Democrats are the Party of Science?

[mican333]

[B]By labeling doomsday global warming skeptics as science deniers, saying, "the science is settled", Democrats deny the basic fact that the science is NOT settled.

Even if one is to accept this point, when Democrats say they are the party of science, they are saying that they adhere to science much more than the Republicans. They are not saying that their scientific understanding is infallible so just pointing out some kind of flaw in the Democratic/liberal scientific understanding does not really make much of a point. People are fallible and therefore liberals, a subset of people, are fallible and therefore it should be expected that liberals will be wrong on some scientific matters from time to time. So really, you are just throwing out some stuff that doesn't really add up to much.

So again, the "party of science" is a comparative statement and your global warming example is a great one for the Democrats side. So let's say that they are wrong that the science is settled.

So the Democrats say: "97% of scientists agree that global warming is happening due to human activity and therefore we conclude that it's settled science that global warming is caused by human activity"

And the Republicans say: "97% of scientists agree that global warming is happening due to human activity and we think they are generally incorrect and we shouldn't really bother trying to counter it".

Now as a comparative position, it's pretty clear that the Democratic position is much more inline with the scientific view on the matter.

[evensaul]

[B]Here is the real truth of the matter:

The truth of the matter, Sig, is that for a long time you've done nothing more than offer ineffectual drivel on topic after topic, contributing nothing of substance. Your post here is no different.

---------- Post added at 08:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 AM ----------

...the "party of science" is a comparative statement ...

Then your side loses the comparison, because Democrats do not follow science in a far wider array of subjects than Republicans.

[mican333]

Then your side loses the comparison, because Democrats do not follow science in a far wider array of subjects than Republicans.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that statement. Until you do support it, the statement is retracted and therefore cannot be presented again in this debate.


And I noticed you did not address my example and therefore I have supported that when it comes to the issue of global warming, the Democrats definitely can call themselves the party of science when compared to the Republicans. And of course the same goes for the theory of Evolution.

[evensaul]

Until you do support it, the statement is retracted and therefore cannot be presented again in this debate.

Like you make the rules. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You don't Mican. I stand by the statement as fact. Anyone reading this thread can count the many areas where Democrats don't follow science. So stuff your demand.

[mican333]

Like you make the rules. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You don't Mican.

Well, duh. Of course I don't make the rules nor did I ever claim that I did. I'm just telling you what the rule are.

From the rules section of the ODN website (which, FYI, I didn't create).

"When challenged to support a claim there are two options, offer relevant support or retract the claim."

So which option are you going to take?

I stand by the statement as fact. Anyone reading this thread can count the many areas where Democrats don't follow science.

Right. But you've not shown that the Republicans don't follow in fewer areas than the Democrats.

You see, when making a comparative statement, you have to look at BOTH groups and then see who is doing better and worse than the other. If you say the Democrats are wrong in, say, ten areas, then you have to show that the Republicans are wrong in fewer than ten areas to say the Democrats are more often wrong.

That's just a rule of logic (which I also didn't make up).

So you can "stand by" whatever unsupported argument you want but that doesn't make it supported.

[evensaul]

Same old tired blathering you trot out every thread. Here's my response:

Your side loses the comparison, because Democrats do not follow science in a far wider array of subjects than Republicans.

I stand by the statement, and the support is given throughout the thread.

And next you'll argue your stupid "claims of support are not support", as though I have to repeat myself at your request. You can stuff that too.

[mican333]

Same old tired blathering you trot out every thread. Here's my response:

Your side loses the comparison, because Democrats do not follow science in a far wider array of subjects than Republicans.

And here's my response:

I you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that claim.

And here's the relevant ODN rules in regard to my challenge.

"When challenged to support a claim there are two options, offer relevant support or retract the claim."

http://www.onlinedebate.net/index.php?page=odnrules

[evensaul]

I retract nothing and stand by the claim. You have offered two areas where Republicans supposedly don't follow science, while I have offered many more where Democrats deny science fact.

Your side loses the comparison, because Democrats do not follow science in a far wider array of subjects than Republicans.

[mican333]

I retract nothing and stand by the claim. You have offered two areas where Republicans supposedly don't follow science, while I have offered many more where Democrats deny science fact.

But then my two areas is not an exhaustive list and therefore you cannot use the fact that I've pointed out only two to conclude that there are indeed only two. Maybe there are 300 Republican areas and I've just listed two at this time.

