Anyone looking to avoid politics and/or general bitterness should stop reading at this point.
Sarah Palin is RIGHT about “Crony Capitalism.” Well… okay, that might be going a little too far. EDIT: Whoever on Sarah Palin’s not-a-campaign staff got the memo requesting something that could be seen as a swipe at both Obama and the current GOP frontrunners, came up with “Crony Capitalism” and taught her to sound it out phonetically is RIGHT about “Crony Capitalism.”
If a given industry is directly contributing to making my water less-drinkable and my air less-breathable, it is difficult for me to care how many people it employs. I’m as sensitive to the plight of the jobless and potentially-jobless as I can be, but the fact is that, however burdensome it may be for the good men and women of the Sludge Dumpers Local 140 to retrain in some other field, said retraining is at least largely possible. Me “retraining” my lungs to breath soot and smog? Significanly LESS than possible.
The reason so-called “conservatives” consistently have a fighting-edge over so-called “liberals” in American politics is that the emotional “default mode” of modern conservatives is HATE, while the default mode for modern liberals is FEAR. And while these are both negative emotions, hate is at least an emboldening emotion, while fear tends to produce cowardice. (This particular nugget courtesy John Lukacs)
President Obama’s fatal flaw is NOT that he is willing to compromise, but that he views “compromise” or “the middle” as GOALS in and of themselves as opposed to something you temporarily settle for on the road to wearing your enemy down.
I do not object to people and things that stand in the way of social/intellectual progress – they are, after all, only adhering to their basic nature. My objection is to the all-too-frequent unwillingness of social/intellectual progress to simply shove past them.
It is perfectly reasonable for anti-abortion crusaders to promote their agenda via the calculus that a given fetus has the potential to become the next Einstein, Ghandi or Mother Theresa… providing, of course, that they allow for the equally-valid calculus that it could just as easily be the next Hitler, Stalin or Osama bin Laden. Likewise, laws requiring women seeking abortions to view an ultrasound first should ONLY per permissable if said viewing is followed by forced-listening to an audio track of a roomful of screaming brats – you know, “both sides” and all that…
Suggesting that the world would be much better off with a significantly smaller human population and significantly-reduced human population-growth is NOT some horrible statement in support of “population control” or “Eugenics.” It doesn’t become that UNTIL you start talking about how to accomplish it by sinister and/or unethical force – prior to that, it is merely a statement of fact obvious to anyone who has to commute to work.
Given that, in retrospect, he was amenable to enivormental and social-justice causes, a supporter of a social safety-net, globally-minded and a domestic-policy pragmatist in addition to being a ruthless political street-fighter willing to grind his opponents’ bones into powder to accomplish his ends… I would gladly vote for Richard Nixon’s cyborg-retrofitted head a’la Futurama were he/it running today.
The notion that both political “sides” in America are equally “bad” is a fallacy that does nothing to help anyone. The problem with Democrats is that they spend too much money and lack mangerial fortitude. The problem with Republicans is that they want to burn down the planet to make their Invisible Friend happy – these are NOT comparable flaws.
“Evolution” versus “Intelligent Design/Creationism” is not a “difference of opinion” – it is an argument between a proven-fact and a debunked-myth.
MOVIEBOB CENTRAL 
Nope, read all of these comments, and I agree with all of them.
Especially the last one.
LikeLike
Number nine puts the finger on a point my mind has been trying to make for ages, thank you for clarifying it for myself.
As far as my limited insight in US politics can take me, I agree with you on all of your points, and whomever it makes you unpopular with is worth being unpopular with
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
I'm disappointed… none of those seemed especially controversial to me.
I'm just going to hit 9 and 10 here… Well, actually, I'm hitting 9 here, so I won't repeat here.
The last point, however, I pretty soundly dismantled in the last few comments of your last unpopular opinions article and would love to see some more of that debate.
