Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "On Religion, Science, and Secularism (Pt. 1) | Dennis Prager | POLITICS | Rubin Report" video.

Bambi .On Toast "I think he's lost the open mindedness that his show was supposed to be about, instead only having an open mind for right wing/libertarian ideas." Nah... I would say that's the diagnose. Rather the open mindedness has turned into naively throwing softballs at way to many right wing ideologues. I'm a libertarian my self, but I cringe when I heard the nonsense many of these guy spout. I do agree though that he has failed the goal of exploring the real liberal ideas and how to unite the real "liberals" (as it was originally meant) who reject both the right wing hypocrisy of the republican party and the regressive/SJW madness of the left.
7
Nicoli: Maybe ... but empirical experience shows that there's enough gullible people out there for non-fact checked nonsense to propagate wildly ... Like Pragers pseudoscientific ideas about evolution and climate change. Look up "Brandolini's law" ... Bullshit - if not challenged has a natural tendency to spread.
4
***** "...which is very different from saying "The evolution theory isn't as clear as they make you believe". But the thing is... evolution is exactly as clear as the scientists say it is. Scientists don't claim abiogenesis is explained. Prager is just putting up a strawman to justify why he think he know better than the scientists. ... and he needs that because he has some science he wants to deny. He wants to spread manufactured doubt about climate science, so it serves him well if he can make it look like scientist in general are trying to fool you.
3
***** Yeah... let's go to the blogosphere to find "proof" that what every single Scienctific Organization of relevance (NAS, Royal Society, AGU, ... ) is telling us is the case, is false. Sure... that'll help... and while you're at it you can also find "proofs on the net" that evolution is an atheist conspiracy. ... requires time, but I can assure you that it's there. I'm sick and tired of hearing climate science deniers (and creationists) talk about how there's "no consensus" and why they think it matters. Science doesn't advance by consensus. A consensus materializes from the weight of the accumulated evidence and if you are a policymaker you damned well have to take the consensus seriously. Just as you would have to take a consensus amongst you doctors on a hospital seriously if you were a patient. And YES - there IS a scientific consensus that: * The earth is warming * It's just to human emissions of greenhouse gasses (primarily CO2) * It's very dangerous.
3
(quote) "How you fight the irrational... it's very hard... because you can give evidence and it doesn't convince people". Yeah Dennis... like with you can climate science. (and evolution for the matter). There are actually people to go to if you want to have a reason-based approach to the real world. (Like Sam Harris)... but Dennis Prager is NOT one of them. He's just another of these ideologues who happily turns to science denial when science goes against their ideology. ... of which Dave have had so many on by now it's getting absurd.
2
Silverback fair enough.... same to you . Youtubes bad support for threading and tying a reply to a specific post can cause these confusions.
2
***** I fully agree. ... 100% ... Not just based on Prager, (one nut case now and then can't hurt). But I think Dave has betrayed his original claim of wanting to "apply reason to the big questions of the day" with a long string of "stereotypical conservative ideologues" who all claim to be for "reason" and objectivity and science, but in fact are ideologically motivated to do everything but that. I guess Dave has just been so focused on the fact that they also were "at war" with the Social Justice Warriors and regressive that everything ended up being about that. Sad really... I had looked forward to a show with a classical liberal spirit which actually took reason an science seriously. And no! ... I don't think Dave enumerating all the leftists warm-feelings interviews he have had which I basically regard as without much substance as a good argument. Sure Margaret Cho is probably nice to talk to - but the conversation was hardly about "the big questions". I liked the Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Ayn Hirsi Ali, Maajdi Nawaz, Christina Hoff Summers and many others, but they are by now completely drowned in the right wing "conservative" science denying ideologues - like Alex Epstein, Crowder, Prager. ... and I've given up by now. This will never become the classical liberal hub where science and reason has an important role to play. Alone from the comment sections you can see that Rubin is now attracting more and more of these Prager, Shapiro, Moleneux fans who really couldn't care less about science and reason.... they just want to bash the leftists.
