Politics Needs Science

[Red]

I really didn’t want to make any politics related video on this channel, since politics is a field that I generally try to stay out of. It's not that I don't like discussing it or think it isn’t necessary, but the field in and of itself can been very alienating; when political discussion comes around, more often than not, the rational part of the brain shuts down, and the defensive part lights up, with people desperate to hold on to their political views. It’s more a matter of bias and rhetoric than science. Magnified bias and rhetoric, mostly, with little in the way of evidence, and evidence is what leads us to science. Politics is obviously one of the most divisive fields out there, with current discourse pretty much in a perpetual stalemate. Everyone is looking at their political agendas for policy, instead of what the evidence says. Government is admittedly pretty incompetent (often for this reason); however, this can easily be fixed if government were to be more embracing of being evidence based policy.

The thing is, government isn't science-based; it's ideology-based. Ideology will take some speculative guess and say ‘Hey, that sounds like a good idea. Let’s get the whole country in on it!” Science would ‘Hey, that might be a good idea, but it also can be a really bad idea. Let’s test it out in a few small towns first, see what the results are, and we’ll see what happens from there.” We have science to get rid of bias, but unfortunately, politics just is bias. Evidence based policy was never really a thing, since it’s been long thought that science doesn’t really have much to say about human affairs that it only really applies to natural phenomenon; Admittedly, there is a little truth to this, what with the Social sciences being considered soft due to there being variables difficult to control for, whereas in the Natural Sciences this doesn’t happen. But even with the harder-to-control variables, there are still flashes of actual science that occur within these fields, and luckily, can be used to prove which policies work best, via Randomized Control Trial. In a nutshell, In an RCT experiment, you take a large sample of people, cut it in half, test the policy in question on one half of the group, and do not do the same for the other half. This type of experiment is done in medicine, and is considered the benchmark for finding good policies. Oh yeah, side note, another reason why evidence based policy was never really a thing is that some consider performing experiments on humans is unethical; In regards to this, any testing of policy done isn’t anything like mind control, or anything extremely unethical. It’s a matter of giving something or providing a service to the population of the town, not something that violates human rights. It’s not hazardous or anything like that. “Oh, you’re testing UBI in our town by giving everyone $500 monthly no matter what? Sign me up buddy!”

This does not even apply only to social policies. Consider climate change. While every scientific body (even government scientific bodies such as NASA) say it's real, manmade, and a problem, the current Administration of the US denies it. The general idea is that the left tends to be more pro-science than the right, and while that may be true to some extent, it'd be dishonest to dismiss all the pseudoscience that some on the left like. Climate change is not the only natural-science related issue that is divided by politics; there are unreasonable fears of Nuclear Power, GMOs, and vaccinations by some on the left. Things like alternative medicine seem to get bipartisan support; people on both sides tend to favor things like homeopathy or chiropractic. (or as it's referred to in skeptic circles, chiro-quack-tic (or as I like to call it, chiro-quack-dick)).

There are many historical examples I can discuss of non-evidence based policy that caused more harm than good, like the War on Drugs, Prohibition, Lysenkoism. To give you an example of something like this at its worst, let's talk about Mao's Great Leap Forward. That's right; we're going all the way. Mao's policies, on paper, seemed brilliant for a communist state. For those not too well-versed in the history of Communist China, in a nutshell, Mao tested various agriculture methods in towns across the country. Sounds good in terms of testing policies, so what's the problem? Well, Mao did this as part of a nation-wide effort, and I think you can already see where the problem lies here. Overseers of the towns were encouraged to maximize the effectiveness of the respective methods, promised with a handsome reward. The intention was to make sure they actually did their job and to have each method of agriculture have their best chances of success. However, the administrators of the towns, in typical human nature, exaggerated the number of yields their town had. When the government came by to collect their tax, being the produce of each town, they unwittingly took too much, leaving the citizens without enough food to feed themselves. Which led to the worst famine in human history, with death tolls ranging from 20-45 million.

The system seemed like it could work, but shock surprise, oversight at that scale is just not feasible. So ultimately, Mao's Great Leap Forward was more of a Great Step Backward (budum-tss). Shut up.