LikeLike
In regards to reduced or even negative population growth: while the choicers vs. the lifers continues to rage I find it interesting that society as a whole seems to be moving toward a new dynamic on its own anyways. Having children just doesn't mean today what it did decades ago. Way back when we had kids because they were built in laborers. Now we have kids and…they're just sort of there for 18+ years (just ask my step-mom who has two older than 18 kids living with her). We've all heard the statistics that people, typically ones with more education and/or more money are tending to wait longer to have kids, having fewer of them, or opting out of having children altogether.
We were so child-centric in this nation for so long and now the pendulum seems to be swinging the other way as more people realize that having kids is not all its cracked up to be or (hopefully) that not everyone is cut out to be a parent to begin with, particularly with all the time and resource commitments it entails. So the fringes continue to argue but society usually sorts itself out in one way or another.
…Sorry. That seems kind off topic but Bob's statement got my mind wandering.
LikeLike
“Suggesting that the world would be much better off with a significantly smaller human population and significantly-reduced human population-growth is NOT some horrible statement in support of “population control” or “Eugenics.” It doesn't become that UNTIL you start talking about how to accomplish it by sinister and/or unethical force – prior to that, it is merely a statement of fact obvious to anyone who has to commute to work.”
This so hard. EVERY day outside my university there were crackpots waving around flyers about how obama was going to cause a depopulation holocaust….whatever that means.
Until we reach singularity, we should be TRYING to reduce population. China's one child policy is a fairly decent idea in the grand scheme. Such a policy will of course fail…there will still be population growth. But it will be slow.
Sadly nutjobs like the duggars will get in the way with claims that it violates their religion.
Also props for nixon. he may have been an asshole, but the man knew his shit….i did not intend that as a pun.
LikeLike
An opinion, likely to be unpopular: people who write posts entitled “x Opinions, Likely to be Unpopular” are wannabe iconoclasts clamoring for attention.
LikeLike
I agree with all of these points.
Bob, can I ask you a favour? Can you write a comment and/or post defining exactly what you mean when you use the term “Creationism?” I would never call myself a Creationist but I completely respect the opinion that a God may have acted as a “first cause” in setting natural phenomena such as The Big Bang and the process of evolution in motion. I have a strong feeling that you're referring to people that believe the world was created in six days, as an example (those tend to be the people who label themselves “creationists” and use the term “intelligent design” to sound “smarter,”) but I think you'll get a lot of unnecessary hate from people with more agnostic views by not clarifying.
LikeLike
I agree for the most part. A lot of these are just facts that people are uncomfortable thinking about because it grains against emotion. That being said, you've sure been a fan of unnecessary hyphens as of late.
LikeLike
For the last one, I'm going to say that Evolution and Creationism are not even on the same level. As Creationists would state that evolution is a mechanism that was created. Really, Big Bang vs Creationism is more aligned.
For the record, Agnostic and a fan of the Law of Parsimony.
LikeLike
@ Ben Borbak
The reason no one wants to have that argument though is that the Big Bang is an incredibly broken theory that exists pretty much as just a place holder until we come up with something better.
To put it briefly, the “Big Bang model” of the universe suggests that the expansion of the universe should be decreasing or that the universe should be collapsing do to gravity… except that the expansion is actually accelerating. Since the expansion of the universe was the only real evidence for the Big Bang but doesn't actually corroborate that model of the universe, it doesn't really fulfill the criteria of a scientific theory.
LikeLike
Stick to movies and comic books.
LikeLike
The Aaron above me is not me. I say, keep doing what you're doing.
LikeLike
I have one
Atheists or people who are just not religious are not an oppressed minority no matter how much they want to believe it.
LikeLike
Actually, both parties do share a very significant flaw which negates nearly every legitimate difference they have: they're both run according to corporate interests. As long as that's the case neither of them will fight for us and that's the important part.
LikeLike
Bob, I absolutely love it when you post political rants, and I totally miss the “American Bob” videos. But you do know that your readers/viewers are almost entirely like-minded individuals who are likely to agree with you politically, right? So when you say, “Opinions likely to be unpopular” it's a little frustrating because your views are, to the majority of your readers, very popular.
