Re: OT: It ain't science, Rocket...

On Apr 25, 2025 at 3:19:52 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 4/25/2025 5:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

 On Apr 25, 2025 at 2:39:44 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

 On 4/25/2025 4:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

   On Apr 25, 2025 at 1:00:01 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

 
   "Democratic-led congressional committees and left-wing think tanks
   [were] more likely to cite research papers than their right-wing
   counterparts."
 
   "There are striking differences in amount, content and character of the
   science cited by partisan policymakers ..."
 
   "Left-leaning think tanks were 5 times more likely to cite science than
   right-leaning ones."

  
   Depends on what they consider science.
  
   Remember, this is the crew that told us 6 feet distancing was "the
science".
   That closing outdoor geography, like beaches and oceans was necessary to
   combat the Wuhan Flu, that you couldn't get it if you were vaccinated, and
   that men can become pregnant and there are 87 genders (and counting).
  
   This is what the Left considers "the science", so saying they're more
likely
   to cite science isn't really the own you think it is.

 
 Who is "the crew"? Nature magazine? I'm largely unfamiliar with them.
 
 Meanwhile, anyone with a basic grasp of science will know that "six
 feet' is a threshold for an arbitrary likelihood of contagion, and not a
 magic border that germs dare not cross.

 
 Not the point. We were told it was "the science" and only now, years later,
 have the officials who told us that admitted that they made it up. They
 literally just pulled the number out of their asses.

 
As I illustrated, different people have different degrees of
understanding about what "It's the science!" actually means.

Which was my original point. Claiming that the Left cites the science more
often than the Right depends on the science being cited and whether it's
actually something that has been subjected to the rigors of the scientific
method or something that's just being called "the science" to further an
agenda.

 Public announcements, otoh, have to be one-size-fits-all formulations.
 

 As for this being an "own", what *I* take from it (and I do think it's
 credible) is that the Left public is less prone to take things on faith.

 
 If you believe men can get pregnant, faith is all you're taking it on.

 
Did you know that, with modern aviation, pigs can, in fact, fly?