Now, we have to try getting to the root of the matter. Politicians are human beings with their flaws and biases, and often let ideology get in the way of what is right. These people aren't evil or stupid. OK, they might be a little stupid, but they aren't evil. I think. Of course, this doesn't excuse anything, and it is unacceptable, I just want us to try seeing it from their perspective. But while this plays a big part, there are other factors at play. I did some digging, and have found a reason why politicians don't experiment with a policy before they implement it; they don't want to bother. Instead of viewing these tests as an integral part of a process to pass effective laws, they see them more like a burden, getting in the way of things.

I think you'd agree that this is entirely irrational. If you wanted to get something done, and you had a particular method of doing it, you'd want to be sure that the method works, right? It's like trying to build a house without foundation; it's just going to fall apart. Again, we're human beings; we're impatient, and we aren't very reasonable. We demand results, and we want them NOW. It's a drag to have testing going on (since reliable testing can take a long time). Also, imagine being a politician getting the results of the experiments. It's almost like getting the results of your final exam scores. You really don't want to know, and would rather live in the ignorant bliss of thinking they're good, and not wanting to see if they actually are bad.

Also, I want to touch upon private charities. I really didn't want to get into this, since I know it's gonna rile up a lot of controversy, but I think it'll add the point of this video. On the topic of private charities, there's a compelling argument to be made that, since rich people are more conscientious of how they spend their money (regardless of context, business or charity), they'll seek methods that'll make the most use of it. This leads to much more effective altruism. With government money, it isn't really the government's money, is it? It's the taxpayer's money, and they're guaranteed to get that money again next quarter, so who cares if most of that money is wasted? Sure, rich people might not be able to pour as much money into their charities as tax-payed social programs would. But you have to remember, it's not necessarily how much you spend that's always important; it's how you spend it. More wouldn't hurt, but it's just one of many factors.

Like them or not, you can't deny corporations are pretty science-based. They don't follow any ideology since they know that doing that will not lead to maximum profits; only following the evidence will do that. I mean, think of it this way; Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos didn't become billionaires by following their astrological signs, OK? (OH SNAP) They don’t necessarily stick with what’s traditional, because it worked for so long. Look at how some fast food chains are adopting vegan alternatives to their products, since they know that a lot of people are starting to question the environmental and ethical side to factory farming. These chains are doing experiments of their own; they see Impossible Meats are gaining traction, they want to get in on that, and see if it’ll make them a whole lotta cash. So they’re testing to see if there is money to be made here.

Now don't go thinking I'm some ancap or libertarian, and I don't adore the glorious free market; In fact, I think the government should be investing more money in things such as social programs and scientific research. A big thing that the government has over corporations here is that government funded research has done far more good than corporate research, which only serves the corporations that fund them. There aren't enough rich people to support every one of those in need (and let’s be honest, most billionaires aren’t going to give away their money), and they don’t always donate to the most worthy causes (Notre Dame). There are valid criticisms to levy against private charities, in the same way there are valid criticisms to make against ineffective social programs.

I want programs actually to accomplish the thing they try to achieve. I find it a shame how the government, when it attempts to serve the people, ends up being completely useless. I don't mind giving a piece of my earnings to the government as long as they are using it for good things, which unfortunately happens far less often than I’d like.

If you've consumed enough political memes, you probably have a decent idea of what most mainstream ideologies (e.g., communism, democratic socialism, minarchism, anarcho-monarchism) are trying to accomplish. And you know, some of these ideologies have some really great and exciting ideas. Hell, some may work. But, as I'm sure you know, they need to be tested. We can't just subscribe to something because it sounds like a good idea. But we should be testing within reason. I'm not too keen on testing out something like Posadism anytime soon, or on a similar note, legalizing crimes such as murder or rape. I don't think you need to conduct any experiments to show these would not lead to very desirable consequences.