2
Charles Badger Thanks for your well articulated input. I have a few comments... "he talks to people like Shapiro and crowder because they accept him" Yes... well... that might be. But if he really wanted to start a new tradition of reason based liberalism, the there are actually people out there "on the left" who can be a part of building that. I don't like the "left/right" dichotomy. - for one reason that they mean very different things in US and Europe. (just FYI: I regard my self as classical liberal (geo-libertarian)). There are people like Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaz and I've tried to suggest to Dave to have Jerry Taylor of tne libertarian Niskanen Center Think tank on. But what doesn't help if you want to recapture the word "liberalism" for the classical liberal reason based approach is to have an overwhelming number of conservative and (for the most part) fact-free ideologues on. It might be that they "accept" Dave, but he is also then just running to "the other side" of the entrenched left/right picture of US politics. I know he say that he isn't and that he don't agree with many of them.... and I believe him. But that doesn't really change fact that while he is sitting there throwing softballs to people like Prager and giving them a platform to spout their nonsense the real reason reason-based approach to the real world is being left on the TODO list. And while he is cozying up to his new ideologue friends on the conservative side I tell you - he is loosing those of us who were on the classical liberal page and who took reason and science seriously from the beginning. Another FYI ... I do acknowledge that some of these conservative ideologues are actually worth talking to. I believe that, say, Ben Shapiro could be interesting and in the last Interview he didn't actually say much I found controversial. He has still proven himself elsewhere to be an ideologue who happily sets reason aside if it suits his ideology. Crowder is just a loudspeaker IMHO. - as witnessed by his interaction (or lack of) with Peter Hadfield. He has no interest in objective truth. > "That personally bugs me. Instead of dismissing me or someone else as an intellectual because we disagree, try to educate; they might find that we agree on more than most realize." That understandable.... but if you have read other of my comments elsewhere, I try - when people show an honest interest in discussion - to actually address the subject matter and explain my viewpoint (or the science) with references and evidence. However... I've also spend the last 8 years trying to explain and educate conservative and anarch-capitalistic ideologues like Crowder and Epstein in climate science and I must say that the only place I've met an equal amount of dogmatism and ideological motivated denial was the years before that when I discussion evolution with creationists. ... It's very rare that you meet a person like Steven Crowder or Alex Epstein who is actually interested in an objective and reason based discussion of the scientific facts of the real world. They have an agenda - which (to put it shortly) is : Reject everything coming from what they regard as "the left" at any cost. I don't have high hopes for these ideologues.
2
Russell Trakhtenberg "I remember I asked a climate scientists once why the global temperatures dropped for nearly a decade in the 50s when industry was on a huge upswing, the answer was far from clear." There a a lot of factors influencing the climate especially over short time spans. A single large volcano can make several years of cooling. Even for longer periods of statistically more large volcanoes than normally (like from 1200-1850) can contribute to changes in temperature. And then there's solar output, internal variation in the climate system (mostly ocean cycles like ENSO and PDO), albedo ... and there are other effect from industry than CO2 - aerosols from coal cool the planet since they block sunlight. So... climate scientist look at THEM ALL and try to explain every individual phenomenon taking all factors into account. They put up hypothesis and test them. The main hypothesis for the mid 20th century cooling is exactly that: Dimming from aerosols from industry. (as you said there was a huge (but dirty) upswing). That hypothesis is supported by evidence that it was only day-time temperatures which cooled. Night-time temperature rose - since at night only the green-house effect is at play. "And you have to agree that science is used a polarizing tool by nearly everyone" No. I don't have to agree with that. More specifically, I know I hear that a lot from the self declared "skeptics" (which they are not)... who again and again complain how the issue is presented in "the media". But the thing is: "The media" is not the authoritative source for what the science actually says!! I couldn't care less about what CNN, Fox, Huffington Post or Buzzfeed thinks about the science. I care about what THE SCIENTISTS think about the science. THAT's what matters and whether it's true or not is TOTALLY independent on whether or not the media - or Al Gore for the matter - is "polarizing" the issue. Why would you think you should evaluate scientific results on what media or politicians thought about them????? It's backwards IMNSHO. "But again he did talk about vaccinations and the like". Because he doesn't have an ideological bias wrt. that theory. There are creationists who fully accept climate science. ...who are just religious. There are climate deniers who fully accept evolution (like Matt Ridley) ... who are just ideologically and financially ties to fossil fuels and laisses-faire. And then there are anti-vax'ers who accept both evolution and climate science, but just think big-Pharma is out to get them. I'm a classical liberal. But I'm also totally on the same page wrt. science as Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michael Shermer ... and I must say I've been appalled by the amount of science denial which have crawled out of the woodwork in libertarian circles when the issue of climate comes up.