LikeLike
I can't say I disagree with most of your points bob, ive never been as hard line about conservitive views that you hear these days as others. I'm conservitive in certain things and moderate in others. What I dont like is you, again labeling large groups of people under a blanket banner. Not all conserveitives are religious fanatics, nor do we all share the same views about enviromental issues and the like. I think you need to remember that
LikeLike
Bob, this is just so much more fun than doing my actual job…
mmmkay…
1. Dunno what that means, neither does she so it's ok.
2. I guess so.
3. Not me, man, the Conservatives have won. I hate 'em like you wouldn't believe. Democrats are scared, but mostly I think they're just saddened by conflict. Liberals need to get over it. The Conservative Movement will never compromise, has no basic decency, and needs to be destroyed utterly (not the people, the movement).
4. Obama's flaw is that he states his actual goal as his first bargaining posture, and that he's a moderate rather than a liberal. A liberal, oddly enough, could actually achieve moderation.
5. Heh.
6. Can we just make pro-lifers listen to screaming bats all the time? What am I saying, that's what it's like to be in their heads, anyway.(kidding…sorry…)
7. Heh.
8. Don't forget “willing to kill millions for dubious political gain,thwart basic democratic principles, and responsible for the Khmer Rouge”, Bob. I can live without him.
9. That's not fair, Bob. Only some Republicans want to burn down the planet to please an invisible man in the sky. Most of them want to burn down the planet so that the government can't take their money.
10. Intelligent Design is exactly as valuable to society as Ex-Gay Reversion Therapy, Abstinence Education, and Hostess Twinkies. That is to say, they're objectively terrible, they're full of unnatural garbage, and I can't see why anyone wants them.
@Malnin
While I generally agree that the types of atheist who try to sue people to take down references to the Bible on money, in courthouses, at baseball games, etc. need to find a better use for their time, a much more serious issue is that it's difficult to run for elective office as an atheist, which is a shame, because it gets at the main reason atheists feel like oppressed minorities even though we're not, really, which is that most people are somewhat religious and they all seem deluded to us.
LikeLike
So bob about this depopulation thing, are you willing to kill yourself to help make the world a better place, or is just everybody else who has to die, so miserable leftist like yourself can live in a supposedly better world?
LikeLike
^this
LikeLike
@darkknight86 about you comment. are you a moron who cant read or just a troll?
yes overpopulation is a problem. no argueing that. and please show me where bob said that we should start murdering people? he said jumping to arguements about topics not raised is stupid. and all you did was prove him right. good job, and if you keep prctising you might actually be a decent troll someday.
LikeLike
@Hammbone
I'm not trolling, I truely believe that people who want to control the population, would love nothing more than to wake up tommrow turn on the news and find out that while they were sleeping billions had died. Since to these people human life is nothing but a inconvience to them.
LikeLike
@Malnin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMpWRZ7_A34
Atheists might not be oppressed politically (as in, no laws forbidding atheism) but as far as prejudices go, we are factually the most hated and feared minority in the United States.
LikeLike
Bob, this one was kind of boring. Sorry.
@Narf
The Big Bang Theory hasn't stated that gravity should collapse the universe since, ohh, around the time Edwin Hubble discovered the Hubble Constant. Sure, at that point, the parameters of the theory have changed, but that's scientific progress. The “holes” in TBBT are equivalent to the “holes” in The Standard Model — sure there are things we don't know and are always changing (Eg what happened before the cosmic dark ages, and where the heck that Higgs Boson is, respectively), but fundamental structure of the models are concise and has yet to be disproven experimentally or observationally.
tldr; the accelerated expansion of the universe has not caused us to throw out TBBT, but rather it has amended the parameters
As an aside, I have heard from some physicists that The Cyclic Model is making a come back. Apparently they've worked out some of the kinks that made them discard it (for like a third time) back in the 80s. If some of it's predictions pan out, it should be making waves (heh) in a decade or so.
LikeLike
And yet another series of opinions that are not so unpopular as merely so frequently uttered that they are irritating; especially as the ones doing the uttering are never aware of how unremarkable and un-defendable their opinions are.