You might be thinking that if a policy is good, it doesn't need to be tested. The thing is, you don't know if a policy or system is good until you've tested it. Sure, there are plenty of examples in history that can be listed of policies being implemented without experimentations that ended up being useful. However, there are also many, many examples in history where non-experimented policies led to results ranging from marginally effective to outright harmful. Luckily, there are a few examples I can list of evidence based policy in action, such as the Soda Tax, which as the name implies, placed a tax on sugary drinks. Now this sounds like an excellent idea on paper in order to discourage consuming unhealthful beverages, but would it work in practice? Maybe people are so willing to get a soda that they don’t mind paying the extra fee. Or maybe they’ll just consume other junk food to make up for the loss. You would never know that unless you are to test such a policy out. Well, we have. Results from the tests confirm that the Soda Tax not only has improved public health, but also has generated a lot of revenue, and now we see more governments adopt this policy. A similar one is the cigarette tax, which has shown a decline in smoking, but the higher the tax is, the less people buy cigarettes.

Currently, there is a movement for evidence-based policy, and it is growing. Slowly. I mean if it were up to me, I’d make it so that the only people to be allowed to serve in government are the experts in the relevant fields instead of having laymen politicians be in charge, because #Technocracy4Eva, but that doesn’t seem very likely of becoming a reality any time soon. If we want something close, perhaps we can enforce a science curriculum, taught by experts to everyone who is elected to political office before they assume office, regardless of party, religious and social views, and educational background. The course will cover all politics-related science issues, including climate change, energy, GMOs, medicine, scientific inquiry, economics even. Maybe we can also throw in a History course in there too, so they can learn the historical ups and downs of political history. This might be better than the current system, since the politicians will at least be educated, but, and I am applying the standard of testing to my idea, since even if these people are exposed to the evidence, they are still susceptible to bias, and will just cover their ears when they hear something they may not like.

People often talk about how they want politicians who are principled, and will always stick to their guns no matter what; Lemme just say that this is an incredibly dangerous trait to have in a politician. Politicians changing their minds when presented with evidence is a good thing; I don’t want to have politicians who never change their mind on things, and be perpetually locked in their own bubbles of ignorance. This is one of the reasons why I really like Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn. Granted, he’s stepping down after the defeat, but a big thing that made me like him is that for a large part of his life, he has been against Nuclear Energy; in the time leading up to the election, he said that Nuclear energy will play a part in the UK’s energy future, and seeing that come from a long time anti nuclear advocate, that’s pretty damn amazing. I mean I don’t want to elect someone for a particular thing then have them change their mind on it while in power, there is a reasonable limit.

Look, I’m not demanding the people we elect to be our leaders to be geniuses. But what I would like to see more of is them to be smart enough to defer the experts when making their decisions, instead of being so sure of themselves and being surrounded by yes men. You put me in some high office, I’ll just hire the best experts I can to make all my decisions for me, since I know I can’t be trusted with that type of power.

We live in the age of science and evidence. I think it’s about time we start using them.

[teo123]

The thing is, government isn't science-based; it's ideology-based.

Well, that's one of the most common arguments used for anarchism.

But even with the harder-to-control variables, there are still flashes of actual science that occur within these fields, and luckily, can be used to prove which policies work best, via Randomized Control Trial.

But don't you think those "flashes of science" will stop existing once agendas get involved?

It’s a matter of giving something or providing a service to the population of the town, not something that violates human rights.

Many would argue that taxation itself is theft and thus a violation of human rights. Besides, the laws that apply to microeconomics might very well not apply to macroeconomics. Common ownership works for a small group of people, such as a family, but it in no way follows it's a good idea to abolish private property.

Consider climate change.

It's hard to tell what most climate scientists think would be good policies. And, even if we did know that, would that actually matter? The problems with intellectuals is, as Thomas Sowell often says (and Noam Chomsky said similar things), that they overestimate how good they are at predicting the consequences of government actions.
Similarly, it's hard to tell whether nutritionists are supporting current nutritional policies. Yes, the vast majority of nutritionists believe saturated fat causes heart disease. However, the vast majority of nutritionists would also agree that sugar in food prevents us from feeling when we have eaten enough. So, do most nutritionists support the policy of replacing some fat in milk with sugar? Very hard to tell.

let's talk about Mao's Great Leap Forward.