2
Kaddywompous ... well, it started by him saying he had never met someone on the right saying that "the science is wrong". ... and then he said a lot of nonsense about climate science and a little later a lot of nonsense about evolution.
2
Kaddywompous "He made a pointed distinction between abiogenesis and evolution" Actually he very much did NOT. He conflated it. Saying that evolutions hasn't got any explanation for abiogenesis is like saying relativity hasn't got any explanation for quantum tunneling. ... and regardless of his stumbling he tried to make it seem like the Cambrian explosion would require some sort of unknown magic and argue that Goulds punctuated equilibrium (which he also can't remember the name of) is needed. This is completely out of touch with what contemporary evolution says. The whole idea of this being an "explosion" is also overstated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#How_real_was_the_explosion.3F He is simply running with old rumors. "Sorry, but this attitude really gets on my nerves. It's not enough to disagree with someone,. no, they have to be idiots, morons, cavemen, mouth-breathers. Is it any wonder we've lost the ability to talk to each other? " Oh gimme a break... Prager is constantly stating that he is "all about science" and lecturing people on what should be tought about climate change... He walked into this. I have no problem with people not knowing, but when they take their lack of knowledge and combine it with ideologically motivated lack of will to actually understand the science and push their political agenda ... AND at the same time claim to be about reason and science, then I have to call BS.
2
Richard A "the point prager made was very clearly that there is no such thing as the science being in and contesting generally accepted ideas is not anti science," Thousands of creationists are thanking you for that statement. ... and some flat earthers too. If that's the point Prager tried to make it's bases on a fundamental misunderstanding of what scientific knowledge is. Sure there is constantly and borderland where there a still unresolved issues, but at the core of every scientific theory there is knowledge which is no longer disputed. Evolution and the theory of anthropogenic global warming are like that. Not that you can't dispute them - it's not anti science to point to new evidence and build upon the results. But as Carl Sagan stated: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” ... and neither creationsts, nor climate science deniers have managed to come even close to that... all they can do is write political motivated books and blogs posts.
2
"I am religiously obligated to believe it if it is true". Well Dennis ... then you seem to be a sinner wrt. both evolution and climate science.
1
Yeah right... Dennis ... but postulating that there's also no "evil" in the republican party kinda makes the message incoherent.
1
... and then at 11:15 it went of the rails... JESUS! what is it with these guys who think they are here to preach about "science" and "reason" and then they turn to science denial when some piece of science is a problem from this ideology? Yeah, Dennis people like you are scorned by science, because you are simply illiterate on the subject. Get over it. It's not "shutting you down". You are just WRONG! To sum up... yeah, when I look at the future, there are "evil" threats to the future of my kids, and yes, 2 of them are: * islamism * leftists authoritarianism. ... but the 3rd and probably most dangerous in the long term is: * science denial, especially climate science denial and the consequences that will have.
