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

On 4/25/2025 6:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

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.

...
I'm satisfied that the majority of published science is "above board". When -- and how -- it's cited by politicians is what's at issue here ...and if you think pols on the Right actually distrust science more than those on the Left do, I think you're grasping at straws.