whatever one's turned up using the scientific method. It's easier to read speculative crap and not have to do any work, at all.

This is why I generally answer once or twice, maximum, and then walk away. People who can be reached are reached unless they're turned off by a tl:dr of a protracted pissing contest.

It's a bizarre scenario, and one that would have a harder time playing out several years ago at DU. Now?

Think of how the local news reports any sort of story with a tinge of science (even when a toxic substance is spilled in a crash - the attempts to even pronounce the chemicals or make sense of what the actual threat may or may not be).

science will always be on the road less traveled - it is not for the apathetic.

Ron Paul gave a keynote speech to these yahoos.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2013/9/4/114151/7809/

Unfortunately, challenging one's beliefs seems to be a lost art, even among supposed progressives. I'm incredibly disheartened, in general. And, today's nonsense makes me see DU as a dying entity, in terms of moving things in the right direction.

Ugh.

Asimov wrote about it several times.

Most notably an essay in the 1950's.

It's quite sad to see.

I'm sorry to see you talking about leaving.

Those who toss out all ballistics science because it throws cold water on their pet JFK conspiracy theories.

Anti-ANYTHING genetically modified, even if the only thing modified is the amount of vitamin A in rice.

"Medical" woo being touted with all sorts of wild claims and anecdotes, while science that debunks "memory water," needles stuck into anywhere, or the outdated quackery of chiropractic is slammed as "shills for big pharma."

It's hard to see any of that as "progressive."

in the history of US culture, I conjecture.

It is not part of the scientific process, in the Popperian sense, for a scientist to 'believe' any theory, I'd like to emphasise. A theory is a philosophical mental construct which a scientist might consider useful in her or his attempts to understand Nature. And the only way for a scientist to properly defend a theory is by doing his or her best to prove it flawed, by forming hypotheses that make predictions under the theory and putting them to the test, as stressfully as can be devised, under both experimental and real-world conditions.

I myself have imagined a theory, which I have not tested but continue to observe, which suggests a causal relationship between much mental confusion and the apparently pandemic carelessness, maleducation in and outright manipulation of the English language in most of the native English-speaking world.

It's very hard for me to look at DU sometimes for that reason. I tend to stay in the social forums and I don't post nearly as much as I used to.

This place is not representative of most Democrats. The people I know beyond the internet who call themselves Democrats aren't nearly as anti-business. I haven't really gotten a gauge on their views about science specifically, but they also tend to be more rational.

the wrong crowd.

It's mind boggling to see supposed "progressives" buy into anti-science nonsense. Where is the filter?

floating around this place. You can go nuts trying to smack down every one. Go get into an argument in the gungeon, and learn the meaning of futility.

Not a good way to engender good debate. But "one side" is up front about its intent: Shame, marginalizing, stigmatization, etc. I just wonder why it even bothers with data, maybe to look good?

And telling someone their facts are wrong is viewed as a vicious personal attack.

Anti-science sentiment seems just as high on DU as it is on FreeRepublic, and that's a damn shame.

“Calling a company evil is easy”: Climate Corp head explains why he joined up with Monsanto
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/05/calling_a_company_evil_is_easy_climate_corp_head_explains_why_he_joined_up_with_monsanto/

In a place where discussion was valued, this could lead to some very interesting ponderings. But I'm not going to post it, because I know the flames would be massive.

I don't trust Monsanto completely.

But I also don't think every action they take is designed to kill as many people as possible.

There seems to be less and less room for people like us on DU.

Someone calls DUers shills for Monsanto; you say that's ignorance, and an unethical attack, and yours gets hidden (5-1!) while the 'shill' attack is still there.

In retrospect, I wasn't proud of my post, but...

... and how stupid those who voted against the GMO labeling measure must be...

They're now pushing a conspiracy meme! Monsanto fixed the election!

Hate to see you go, but I can hardly fault you for it.