Hey, there, fellow leftists! Hope you're all having a great day eating organic arugula, liberating lab animals from a university research facility, and withholding your children from getting vaccinated! Because it turns out that, despite the fairlywell-documented
Not sure where all the vitriol here comes from. Geez, you guys,
If you are trained in science you are a scientist. We are fundamentally different from others in the way we think and interpret information after our training regardless of what we do for a living. Being a scientist isn't so much a job as a way of viewing the world.
I also can't get over how many people post things with glaring misconceptions in them, misconceptions that are so easily fact-checked. You don't take out loans to pay for science grad school, you get a stipend and your PI or your department pay your tuition.
I don't think anyone is saying that all liberals are chemophobic. But, in my experience, most liberals ARE chemophobic EXCEPT the ones who are actual trained scientists. I don't know about conservatives...I don't associate with many of them. I think they tend to have different pet issues though.
Most scientists are liberal. Most liberals are chemophobic. That does not, however, mean that most scientists are chemophobic.
The radical New Left that rose up in the 60's and infiltrated the Democratic Party embraced spirituality rather than science and I see this a bit on the Left today. Political correctness has invaded science restricting truth. Many on the far-left see science as totalitarian because it is based in realism rather than idealism.
Smart, educated, rational and logical people become scientists. The wingnuts, unsurprisingly, go out of their way to to ignore the embarassing truth that such people are extremely unlikely to be religious, conservative teabaggish types.
I have a bottle of vitamins that, according to the label, is "chemical-free". I'm saving it for analysis, someday in the distant future, when science can spot those elusive non-chemical components.
Having forced my lazy fingers to go to the Moonie article, I conclude that you may be too generous in conceding that Dr. Berezow is &quot;an actual scientist&quot;. Yes, he has a PhD in microbiology; Duane Gish has one in biochemistry. Berezow said <blockquote> I&#039;m a &quot;big picture&quot; person, so the narrow focus of research, combined with its low success rate, did not fit my personality. I decided to change careers, and I became the founding editor of RealClearScience in October 2010. </blockquote> My translation: &quot;My run-of-the-mill thesis didn&#039;t get me a tenure-track job.&quot;
Not sure where all the vitriol here comes from. Geez, you guys,
If you are trained in science you are a scientist. We are fundamentally different from others in the way we think and interpret information after our training regardless of what we do for a living. Being a scientist isn't so much a job as a way of viewing the world.
I also can't get over how many people post things with glaring misconceptions in them, misconceptions that are so easily fact-checked. You don't take out loans to pay for science grad school, you get a stipend and your PI or your department pay your tuition.
Not sure why that's relevant anyway?
I don't think anyone is saying that all liberals are chemophobic. But, in my experience, most liberals ARE chemophobic EXCEPT the ones who are actual trained scientists. I don't know about conservatives...I don't associate with many of them. I think they tend to have different pet issues though.
Most scientists are liberal. Most liberals are chemophobic. That does not, however, mean that most scientists are chemophobic.
(I'm a liberal scientist too)
The radical New Left that rose up in the 60's and infiltrated the Democratic Party embraced spirituality rather than science and I see this a bit on the Left today. Political correctness has invaded science restricting truth. Many on the far-left see science as totalitarian because it is based in realism rather than idealism.
Smart, educated, rational and logical people become scientists. The wingnuts, unsurprisingly, go out of their way to to ignore the embarassing truth that such people are extremely unlikely to be religious, conservative teabaggish types.
Birds do it, bees do it ...
A process that&#039;s complete by age 14, more often than not.
AOTK.
I have a bottle of vitamins that, according to the label, is &quot;chemical-free&quot;. I&#039;m saving it for analysis, someday in the distant future, when science can spot those elusive non-chemical components.
I&#039;m pretty sure Michele was retarded even before she talked to that lady.
Stay inside your box, and nobody can know which it is.
nice.
The last one being the most demonstrably untrue.
Another thing that is impossible while straight.
On the internet, nobody knows how many tentacles you have.
So, free-quark vitamins have hit the shelves.
Having forced my lazy fingers to go to the Moonie article, I conclude that you may be too generous in conceding that Dr. Berezow is &quot;an actual scientist&quot;. Yes, he has a PhD in microbiology; Duane Gish has one in biochemistry. Berezow said <blockquote> I&#039;m a &quot;big picture&quot; person, so the narrow focus of research, combined with its low success rate, did not fit my personality. I decided to change careers, and I became the founding editor of RealClearScience in October 2010. </blockquote> My translation: &quot;My run-of-the-mill thesis didn&#039;t get me a tenure-track job.&quot;
I only go to five decimal places, because anything more is wasted on a slide rule anyhow.