1. A knock at Sarah Palin… really is that all you have, that is so 2008.
2. As someone who works in the field of environmental protection and management I will just say that we reached the point of diminishing returns with regard to most environmental controls two or three decades ago. Just about everything since has cost billions without much appreciable gain in environmental quality.
3. Funny, you decry the other side as being motivated by HATE but in the same post you insult those who don't agree with you at the individual level imply using force to make them do so; one could almost see an inconsistency there.
4/5. Eye roll.
6. It is also funny how so many of those who are pro choice are only really for the choice that they agree with.
7. But how will you support your wonderful safety net without a base of young, working people to pay for all those old, nonworking people. There is more than one reason so many European countries are going bankrupt. Just something to think about.
8. I'll give you this one; Nixon was a liberal and evil SOB.
9. Exaggerate much? I did a Google search for Republican proposals that would burn down the world in the name of God and I could not seem to find any. Evidently you are the type who sees a theocrat behind every bush.
10. I actually agree with you here but you are not being merely as radical as you think you are.
LikeLike
@Jeff
I'm Canadian so I'm not entirely sure about this, but I thought that some States actually had constitutional clauses saying that only people that believe in a deity can be elected to public office. I think Texas was one of them.
LikeLike
@ssmit
What are you talking about? I'm pro-choice, meaning I'm for the choice the woman makes rather than the choice Pro Life people want her to make. I'm not obligated to see it both ways, and that doesn't make me a hypocrite, it makes me consistent. Also, on a side note, not a judgmental, misogynist bully.
And there's no inconsistency in hating the Conservative movement. I'm not knocking hate, I just think it's important to hate the right ideas. And boy, do I.
@Darknight
You know, the reality is, the world WOULD be a more convenient place for me if all the people who irritated me/got in my way/supported Justin Bieber vanished tomorrow morning. But I can know that's true and not wish for their deaths.
LikeLike
@ Darkknight
Then you're a fucking retard.
People who advocate population control are trying to PRESERVE quality of life. The more people there are, the fewer resources there are to go around, and do you see the first world sharing?
No, the people who lose out form overpopulation are the poor and powerless. A lower overall population (best achieved by a regulated birthrate) would mean MORE resources to go around, especially in areas which are choked to the brim with people and still increasing in population exponentially.
@ Jeff
Not entirely true. There are laws prohobiting atheists holding office in some states, they are just unenforceable. But NOONE has been willing to take them OFF the books.
Atheists are also barred from entering the scouts, and also face open discrimination in many areas, especially in the southern US.
LikeLike
If you keep writing these why not just do American Bob? Or are you doing American Bob on some other site?
LikeLike
“Suggesting that the world would be much better off with a significantly smaller human population and significantly-reduced human population-growth is NOT some horrible statement in support of “population control” or “Eugenics.” It doesn't become that UNTIL you start talking about how to accomplish it by sinister and/or unethical force – prior to that, it is merely a statement of fact obvious to anyone who has to commute to work.”
I agree, obviously, that just because you believe that the world would be “better off” with fewer people does not mean that you also believe we should use coercion to achieve that end (of course, I'll leave defining the limits of “coercion” as an exercise for the reader).
BUT I don't know if I agree that over-population is the problem people have made it out to be. Most first world countries are more densely populated than their third world counterparts. I think prosperity is tied more directly to technology, education, political participation, and travel–all things that require infrastructure. And infrastructure requires people (lots of 'em). Yes, it sucks to get stuck in traffic (every day!), but the reason you're in traffic is because most of those other people are on their way to work to create the products and services necessary for the “good life.”
LikeLike
@Narf:
I think you're a little quick in claiming victory on the evolution/ID “debate” from the last political post.
You made a number of claims that are worth unpacking (and, I think, refuting), but in the interest of brevity I'll make one major point:
the theory of evolution has very little to say concerning how life arose (or the The Big Bang Theory, for that matter). Even if we could prove abiogenesis was caused by an “intelligent designer” (let's say some aliens came down and showed us a home video they made of themselves plopping some replicating proteins into the ocean millions of years ago), evolutionary theory would still be the most effective way of explaining how those proteins replicated and adapted over the eons to give rise to the life forms that exist now. That's what evolution explains–not where the universe came from, where “life” came from, why ice is less dense than water, or how magnets work. Whether or not some “intelligent designer” was or is involved with those other physical phenomena is completely unrelated.