1
Candy Vegetables and Darkness Nahh... don't think so... but I think Dave has been so occupied with the issue of SJWs that he has totally lost his compas wrt. reason and have been entertaining so right wing ideologues just because they happen to also hate SJWs.
1
Silverback ... Yeah sure. Yanis is a Marxist... that of course makes any criticism of a long string of people spouting scientific nonsense with ideological motivations invalid.
1
Silverback ... ahh sorry .. the comment of yours I replied to did fit perfectly into another conversation, so I (wrongly) assumed you were replying to me. (last comment removed... as we just misunderstood each other)
1
***** ... I assume you meant that in a sarcastic way, but I don't see what criteria applied until now which should prevent it. ... or Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. Remember ... it's all about being "exposed to different opinions".
1
***** ... I think I still agree with you. "Can you be mad at him for that?" No - but I can be disappointed. ... and at this point he has lost my patreon contribution. I actually at one time had my wife talked into allowing me to make a large donation. - then Alex Epstein happened which put that plan on a hold. I have kids. I cannot fund a mouthpiece for science denial which threatens the future for my grandchildren. And now it's all paused. I've moved my donations to The David Pakman Show. I like his objective and reason based approach to free media.
1
***** Well... yes... hmm... I've always regarded Glenn Beck as crazy, but I've just seen the first part of the interview and I must admit, he (until now) seems like a pretty normal guy. ... but I still fear Alex Jones will be on some day.
1
***** yeah... strange though. He did actually challenge Bishop Barron. So ... make me wonder whether there's something wrong with is objectivity compass. I maintain that Dave seem to have lost the "reason" part of his mission statement. ... every time there's need for challenging the guest to actually have "reason" applied he just throws a softball. I liked his Interview with Faisal. It really shows where Dave fails. He does that exactly where he disagrees with Faisal. When he suggests Ben Shapiro as an example of "The new center". I've totally with Faisal here. Shapiro might seem like someone you could talk to and have an interesting discussion with, but he is still obviously an ideologue who will set aside objectivity and reason when he needs it.
1
JoTokutora Yeah ... and even the Flat Earth movement has gotten a revival. Something is fishy - We need to check the data again.
1
JoTokutora It's true... I honestly met a Flat Earther the other day who insisted that Earth only appeared to be round because of gravity bending space time. If you want to translate this into the context of evolution, then here: YOU ARE WRONG. Go look it up... you are running with 15 years old talking-points from debunked creationism.
1
JoTokutora There's no difference between creationism and "intelligent design" - apart from marketing. .
1
JoTokutora I'm for science ... and Science tells us how spices (and species in general) evolved. Just as it tells us how quantum mechanics works and how the continents were formed.
1
JoTokutora I didn't say science was finished. ... However. All scientific theories has a solid core which is very seldom completely overturned (if ever) ... If you want to overturn a scientific theory in the way you suggest, you would have to present very extraordinary evidence. - the proverbial rabbits in the pre-cambrian. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
1
JoTokutora First understand what "theory" means in science... then we can talk: http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
1
JoTokutora Nope...you read that link, understand what it says and acknowledge that "it's just a theory" is a meaningless argument within the context of natural sciences.
1
JoTokutora Define what you mean by "cross species evolution". To my knowledge that is not a term in actual biology.
1
Lewa500 ... completely agree. And I think Dave has totally failed his initial goal of "applying reason to the big questions" by constantly entertaining stuff like that as if it was just another "idea" we should take seriously and listen to. It's like Dave has focused so intensely on discussion the SJW / regressive left problem (which, YES, IS a problem) that he has turned to a group of fact-free ideologues who just happen to agree with him on SJWs and then in the name of "free speech" pretended that their scientific nonsense was ideas worth listening to. ... and then after having had 10-15 of these guys on, several of them (like Prager) actively denying climate science in the interview Dave again and again tries to "balance" that by mentioning he have had Michael Mann on ... Sorry Dave ... I just don't buy that approach. Primarily being a mouthpiece for science deniers is not "applying reason to the big questions". You've lost me. ... I had great hopes for The Rubin Report in the beginning. ... I think I'm out of hope.
