Archive

Archive for the ‘Science & Technology’ Category

Another BIG Lie Exposed in Glorious Living Color

18 Jan 2017 1 comment

The Left, aka, the Democratic party and its minions, have asserted many times how they are so superior to those Neanderthal conservatives so that they really should be the ones in power.  Way back in 2007, and reposted here in 2015, is my analysis of an alleged scientific study allegedly demonstrating this point.  Let me provide a small portion as an incentive to go read the whole thing:

Then in the introduction, the paper’s authors state (again, with [annotations] as an aid to translation):

Across dozens of behavioral studies, conservatives have been found to be more structured and persistent in their judgments and approaches to decision-making [inflexible neanderthals] as indicated by higher average scores on psychological measures of personal needs for order, structure, and closure [See how paranoid those troglodytes are? The babies need order, structure, and closure!] Liberals, by contrast [See?! We’re different!], report higher tolerance [Yeah! We’re tolerant (of everyone except conservatives)!] of ambiguity [See how secure we are?] and complexity [and we’re smart, too!], and greater openness to new experiences [Wow! Bring it on! We can handle it!] on psychological measures.

One need only recall the total meltdown of the liberal left since the election results became public knowledge to see how hilariously absurd these conclusions are.  And they are doing it out in the open where all can see.  Mainstream America is not stupid.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

And I would close with this warning/prediction:  right now, their antics are ridiculously hilarious, and ineffective, and basically being ignored by normal, rational people.  But if they keep it up and don’t adjust to reality, they will become increasingly disgusting and rejected to an even greater degree than they already are.

Children!  Grow up already!

Arguing Against Reality…Reality Doesn’t Care How You Feel

Thanks to the so-called “progressive” left, the number of reality-challenged induhviduals in this country, particularly in today’s universities, is growing at unprecedented rates.  At all too many institutes of alleged higher education, the next generation (and that should really scare you if you think about it) is being told to “follow your heart”  as you chart your future.  Moreover, they are instructed to do so no matter what anyone tells them to the contrary, for in so doing, they are being “authentic.”  This turns one’s life into an “heroic” narrative that all too many are embracing even when the contrarian is the cold, hard facts of reality.

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Probably one of the most recent instances of this are alleged transgenders, and those hyperventilating on their behalf, who want to ignore their own biology because their heart tells them otherwise and to demand access to the public restroom of the gender to which they identify (again, regardless of what their chromosomes are rather clearly tell them).

So, why is it these induhviduals, and those advocating for them, are not considered anti-science in the same way Creationists are?  Why aren’t they considered science deniers the same way those who question anthropomorphic Globaloney  WarmingTM are?  They are much more boldly flying in the face of Science by denying obvious biological reality. 

The fact that they don’t call themselves by their desired gender, but have to invent the word “transgender” for identification purposes lets you know they really know what they are.  Simply put, no, gender is NOT a social construct; it is a biological reality created by the type of chromosomes you inherit from your parents.  It is not a complicated issue.  And young people who are confused about their gender identity need to come to grips with how they were created and what they are as determined by the physical reality of their own body.  They shouldn’t be coddled with lies about their feelings and told to follow those nebulous impulses originating from who knows where.

As for following your heart, those promulgating and believing such drivel should seriously heed God’s warnings about that in Jeremiah 17:9:

The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?

The last phrase indicates the capability of strong self-deception.  The heart is not to be trusted, and young people with little to no experience of the realities of life especially should not “listen to their heart” no matter how attractive and/or romantic and/or heroic such a path might sound.

This is not just Old Testament wisdom.  Listen to Jesus’ warning/explanation in Matthew 15:19:

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.

So, you want your life to be characterized ultimately by such attributes, by all means, “follow your heart!”  But if you don’t, consider God’s wisdom (Proverbs 23:19):

Hear, my son, and be wise; And guide your heart in the way.

Your heart needs to be guided, not listened to.  And guided in God’s way, not your own.

The Edge of Rationality

While Al Gore is not in the news much lately, the Globaloney Warming, I mean, Climate Change Fanatics are still at it.  This post provides some data showing that critical thinking hasn’t totally departed the planet…yet.  The original post was in October, 2007.


A modicum of sanity has apparently returned to our cousins on the other side of the pond, as their Court finds that Al Gore’s popular fictionary, An Inconvenient Truth, is decidedly lacking in truth on at least eleven points, and really falls into the category of political propaganda. According to the New Party website [this website is no longer available, however, you can still find the story here and here, where the number of points is reduced to nine], the state of affairs, with the eleven “points to ponder,” is as follows, with emphases added by yours truly:

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies are:

1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute oneoff events to global warming.