I think the IDers (or soft Creationists, or whatever they should be called) that are being referenced in the post are those who claim that evolution is wrong, filled with fatal “gaps” (esp. ones they think are “filled” by a designer), that evo-biologists are lying, etc. Do you fall into this category? Or, if we assume that aliens “seeded” the most basic form of life and then flew back to Alpha Centauri or whatever, do you think that evolution is an adequate explanation of how we (and all other living things) got here?
LikeLike
@Capt. Phineas J. Werewolf
I really don't think that's what Narf was getting at.
The general tone of Bob's comments on “Creationism” really smacks of smug, self-assured condescension. My concern is that Bob is using “Creationism” or the Catholicism of his upbringing as a convenient excuse to tear down ALL religion, and possible the consideration of ANY supernatural elements.
As motyr said earlier, Bob could help his case if he would clarify whether his hatred is directed at Conservative Christianity, or toward anybody with an agnostic attitude toward supernatural phenomena.
LikeLike
@Hammbone: You're absolutely right in that saying “I'm for population control” does not automatically mean you believe that the Earth should be wiped clean of undesirables. However, it does raise the question, “okay, which people do you think there should be fewer of?”
And really, I don't think there's any good answer to that one. Whether you think there's specific groups that need to be reigned in (which is going to be pretty unpopular for obvious historical-context reasons) or simply think people in general ought to have fewer children, the fact remains that you're putting yourself in the position of telling people how they ought to reproduce, and who isn't going to take offense at some random would-be pundit on the Internet telling them how to build their family?
LikeLike
Re: “Creationism”
Young-Earth Creationism (YEC), which basically encompasses all beliefs that the Earth is less than 12,000 years old and that human beings have always existed in their current form without having evolved from other species, is wrong. It has no evidence backing it whatsoever, and its proponents work from non-falsifiable premises. It has no scientific validity at all. If evolution were somehow shown to be a faulty theory tomorrow, YEC would not be an acceptable alternative because it is completely wrong, and not remotely scientific. I'm a firm believer in liberty and fundamental freedoms, so I think YECists are free to believe whatever the hell they like, but YEC doesn't deserve any more respect from government or the public education system than astrology, alchemy or Lysenkoism.
Other forms of “creationism” that are basically “we accept the current scientific consensus but put God in the gaps that currently exist in that paradigm” are not scientific theories. Rather, they appropriate accepted scientific theories and just say “but ultimately, God started the whole thing”. Since it's not a scientific theory, it is not in opposition to evolution. (But science tends to eliminate those gaps over time, so we'll see…)
Intelligent design? I frankly don't see what's so intelligently designed about us or the rest of nature, and neither does Neil deGrasse Tyson. But you can read this Christian geologist's review of Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box if you need someone with more expertise to tear it down for you.
LikeLike
Re: Population control
The best form of population control is to increase prosperity and sexual equality in the society. Industrialized societies where women have education and career options open to them by and large have lower rates of childbirth than those in developing societies. Because large families make sense in developing societies where you want as many extra hands on the farm or the factory floor as possible, but in developed societies where kids stay at home on their parents' largess for 18+ years only to not find any jobs, large families make less economic sense.
Interestingly, the scheme allegedly implemented by Iran between 1989 – 2006 seems to be (on paper) one of the most ethical and progressive methods of population control I've ever heard about. I have no idea how much of its success is authentic and how much is Iranian propaganda (and that moron Ahmadinejad seems to have dispensed with it), but the basic concept seems worthy of discussion.
