Is it too much to wonder whether continual and habitual assaults on the honesty, intentions, patriotism, and professionalism of scientists and intellectuals, a reflexive readiness to dispute the validity and usefulness of scientific and intellectual inquiry, in short the open adoption of anti-scientific and anti-intellectual attitudes and practices by some conservatives may also have played a role in such dramatic and long-standing trends?
Talk about buying into what the other side is selling. No serious conservative has questioned the usefulness of scientific or intellectual inquiry. to even write that sentance demonstrates intellectual dishonesty. challenging conclusions by scientists by asking for the actual data that led to those conclusions, and/or challenging methodology, etc., IS THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS. It is not "challenging the usefulness of scientific inquiry". That is sophmoric tripe dressed up as intellectualism. Please. Have a serious argument to make or don't bother.
Also, what is a believing realist? Are they a "realist" b/c they believe? Or do they believe b/c they are "realist"?
It seems to me that someone has reached a conclusion (AGW is real) and then worked backward from there to define terms.
Why is it that conservatives merely asking the scientists to offer proof is considered so outrageous?
I think the stance the "believer realists" are taking - accept without proof and sacrafice our economy on the alter of idiocy is the outrageous stance.
Was this post satire?
It starts by claiming that this:
We can be confident that humanity will face many difficulties in the upcoming century, as it has in every century. We just don’t know which ones they will be. This implies that the correct grand strategy for meeting them is to maximize total technical capabilities in the context of a market-oriented economy that can integrate highly unstructured information, and, most importantly, to maintain a democratic political culture that can face facts and respond to threats as they develop.
Is some kind of great thinking and coherent strategy. That paragraph says absolutely nothing. We should be ready to do something when something happens using technology? How insightful. Manzi must be a true scientist.
The idea that conservatives ignore science is idiotic. Maybe some do. Plenty of liberals do as well. they keep talking about the "scientific consensus" as if that means anything scientific. Consensus is not science.
The skeptics have, if anything, been more scientific than anyone, including Manzi, is willing to give them credit for. The skeptics are the ones demanding actual data so that the conclusions of AGW can be evaluated. Were it not for the skeptics, the fraud that is AGW science would not now be in the process of being uncovered. And, people like Manzi would have happily gone along with the 'consensus' never actually requesting that any actual science be performed.
Indeed, Manzi's argument is that conservatives should bow at the alter of the "elite" thinkers, such that when the Mexican Acadamy of Science tells us that they took a vote and believe in AGW, we should believe them b/c they are the experts. Again, that is not science. All it is doing is worshipping at the alter of political correctness.