The Great Chinese Famine has been interpreted to suit just about any political agenda.
It's possible that Mao wanted the famine to happen to get rid of political opponents, that the government wasn't actually misinformed.
It's often argued it was caused mostly by a lack of free speech.
It's sometimes argued it was caused by pretending that science of Lysenkoism is settled, by the government having a wrong idea what most scientists actually believed, and that that's similar to what left-wingers are doing today.
It's sometimes argued it was caused by pretending that man-made disasters were somehow natural, and that that's similar to what the right-wingers are doing these days.

I'm not too keen on testing out something like Posadism anytime soon, or on a similar note, legalizing crimes such as murder or rape.

Posadism is obviously unethical, even if the consequences were positive, because it literally advocates the government to murder. And long-term consequences are impossible to predict.
Legalizing murder would, in all likelihood, have no effect whatsoever. People thinking prisons don't exist won't make them murder any more than thinking hell doesn't exist makes people murder. You can argue it's risky to try something like that, but how can you compare it with Posadism?

A big thing that the government has over corporations here is that government funded research has done far more good than corporate research, which only serves the corporations that fund them.

What makes you say that? The research that AT&T put into developing Unix certainly helped others develop operating systems. The research Intel has done in designing efficient CISC processors certainly helped Sun, AMD and other companies. ARM, though, is putting a lot of effort into keeping secrets about the fine details of their processors (but that will backfire sooner or later).
Also, keep in mind the government is spending a lot of money into researching useless and even destructive stuff (nuclear weapons, Internet censorship...).

[Red]

The thing is, government isn't science-based; it's ideology-based.

Well, that's one of the most common arguments used for anarchism.

I know that why a lot of Libertarians hate paying taxes, but I don't see it as something that can't be fixed.

But don't you think those "flashes of science" will stop existing once agendas get involved?

That's why we have to do these rigorous testing, to get RID of any political agendas. That's the point of science, you know that.

You have the studies conducted by an independent group who doesn't get any funding from a political group. Now some may make the argument that if the government in charge funds these studies, there will be a bias, but I disagree; If that were true, all of our federal science agencies would be saying that climate change isn't real. Government funded scientific research is the most productive type of research, mainly due to their excellent track record of not falling for any bias or agenda..

Many would argue that taxation itself is theft and thus a violation of human rights.

I disagree that it is. They tax disposable income for things like luxury items, not income that you need. They aren't gonna let you starve to death.

The taxes are used to help make society a better place (or at least are meant to). It's a more productive use of the money rather than just spend it on things you really don't need.

Some others think things such as healthcare are human rights. Which do you think is a more important right, healthcare, or keeping every cent you earned?

Besides, the laws that apply to microeconomics might very well not apply to macroeconomics. Common ownership works for a small group of people, such as a family, but it in no way follows it's a good idea to abolish private property.

That's why you need things like testing. You test it out in small town, see the results, and then spread it out to other municipalities.

It's hard to tell what most climate scientists think would be good policies.

I'm talking about climate change in and of itself. The scientists can say anything they want, but they aren't the ones in charge.

And scientists do propose many solutions, such as Nuclear Power, veganism, renewables where useful, and GMO crops.

And, even if we did know that, would that actually matter? The problems with intellectuals is, as Thomas Sowell often says (and Noam Chomsky said similar things), that they overestimate how good they are at predicting the consequences of government actions.

Again, I'm not talking about government action. I'm talking about climate change. The US government denies it, the scientific bodies say it's real.

Similarly, it's hard to tell whether nutritionists are supporting current nutritional policies.

As far as I know the title nutritionist means pretty much nothing.

Yes, the vast majority of nutritionists believe saturated fat causes heart disease. However, the vast majority of nutritionists would also agree that sugar in food prevents us from feeling when we have eaten enough. So, do most nutritionists support the policy of replacing some fat in milk with sugar? Very hard to tell.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.
You don't need either saturated fat or sugar in your diet. Almond milk has no saturated fat, yet it has sugar. It has all the same nutrition as Cow's Milk, just with less protein.