4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

8. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

9. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

10. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

11. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Does Mr. Gore have any response to this? It is unclear to me from the source cited (RightWingNews [Sorry, I tried the link I used here but got an Error 404, Page Not Found memo, with the additional message, “Sorry, This page is wanted by the police so it ran away to Antarctica. If You see it, please let us know.”]) whether this was in specific response to this or to previous criticisms and critiques of this baloney, but if he really said this at some point in time, it reveals much about Mr. Gore’s epistemology and commitment to truth (emphasis added):

In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

Really? You do realize what is meant by “overrepresentation of factual presentations,” don’t you? In other words, Mr. Gore can lie through his teeth if it’s for a good cause, “good cause” being something the rest of us idiots don’t realize because we are stuck on the facts. How about overmisrepresentation of the facts? How about, Liar! Liar! Pant’s on fire! (Oops, another contribution to globaloney warming?)

This is just another case of “inaccurate but true.” And here is where we step closer to the edge of the abyss of irrationality. Logic is the foundation for rationality, and all philosophy students learn that one of the most fundamental principles, indeed, a minimal, necessitarian methodological assumption that all humans must make to conduct themselves rationally in this world is the law of noncontradiction. Put philosophically, this law says that something cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. As an example, albeit perhaps not the best one, I can be a father and a son at the same time because they are different relationships. But I cannot be a father and not a father at the same time. Put another way, there is truth and there is falsehood, and it is generally possible to discover the status of any given proposition if the correct questions are asked and the right data is collected.

Mr. Gore’s statement above begs the question, is there a crisis that needs solving? You will note he wants you to assume that there is one, even if he has “overrepresented” the alleged facts. He is the Authority, thou shalt not doubt the Goreacle! But either globaloney warming is true or it is false. Either it is caused by man, or not. And look at the litany of phrases used to describe Gore’s case per the legal evaluation of the scientific evidence: “not correct,” “misleading,” “not possible,” “not the case,” “misread the study,” “scientifically impossible,” “could not find any evidence,” “no such threat,” “a false claim.”

It’s not rocket science, folks. Either you believe the data, or you believe the Authority. But don’t claim that something is true despite the data. That way lies irrationality, and it is a dangerous and stupid thing to dictate policy on irrationality.

The Troglodyte Strikes Back

Originally posted in September of 2007 in response to a specific study that became “all the rage” for a moment, particularly in the liberal media.  It serves an another example of how there is a lack of critical thinking in the MSM.


The Study

You may have heard by now that another study has been published that alleges, if the MSM were to be believed, that there is further proof that the liberal mind is…um…better? That is, of course, not what they say outright, but one can almost see the gloating faces of the LA Times as they report on the study, and while the study authors themselves are appropriately demure about their conclusions as befitting “objective scientists” (Dr. Amodio, the lead author, is quoted in the LA Times article as cautioning against concluding that their results are to be interpreted as indicating the superiority of one over the other), the words chosen to discuss the data and conclusions are sufficiently suggestive that there is little question what was on their minds.

The Translation

The full reference is Amodio, et al., “Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism,” Nature Neuroscience (2007), 10 (10): 1246-1247. Here’s the [annotated] abstract:

Political scientists [Politics is a science? Hmm. Does that mean we are the experiment?] and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles [translation: conservatives are troglodyte stick-in-the-muds], whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty [translation: see how smart and flexible and innovative we are?]. We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity [and we can use big words! (OK, that’s not quite fair; it is a neuroscience journal after all, and they seriously should expect the reader to have some knowledge of the subject. Sorry about that.)], suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern [we’re more sensitive and responsive than conservative oafs!].

Then in the introduction, the paper’s authors state (again, with [annotations] as an aid to translation):

Across dozens of behavioral studies, conservatives have been found to be more structured and persistent in their judgments and approaches to decision-making [inflexible neanderthals] as indicated by higher average scores on psychological measures of personal needs for order, structure, and closure [See how paranoid those troglodytes are? The babies need order, structure, and closure!] Liberals, by contrast [See?! We’re different!], report higher tolerance [Yeah! We’re tolerant (of everyone except conservatives)!] of ambiguity [See how secure we are?] and complexity [and we’re smart, too!], and greater openness to new experiences [Wow! Bring it on! We can handle it!] on psychological measures.

Then in discussing their conclusions:

This association suggests that a more conservative orientation is related to greater persistence in a habitual response pattern, despite signals that this response pattern should change [those dummies can’t learn from experience or admit when they’re wrong, but we can].

Stronger conservatism (versus liberalism) was associated with less neurocognitive sensitivity to response conflicts [conservatives are insensitive and can’t deal with conflict; liberals can].

Read more…

K.I.S.S. Applied

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

And the hilarity just keeps pourin’ in!

14 Jan 2014 1 comment

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

 

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

 

And I really like this last one:

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Nasty Reality!

You should know you are in trouble with so many cartoonists use you for a target!

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

 

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

 

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden