attack on Pearl Harbor?See the full playlist @ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbrEft90IRTdJnVT7cnJgI9UKsUfeh1XY