It's possible that Mao wanted the famine to happen to get rid of political opponents, that the government wasn't actually misinformed.

Mao definitely wanted to silence opponents, but as far as I know there isn't any evidence of doing it through such a famine. Stalin was guilty of an intentional famine.

The citizens were not Mao's opponents; He wanted to industrialize China, and having millions die from the system he set up doesn't help at all, since that is terrible for the economy, and you are down millions of workers.

Really study his policies, and why they failed. I don't think Mao expected the administrators of the towns to exaggerate the amounts.

It's often argued it was caused mostly by a lack of free speech.

That was a problem with Mao's system too.

It's sometimes argued it was caused by pretending that man-made disasters were somehow natural, and that that's similar to what the right-wingers are doing these days.

No one's arguing Mao's famine wasn't man-made, it just wasn't intentional. It was based on ideology and bad information.

Legalizing murder would, in all likelihood, have no effect whatsoever. People thinking prisons don't exist won't make them murder any more than thinking hell doesn't exist makes people murder.

Do you have any evidence of this? Do you really not think that legalizing murder would mean there won't be any difference?

You have your burden of proof Teo. You need to provide evidence, not just speculation. Otherwise, you're committing the same error that Sunflowers was.

The reason a lot of people murder is because they think they won't get caught, and/or they don't consider the future consequences. Trust me, these people can be really dumb.

You can argue it's risky to try something like that, but how can you compare it with Posadism?

Both are risky. We can't know the consequences, but from we do know, it isn't unfair to think the consequences would be terrible

What makes you say that? The research that AT&T put into developing Unix certainly helped others develop operating systems. The research Intel has done in designing efficient CISC processors certainly helped Sun, AMD and other companies. ARM, though, is putting a lot of effort into keeping secrets about the fine details of their processors (but that will backfire sooner or later).

I'm not saying that corporate research has done no good, but corporate research is also responsible for bullshit studies, such as climate change is not real, or unhealthy food is actually good for you. It isn't reliable.

https://www.facebook.com/democracyatwrk ... 049241611/

Also, keep in mind the government is spending a lot of money into researching useless and even destructive stuff (nuclear weapons, Internet censorship...).

My point was government has a much better track record for objective, productive science. Are you really arguing corporate research is better than government research?

You're falling for confirmation bias; You're giving examples of useful corporate research, and examples of bad government research. The clip I linked should prove why government is better than corporate.

[teo123]

You have the studies conducted by an independent group who doesn't get any funding from a political group.

Not getting money from a political group doesn't mean not having its biases. Greenpeace isn't getting money from the left-wing group, yet it keeps promoting anti-nuclear agenda.

If that were true, all of our federal science agencies would be saying that climate change isn't real.

Obviously, there is agenda from both sides of the story here, both to deny global warming and to exaggerate it. Besides, climate science is probably a lot harder science than sociology and other sciences needed to tell which policies are good.
Social sciences obviously can be and are influenced by politics. The percentage of linguists in Croatia who believe Serbian and Croatian are different languages, or that Kaikavian is a dialect of (Serbo-)Croatian, is obviously a lot greater than the percentage of linguists outside of Croatia who think those things. The percentage of linguists in Russia who support Nostraticism or the Amerind Hypothesis is obviously a lot greater than the percentage of linguists outside of Russia who believe those things. The percentage of linguists in China who believe Tai-Kadai and Austroasiatic languages are distantly related to Sino-Tibetan languages is obviously a lot greater than the percentage of linguists outside of China who believe such things. It's not at all obvious how to fight against those things.

Some others think things such as healthcare are human rights. Which do you think is a more important right, healthcare, or keeping every cent you earned?

Healthcare is hardly a human right, just like worker's "rights" such as minimum wage aren't actually rights. Look, "right to healthcare" means "the government can't take away your healthcare", rather than "government must provide you with healthcare".

You test it out in small town, see the results, and then spread it out to other municipalities.

Again, what works for a small town may not work for the entire country. Also, as studies get larger and longer, they are less controlled.