LikeLike
@Joe
I always found it interesting that Creationists jump all over books like Darwin's Black Box and other creationist tripe like that. There are far more legitimate criticisms of evolution out there. Jerry Fodor's book _What Darwin Got Wrong_ is a far more intellectual argument against Evolution's status as a scientific theory. I mean… it's wrong so far as I'm concerned (in my opinion it uses a too strict notion of the word “theory” which would eliminate almost any explanation on the origin of species as a scientific theory), but at the very least it actually take on evolution and makes you think… maybe that's why the creationists don't use it more for their case… I'll point out that it's not a religious book at all. Fodor is most definitely an atheist. He just doesn't think evolution explains what people say evolution explains.
LikeLike
About Sarah Palin:
You're making the usual mistake of thinking that Palin is really an intellectually limited individual: Palin is quite obviously a very intelligent and very lazy woman who found a way to earn a lot of money without actually working.
And why does she remain a darling of the most hardcore part of the Republican base? It's not because they are stupid, or misinformed: it's because she pulled the trick that they all dream to pull: that's what most people on the left (of Dick Cheney) fail to see: her fans admire her because she's a succesful con artist, not despite it.
About abortion:
It would even be claimed, if one wants to be really cynical, that being an unwanted child increases the likelyhood of being the next Stalin, Bin Laden, etc… Parents of unwanted children are likely to do less efforts and make less sacrifice to raise their kids right.
About Nixon:
Chances are, benig also a guy willing to rig elections to stay in office while ordering the slaughter of civilians by hundreds of thousands to win an unwinnable war, Nixon would today cynicaly join the climate deniers bandwagon while trying to convince the Pentagon to start a “Let's Genocide the Third World so that Climate Refugees never become a Problem” program.
About creationists:
The creationists are akin to the Holocaust deniers: the Holocaust deniers are well aware that their denial is a nothing BS, but they defend it nonetheless because they'd rather be seen as conspiracy nuts rather than as people who gets turned on by the idea of killing millions of Jews. The creationists also know that their denial of natural selection is also BS, but they defend it nonetheless because they'd rather be seen as religious nuts rather than as people who get turned on by the idea of giving the education of kids to serial rapists instead of actual teachers. It's not a matter of opinion, or even debunked myth: it's a matter of hidding your vice behind faked insanity.
***
@ssmit:
Bob is not hateful toward those who do not agree with him: he is contemptuous.
LikeLike
Hello Bob. I didn't know how to reach you in other way (didn't find an email on the website) and since this is a political post, I'll share this here:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19402_6-mind-blowing-ways-zombies-vampires-explain-america.html
I'm not an american, and I don't follow a lot of american politics, but I find this funny for comparing pop culture stuff with the state of american politics.
LikeLike
>>Suggesting that the world would be much better off with a significantly smaller human population and significantly-reduced human population-growth is NOT some horrible statement in support of “population control” or “Eugenics.” . . . it is merely a statement of fact obvious to anyone who has to commute to work.
That statement is actually either a misrepresentation or naivete on the speaker's part. If it's the latter, the speaker is making an assumption that the results of Eugenics can be controlled or otherwise ends in his favor. In the former case, the speaker doesn't want everyone to go away, just the idiots.
LikeLike
I agree with Cado
LikeLike
All fine by me.
As an additional support to the abortion deal, let me parrot Richard Dawkins' sentiment, in my own words.
So, we don't want to abort anyone because they might be the next Beethoven, do we?
Okay then; by that logic, then we should be actively trying to impregnate and become impregnated all the time, and send all the seed from our jack-off sessions to sperm donors.
What? Every sperm and egg is a potential human being, after all!
Seriously though, abortion does nothing more or less to our odds of curing cancer than whether or not our daily ejaculate finds itself in a toilet bowl or a newlywed's happy place…
LikeLike
@biomechanical923:
But if we limit our discussion to Bob's tenth opinion (“Evolution” versus “Intelligent Design/Creationism” is not a “difference of opinion” – it is an argument between a proven-fact and a debunked-myth), then it's clear that he's referring to a system of beliefs that rejects evolution. Regardless of Bob's or anyone else's views on religion as a whole, evolution is a scientific fact. I would say that someone who misrepresents it as an “opinion” out of religious, political, or philosophical considerations deserves condescension.