1
Polar Bear: "Prager is not a scientist" No... but that obviously doesn't stop him from lecturing others about applying "science" ... while he comes to conclusions totally at odds with the actual scientists. It's madding how much of the scientific nonsense people like Prager parades which goes around these days.
1
gummi666 Yeah ... and at the same time his is lecturing people about applying science and reason. This is just too much to bear... I would expect to hear a long line of guests which that level of scientific understanding on a creationist show - not on the Rubin Report. To quote a powerful guy: "Sad!" ;-)
1
***** Yeah .. I do too ... because he's an ideological motivated science illiterate running with the talking-points he likes.
1
Adagal13 It's always dangerous to generalize ... but try count the number of conservatives who have been on "The Rubin Report" - then go google their stance on Climate Science (if they haven't already revealed it on the show, like Steven Crowder did). Now come back with that statistics and tell me whether it points to any conclusion. And before you think I'm trying to conclude that "All conservatives are incapable of understanding science" ... I'm not. But very few conservatives are capable of knowing where the limit of their understanding is and when their opinion turns into ideological bias. I can name conservatives who actually get it right... Like rep. Bob Inglis of SC.
1
***** It's about risk management. In every other situation, if something had a non-trivial risk of being utterly catastrophic you would hedge against it. ... especially if the result would be a gain regardless of whether it turned out to be worst case. It can only be a good thing to become energy-independent and move avoid from resources which are becoming increasingly hard to extract. Your comment about "things omitted and biased data" is simply just primitive science denial and conspiracy theories... hard to take seriously.
1
Russell Trakhtenberg ... yeah. There are cutting edge questions within every scientific theory. Including the most well established once, like evolution, anthropogenic-global-warming, quantum mechanics ... But that doesn't IN ANY WAY mean the the central principles of the theory isn't crystal clear and that wasn't the point Prager was trying to make. He tried to sow manufactured doubt about rock solid science. There is no excuse for that.
1
Russell Trakhtenberg ... I can - without hesitation - say that I at least understand the science of both evolution and climate change better than Prager. And you doesn't have be a scientist to do that. You just have to not have an ideological bias not to wanting to understand it. Prager clearly is so religious that he has a bias against admitting that evolution is rock solid science and he also clearly is so political ideological biased that he equally tries to sow manufactured doubt about climate science. When it comes to speaking about science his opinion is just as much worth as a degree from Trump University.
1
Kaddywompous everything... literally everything he said about both climate and evolution. ..
1
***** Just to make it clear.... I didn't say that. But if they really are wrong about stuff they should have learned in school AND THEN go out lecturing people about being "about science" (which he literally said) AND starts telling people what he thinks they should learn in school INSTEAD... what he actually ALSO literally did,... THEN I think it's perfectly OK to publicly state he is full of BS.
1
***** "You realize 99% of conservatives believe in evolution right?" Hmm... let's investigate this... According to this 2014 Gallup poll, only 58% of americans believe in some form of evolution: http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx And according to this 2014 Gallup poll, there is 38% US "conservatives" http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx So ... that would mean that since almost all of these conservatives believe in evolution, only 20 out of 62 - meaning less than 32% of non-conservatives believe in evolution. - right? It's simple arithmetics. So for your claim to be true, 68% of non-conservatives had to be creationists ... are you sure about that?
1
Kaddywompous > ... This is simply a true statement. True but irrelevant. Only serving to create manufactured doubt.
1
***** Yeah.. thank you for being so polite... I do realize there are "conservatives" in other countries too. We have them in Denmark you know. And you are correct. Danish conservatives are generally not creationists. It would be fair to say that amongst the few creationists we have in Denmark - most are conservatives too.
1
Kaddywompous I 100% disagree.
1