I'm talking about climate change in and of itself.

I am also not sure most climate scientists agree human activity is the primary cause of the recent climate change. One of the causes? Almost certainly. But, as far as I can tell, all evidence we have CO2 human beings emit is the primary cause of climate change are the climate computer models, and most climatologists don't take those seriously. It's hard to tell which position to pick here.

The US government denies it

It has an official stance on that?

as far as I know there isn't any evidence of this

Mao was quoted as saying in Shanghai in 1959: "When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill."

Otherwise, you're committing the same error that Sunflowers was.

@Sunflowers was denying an obvious and a well-known consensus from a hard science, so well-known and obvious that one who denies that probably knows they is a science denier. It's not at all obvious that there is a consensus among sociologists that legalizing murder would lead to some crazy catastrophe.

they think they won't get caught

Well, today, there is a decent chance you won't get caught. What's the percentage of murders solved today? I think I've read somewhere that, in Croatia, it's around 50% percent. And that's not counting the incorrectly solved cases, and poisonings mistaken for a natural death. The actual percentage of murders correctly solved is probably less than 50%.

corporate research is also responsible for bullshit studies, such as climate change is not real, or unhealthy food is actually good for you.

And government research has produced that abortion causing breast cancer nonsense. Besides, they appear to cooperate, rather than to go against each other. WHO officially accepts that sugar intake up to 10% (which is higher than the typical US diet) is safe, even though almost no nutritionist believes that.

[Red]

Not getting money from a political group doesn't mean not having its biases. Greenpeace isn't getting money from the left-wing group, yet it keeps promoting anti-nuclear agenda.

Greenpeace isn't a science organization.

Obviously, there is agenda from both sides of the story here, both to deny global warming and to exaggerate it. Besides, climate science is probably a lot harder science than sociology and other sciences needed to tell which policies are good.

I don't think you are understanding. The government scientific bodies agree with other independent that climate change is real, the current US administration denies it.

Social sciences obviously can be and are influenced by politics.

Yes, I now that. The tests are conducted as scientifically as possible in order to make sure the results are not biased.

Healthcare is hardly a human right, just like worker's "rights" such as minimum wage aren't actually rights. Look, "right to healthcare" means "the government can't take away your healthcare", rather than "government must provide you with healthcare".

What if you don't have any healthcare to be taken away?

What do you think is a human right?

Again, what works for a small town may not work for the entire country. Also, as studies get larger and longer, they are less controlled.

I know that, I said you start the tests in a small town, then spread it out from there.

I am also not sure most climate scientists agree human activity is the primary cause of the recent climate change. One of the causes? Almost certainly. But, as far as I can tell, all evidence we have CO2 human beings emit is the primary cause of climate change are the climate computer models, and most climatologists don't take those seriously. It's hard to tell which position to pick here.

Come on Teo, you know that this is just climate change denial propoganda. Of course humans are the primary cause, that isn't even controversial. There is no disagreements over this.

Yes, there are other things that aren't human caused that contribute to climate change, such as volcanos, but about 85% is manmade.

It has an official stance on that?

Donald Trump has made it very clear he denies climate change (or he says he does, not like it makes a difference).

Trump has also appointed a lot of science deniers to the White House. You don't even have to look at the White House; just look at the Republican Party, which has established itself as the party that denies climate change.

Mao was quoted as saying in Shanghai in 1959: "When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill."

But the people were making enough food to feed themselves, so long as they were being taxed at a reasonable rate. What motive would Mao have to starve them to death?

Sunflowers was denying an obvious and a well-known consensus from a hard science, so well-known and obvious that one who denies that probably knows they is a science denier. It's not at all obvious that there is a consensus among sociologists that legalizing murder would lead to some crazy catastrophe.

You are committing the error of claiming to know something without evidence.

Well, today, there is a decent chance you won't get caught. What's the percentage of murders solved today? I think I've read somewhere that, in Croatia, it's around 50% percent. And that's not counting the incorrectly solved cases, and poisonings mistaken for a natural death. The actual percentage of murders correctly solved is probably less than 50%.