LikeLike
To the pro-choice people, do you favor late term abortion?
LikeLike
I found this on your blog bob and thought this picture was pretty funny considering you hatred for it
http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk188/eva243/Expendables.png
LikeLike
Even though I probably stand on the opposite end of the political spectrum as you Bob, I agree with several of your points this time around.
The whole abortion argument has been reduced to a black and white argument, when in reality there is a considerable amount of gray area. Ironically more often than not, any argument for abortion can be reversed and vice versa.
I totally agree about your Nixon idea, he got shit done, yeah watergate happened, but in the grand scheme of American politics 90% of the shit that goes down in congress now a-days is far worse.
@Nixou
Nixon didn't rig any elections, and as far as genocide goes, he kind of ended the Vietnam war, a war started by LBJ *cough cough*
Finally
@Bob
“”Evolution” versus “Intelligent Design/Creationism” is not a “difference of opinion” – it is an argument between a proven-fact and a debunked-myth.”
While I certainly do not deny that evolution real, it is still a theory, which in essence, means that it is not “proven.” Watch your semantics.
LikeLike
@DarkKnight:
Speaking only for myself (redundancy ftw) the late-term post-embryonic stuff DOES leave a bad taste in my mouth, but in the case of unsustainable deformity, health complications and endangering the safety of the mother, I'd still support it.
I don't believe in abortion being taken lightly, but I can't imagine anyone failing to take it seriously in the first place. It is, and should remain, a matter of choice.
LikeLike
@How Tall is Conan
That's not at all, in essence, what “theory” means in a scientific context.
A scientific theory is a collection of data, evidence, hypotheses, and propositions (when these come in the form of mathematical relationships between quantities we call them laws) which together form a predictive explanation of physical phenomenon. Scientific theories do not get “proven”, mainly because any good theory will always breed new hypotheses given additional evidence and data. Theories are, however, falsifiable. That is, when new data or evidence is acquired which is contrary to the predictions, we discard that theory and build a new one. More often than not, however, we build a new theory out of most of the data, evidence, hypotheses, and predictions. In these cases, where a failed prediction does not cause us to discard the majority of our explanations, we merely amend the existing theory to not produce these predictions.
Evolution by Natural Selection has not been “proven”, correct. But that's not what makes it a theory. It is a theory because it fits the above description. Just like Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, Quantum Electrodymanic Theory, etc…
LikeLike
“Nixon didn't rig any elections”
Stuffing a ballot-box is not the only way to cheat: trying to sabotage your political opponents' organization IS rigging an election. The fact that the Watergate break-in backfired does not change anything: a failed attempt at rigging is rigging nonetheless.
“as far as genocide goes”
As for Nixon's taste for slaughter as viable military strategy, google “Operation Menu”
“he kind of ended the Vietnam war, a war started by LBJ *cough cough*”
As for the Vietnam war, it started under Eisenhower (when Nixon was, Vice-president, by the way), when the american political class in a “brilliant” display of bipartisan unanimity decided that subsidizing a crooked self-proclaimed president with blood on his hands was necessary to contain communism. Of course, in a typical display of insuarity, almost no one in the US realized that a war was going on until american citizens started to get drafted.
***
“While I certainly do not deny that evolution real, it is still a theory, which in essence, means that it is not “proven.” Watch your semantics”
In scientific jargon, a “theory” means “a certain fact, as far as the current (and massive) scientific knowledge allows us certainty”. When a scientist talks about what scientifically illiterate rubes call “theory”, s/he uses the word “hypothesis”.
LikeLike
@Nixou
Theory does not mean “a certain fact as far as certainty is allowed”. Facts are individual propositions, theories are explanations involving many many propositions.
LikeLike
And those explanations are as certain as the scientific method allows it: people do not use the term “fact” to say “one clearly defined individual proposition”: they use it ti say “something I am certain is true”. Everyone is certain that evolution is true, including the creationists, which is why they spend most of their efforts and ressources to bully society into ordering teachers to lie to kids.
LikeLike