[evensaul]

But then my two areas is not an exhaustive list and therefore you cannot use the fact that I've pointed out only two to conclude that there are indeed only two. Maybe there are 300 Republican areas and I've just listed two at this time.

Your problem, not mine. You've argued that the Party of Science is comparative, and have argued that Republicans deny science in evolution and global warming. I can't think of any other areas, but then I don't have to, because I'm not arguing it is a comparison. You are. And if that's all you've got, you lose six ways from Sunday.

[mican333]

Your problem, not mine. You've argued that the Party of Science is comparative, and have argued that Republicans deny science in evolution and global warming. I can't think of any other areas, but then I don't have to, because I'm not arguing it is a comparison.

Yes you are. Here is your argument.

"Your side loses the comparison, because Democrats do not follow science in a far wider array of subjects than Republicans."

And unless you are going to argue that there are only two areas where the Republicans are wrong, you can't use that notion in support of your argument.

[evensaul]

And unless you are going to argue that there are only two areas where the Republicans are wrong, you can't use that notion in support of your argument.

Can, did, and will continue to. If you can't supply more, then that's all there is to assess. Again, you're not the judge of what is acceptable or sufficient. Believe what you want, but your opinion counts for zilch. Look how far you got with your official challenge. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

[mican333]

Can, did, and will continue to. If you can't supply more, then that's all there is to assess. Again, you're not the judge of what is acceptable or sufficient.

And neither are you. And therefore your argument that we can only count the two areas I've forwarded is not true just because you say so, Mr. Judge.

In this situation, we can use logic to determine whether we should consider more than the two areas that I've forwarded and if we let logic be the judge, we can't limit it to the two that were mentioned.

So let's look at the question of whether there's a third (or fourth or fifth or sixth, etc) areas that have not been forwarded by me.

Since logically, something could exist even if it's not mentioned by me, then we must conclude that there COULD be a third (etc) area. Therefore it's not a fact that there are only two just because I have yet to mention a third.

So logically, you cannot conclude that there are only two just because I've only mentioned two.

Look how far you got with your official challenge. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

It got you to actually attempt to support your argument. Mission accomplished! LOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Squatch347]

Good Morning/Evening Everyone,

I'm going to take a moment to issue a quick red letter of this thread. It has started to edge into flaming/trolling and I want to stop that happening earlier rather than having to delete posts and all that. All of the members of this thread are veterans here and know the kind of tone and style we accept and the kinds of style we don't accept. Insulting someone's intelligence or telling someone they post nonsense isn't acceptable. If you are addressing your opponent directly, you've gone off the rails. Let's take a step back, focus on specific arguments and reasoning and see if there are valid points to be addressed.

[evensaul]

It got you to actually attempt to support your argument.

I provided nothing additional in response to your challenge or demands. They were completely impotent.

To summarize where we're at:

The Democrat Party is not the Party of Science, either by itself or in comparison to Republicans. Nothing you've posted supports any other interpretation.

[mican333]

I provided nothing additional in response to your challenge or demands.

Yes you did. You were challenged to support your claim that "Democrats do not follow science in a far wider array of subjects than Republicans."

And after my challenge, you attempted to support your argument by saying "You have offered two areas where Republicans supposedly don't follow science, while I have offered many more where Democrats deny science fact."

So you were trying to support your claim by showing that the number of areas where Democrats are wrong is greater than the number of areas where the Republicans are wrong.

The Democrat Party is not the Party of Science, either by itself or in comparison to Republicans. Nothing you've posted supports any other interpretation.

Incorrect. From post 21:

"So again, the "party of science" is a comparative statement and your global warming example is a great one for the Democrats side. So let's say that they are wrong that the science is settled.

So the Democrats say: "97% of scientists agree that global warming is happening due to human activity and therefore we conclude that it's settled science that global warming is caused by human activity"

And the Republicans say: "97% of scientists agree that global warming is happening due to human activity and we think they are generally incorrect and we shouldn't really bother trying to counter it".

Now as a comparative position, it's pretty clear that the Democratic position is much more inline with the scientific view on the matter."

[Squatch347]

I'm locking this thread. It has clearly devolved to the point where no productive conversation can occur and it serves no purpose but as an infraction generator.