[roccman]

your right to have an opinion."

We have heard this time and time again havn't we?

But really- would you defend to the death someones right to an opinion that is based in fiction?

Why would you do that?

I think opinions have led to jaw jacking of herculian proportions about serious global issues.

These opinions:

1) that climate change is man made or not
2) that 911 was an inside job or not
3) that tar sands in Wyoming exceeds KSA
4) that technology will step in at the 11 th hour

have polarized each of us to the point of paralysis.

So now we stand at the brink of destruction and yet we say that we will defend the right for someone to express an opinion...

Really...??

I am not so sure I would defend anyones right to have an opinion that is not based in science.

What is your opinion?

[Bas]

unfortunately a lot of science is quite inaccesible to the layman, which we all, at least in some fields. Besides that, when it comes to political issues/ideologies there often is no scientific basis for issues like if abortion should be legal, just to name something.

So in general I'd vote yes, though I do have some reservations like in valueing a degree of civility and straightforwardness....

PS I rather defend my freedoms than my country, though sometimes they are one and the same (and sometimes the opposite)

[btu2012]

I think that a lot of this paralysis is intentional, in that there exists a vocal minority intent on derailing any serious progress and debate.

These people will stop at nothing to push a falsehood, no matter how many times it has been disproved. Global Warming is a case in point. Another example is the abiotic theory of oil formation.

One cannot have a meaningful debate if dishonest or misinformed people are allowed to derail every discussion -- which they often do on purpose.

It is also shocking to see how politicized some people's thinking is. It seems that some posters believe that some nonsensical Left/Right divide can substitute for rational thinking.

In science, there is a criterion called assumed competence. If something has been proved essentially beyond doubt, then a reference is given and the burden of proof is placed on those who want to challenge the scientific consensus.

In this way, one doesn't have to return to High-School Physics, for example, when discussing General Relativity. Instead, High-School Physics is assumed.

Scientific and political debate are extremely different. Science is not a matter of opinion but of evidence and logical proof.

Btu

[roccman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('btu2012', '
')
One cannot have a meaningful debate if dishonest or misinformed people are allowed to derail every discussion -- which they often do on purpose.

[btu2012]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('roccman', '
')
Nice post btu,

at what point does the debate end?

Is a benevolent dictator the answer?

[highlander]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('btu2012', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('roccman', '
')
Nice post btu,

at what point does the debate end?

Is a benevolent dictator the answer?

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

Each generation has certain truths and assumptions they would argue are based on science. At one time we knew the world was flat, then we evidenced that it was round.

Then we "knew" about spontaneous generation and that things like barnacles (and germs and viruses) could just appear out of nothing even in a sealed environment. But each of these things has been disproven and we have evidenced that they were all just illusions based on our limited scope of understanding because our science finally progressed to where we could experience a new "truth".

Einstien once said that he knew about relativity before he could even express it or find anything to back up his hypothesis. One could say that the arguement to the death of something that is not factually based in science is where science came from and where it will be going.

Especially if you are anything of a student of quantum mechanics (for any quantum fans out there, yes, I know there is no such construct but I use the term anyway becuase it is recognizable concept, yet another arguement without fact).

And yet that is where our science and our realities are going (quantum physics) and there is very little fact there. In fact the basis we use to argue the quantum reality would not be explainable without some base assumptions that we were willing to accept as "fact".

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('uNkNowN ElEmEnt', '.')
And yet that is where our science and our realities are going (quantum physics) and there is very little fact there. In fact the basis we use to argue the quantum reality would not be explainable without some base assumptions that we were willing to accept as "fact".

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

Ah gee, thanks so much eh?

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('uNkNowN ElEmEnt', 'A')h gee, thanks so much eh?

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

Well, that would be a subjective arguement not at all based in fact. lol.

[PenultimateManStanding]

you're number one UE! I'd bet they're perky!

[threadbear]

Gosh. Interesting question. I think I'd defend to the death a system that allows freedom of opinion, even idiot opinion. But would I defend to the death the arbitrary opinions of any specific idiot? No, I'd be more inclined to blast a cap in his sorry ass.

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'N')o, I'd be more inclined to blast a cap in his sorry ass.

[threadbear]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('btu2012', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('roccman', '
')
Nice post btu,

at what point does the debate end?

Is a benevolent dictator the answer?

[Cloud9]

The idiot should be allowed to speak. How else will he be revealed?

[Narz]

I wouldn't defend to the death any opinion. My life is worth more than any opinion I could possibly have. And besides, someone threatening my life will only make me shut up about my opinion, it won't change it. But certainly my thoughts & opinions won't do me any good if I'm dead. Some living person might make a martyr out of me but I don't want to be a dead martyr, I want to be alive. Anyone who does more good dead than alive might has well have been just a fictional character.

[btu2012]

double

[btu2012]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '
')Good God. Science is highly politicized. Try getting funding to do a long term, in depth study of the ufo phenomenon.

[PenultimateManStanding]

Ouch, I feel a cap in my ass. I was just kiddin' around. Makes me feel young. Meanwhile my teeth are bothering me, what was I saying? heh heh.