I'm not necessarily talking about people who've been caught, I'm talking about people who murdered. Some murderers are intelligent, and will ensure no evidence can be used to trace anything back to them. And that number is just in Croatia; In other countries where the science is better, the conviction rate is higher.

So if we were to legalize murder, murder rates will stay exactly the same? Not a single person will go out and shoot up the streets? Who's gonna stop them?

EVIDENCE Teo. Even if the number of correctly solved cases is somewhat low, that doesn't disprove that more people will murder if it were legalized.

And government research has produced that abortion causing breast cancer nonsense.

When was it written? What government? What branch? I can't find the original study. Link things like this.

Did you watch the video I linked? I'm not saying every last thing government has researched in has been good, but that's completely ignoring all the good it actually has brought.

Besides, they appear to cooperate, rather than to go against each other. WHO officially accepts that sugar intake up to 10% (which is higher than the typical US diet) is safe, even though almost no nutritionist believes that.

They said SAFE, not necessarily unhealthy.

Also, what about this article from the WHO that talks about reducing sugar consumption?
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/re ... deline/en/

[teo123]

the current US administration denies it.

The current US administration is divided on the issue. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Bernie Sanders think we should soon ban petrol vehicles to stop global warming, which is ridiculous. On the other hand, you have ridiculous attempts to deny global warming is happening, such as from Jim Inhofe, Ted Cruz and, as you say it, Donald Trump.

The tests are conducted as scientifically as possible in order to make sure the results are not biased.

I don't think that's always possible. Even in linguistics, yet alone in softer sciences such as sociology.

What do you think is a human right?

Rights are there to protect us from the rulers, to make sure they don't pass insane policies. Or, if they do pass them, that they know the results of them (free speech...).

Of course humans are the primary cause, that isn't even controversial. There is no disagreements over this.

There is a disagreement over how much effect CO2 has on the Earth's temperature. See, the mainstream climate models predict that there is a positive feedback loop between increase of the water in the atmosphere and the increase of the CO2 in the atmosphere, that magnifies the effect of CO2 by a factor of around 3. But that isn't supported either by theory or by the available evidence. Those climate models universally predict the infrared radiation from the Earth will decrease as the Earth gets warmer, but it has, in reality, slightly inreased. Judged by the infrared radiation from Earth, it appears that CO2 has around 6 times less effect than mainstream climate models predict.

Republican Party, which has established itself as the party that denies climate change.

Global warming deniers tend to be right-wing, that doesn't mean most right-wingers are global warming deniers. Also, our informatics professor, Franjo Jović, is openly left-wing (saying things were better when Croatia was communist) and openly a global warming denier.

What motive would Mao have to starve them to death?

To get rid of his political opponents, much like the Cultural Revolution.

You are committing the error of claiming to know something without evidence.

I don't think I am, I am just saying there doesn't appear to be any evidence that laws prevent crime.

So if we were to legalize murder, murder rates will stay exactly the same?

For all we know, it might even fall slightly down. The police only comes after a psychopath has already murdered someone. And then they put him in a place not where he will rehabilitate, but to a place from which he will return with even more psychological problems, that made him murder in the first place. For all we know, they could just be making things worse.

When was it written?

It's an often-quoted example of politicization of science during the Bush administration.

Did you watch the video I linked?

No, I haven't. I didn't click on the link because Facebook usually doesn't let people who don't have a profile view pages, and Facebook banned me for hate speech when I said what I think about Vukovar. Now, I see it allows me to watch that video. OK, I'll watch it later.

but that's completely ignoring all the good it actually has brought.

Have you heard of the Microcosmos Fallacy? A typical example of that are the claims such as "Stanford University, funded by the government, is responsible for Google." (and the research done by all the previous private search engines somehow doesn't count) or "Government is responsible for the Internet." (and the research done by AT&T somehow doesn't count).

Also, what about this article from the WHO that talks about reducing sugar consumption?

Good thing they have changed.

[Red]

The current US administration is divided on the issue.

'Current Administration' means the current executive branch of the U.S., which is supposed to be the country's main representative.

I don't think that's always possible. Even in linguistics, yet alone in softer sciences such as sociology.

These tests are more rigorous than typical sociology experiments.

There is a disagreement over how much effect CO2 has on the Earth's temperature.

No, there isn't. Definitely not among qualified scientists. Can you please provide a source?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi ... sus_points

See, the mainstream climate models predict that there is a positive feedback loop between increase of the water in the atmosphere and the increase of the CO2 in the atmosphere, that magnifies the effect of CO2 by a factor of around 3. But that isn't supported either by theory or by the available evidence. Those climate models universally predict the infrared radiation from the Earth will decrease as the Earth gets warmer, but it has, in reality, slightly inreased. Judged by the infrared radiation from Earth, it appears that CO2 has around 6 times less effect than mainstream climate models predict.

Give me a source. I want to know where you hear that there is disagreement. I can see there might be a little disagreement over the smaller details, but the main points of consensus are not subject of debate at this point.

Global warming deniers tend to be right-wing, that doesn't mean most right-wingers are global warming deniers.

Of course it doesn't apply to everyone; it's the general rule.

To get rid of his political opponents, much like the Cultural Revolution.

How does that quote you posted substantiate this?

I don't think I am, I am just saying there doesn't appear to be any evidence that laws prevent crime.

That's the point of courts, to act as a third party, so that the matters can be handled without the conflict escalating any further.
Now, if you want to have a discussion as to how we can make laws be more effective at deterring crime, that's a discussion worth having. I do agree that punishment isn't a very effective method of deterrence, and does nothing to prevent crimes from happening again, but you can't just come to the conclusion that we should get rid of it altogether. Do you not understand how ridiculous this is?

Punishment as a method of prison is problematic, but you have yet to prove that it's better than nothing at all.

You're falling for the false dichotomy of 'Well it's either punishment or no government!' Why don't you think we can improve it? There used to be no trials or jury, and people were at the whim of the state. You were pretty much guilty until proven innocent.

For all we know, it might even fall slightly down. The police only comes after a psychopath has already murdered someone. And then they put him in a place not where he will rehabilitate, but to a place from which he will return with even more psychological problems, that made him murder in the first place. For all we know, they could just be making things worse.

EVIDENCE TEO. Speculation is NOT EVIDENCE. You're basing your argument on faith here. You have a big burden of proof to meet, and you have yet to even get a quarter way to it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

It's an often-quoted example of politicization of science during the Bush administration.

Give me a link. If you're making a claim such as this one, you shouldn't expect people to go hunt it down.

Have you heard of the Microcosmos Fallacy? A typical example of that are the claims such as "Stanford University, funded by the government, is responsible for Google." (and the research done by all the previous private search engines somehow doesn't count) or "Government is responsible for the Internet." (and the research done by AT&T somehow doesn't count).

Watch the video. It shows how corporate research is more concerned with what makes their companies more profits, while government research is meant for the public good and improved understanding of the universe. Again, it's not like no good can come of corporate research, but the results should always be taken with a grain of salt.

[teo123]

Speculation is NOT EVIDENCE.

Yes, but what makes you think your speculation is better than my speculation? At least I've published a few papers in linguistics, which is a social science, so my speculation on the matter should be slightly better than yours.

[Red]

Yes, but what makes you think your speculation is better than my speculation? At least I've published a few papers in linguistics, which is a social science, so my speculation on the matter should be slightly better than yours.

The burden of proof is on you Teo. You made the claim, you must provide the evidence.

[teo123]

Yes, but what makes you think your speculation is better than my speculation? At least I've published a few papers in linguistics, which is a social science, so my speculation on the matter should be slightly better than yours.

The burden of proof is on you Teo. You made the claim, you must provide the evidence.

If you claim that putting insane people in jail, a place where they will get even more psychological problems, that made them rape or murder in the first place, is better than doing nothing about them, perhaps the burden of proof is on you.
Even if you claim putting them in a psychiatric hospital is better than doing nothing (a much more plausible claim), the burden of proof is still on you, because psychiatry is widely perceived as not a real science.