Climate change, without the feckless pursuit of science in the name of research and discovery we would never have been able to create the technology that has enabled people to alter the climate of the planet, putting billions in jeopardy. Who is more to blame the addict or the supplier feeding the addiction. Science is the reason civilization has to worry about nuclear annihilation because of some fanatical country being able to replicate the science that created the first nuclear bomb. It is a not a matter of if but when the next pandemic occurs. Doctors who are essentially over glorified and over paid scientists over prescribed antibiotics thereby limiting the effectiveness of an important line of defense against such an occurrence. It is high time the federal government stepped in and created an agency to oversee and regulate what research is and isnât pursued and who is and isnât allowed to have access to such research. The scientific community has been allowed to run amok for far to long without being held accountable for the possible ramifications of their under regulated research and development. Our survival as a species could very well depend on it. In case you missed it Iâm being facetious, but the point stands. https://blog.rsb.org.uk/the-misuse-of-research-join-the-debate/ If it wasnât an issue there would be no need for sites like this.
So in other words you canât cite specific scientists or specific research but instead go off on a long nonsensical rant devoid of any facts. And to top it off you donât seem very clear on what the word âfacetiousâ means.
The reasons for your dislike of educated people are becoming increasingly clear, but donât mistake ignorance for a virtue just because you have it in abundance.
Do you really want that power in the hands of Donald Trump (or some other climate change denier that might get elected in the future)?
Maybe that was the facetious part, but with a word salad with that many conflicting parts who can tell?
I provide a reputable link stating the the exact point Iâm making. Just because you lack a sense of humor doesnât mean it wasnât facetious. Which means treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant. Seemed somewhat flippant to me, I suppose itâs not factually funny but âirregardlessâ I found it amusing and I know other people that would also think it was funny. Would you like their email addresses so you can confirm the the validity of this statement?
Here is another http://www.cdc.gov/features/antibioticresistance/
âSo, what is fueling antibiotic resistance, you may ask? Weâre finding that the widespread overuse and INCORRECT PRESCRIBING PRACTICES ARE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS.â
What is the âtl;drâ point youâre actually trying to make here? Iâm only asking because Iâve read all your posts and still have no idea what it is.
You provided a link to a blog post about the possibility of multiple interpretations of research and the challenges that poses. Thereâs nothing in there to back up your claims about the âscientific communityâ blaming people for mistakes or that climate change is a hoax or that the government needs to direct scientific research. Or that it needs to get out of research. Itâs difficult to tell what your point is exactly.
I do find it ironic that after making fun of educated people and your broad unsubstantiated attack on scientists you turn to an educated scientist in an attempt to shore up your argument. Unfortunately you couldnât find one who says what you seem to think heâs saying.
Perfect, since I donât think that poster is saying what they seem to think theyâre saying, either.
So, science is bad, because climate change, and antibiotic resistance.
⌠You do know that if the âfeckless pursuitâ of science hadnât created antibiotics, itâs only true that antibiotic resistance wouldnât be a problem because weâd be entirely without our best weapon against bacteria, as opposed to fearing the day when weâll be mostly without that weapon, right?
So is your point that all science is harmful because scientists make mistakes? Because research can be misinterpreted or misused?
The irony of using the Internet to make that point must be lost on you.
Would you like me to do some more research on your behalf. I can send links showing how doctors and pharmaceutical companies have significantly contributed to the opioid epidemic facing the nation today.
âSeveral factors are likely to have contributed to the severity of the current prescription drug abuse problem. They include drastic increases in the number of prescriptions written and dispensed, greater social acceptability for using medications for different purposes, and aggressive marketing by pharmaceutical companies.â
No, I think it would be better if you took some time to read the links youâre sharing and hopefully understand the ludicrousness of what youâre saying.
Blame is not the most helpful concept if the goal is to prevent the injury.
Weâre giving on the media question? Okay, Iâve forgoten all about it. 
No the point is that the scientific community and the academic elite are not above reproach. Science while offering solutions and understanding to society is also the cause of a lot of the problems we face. There are those that want to blame gun manufactures for the misuse of guns, but no accountability when a scientist creates something that then leads to negative societal consequences, .
Not to beat a dead horse here, but I was put on the defensive as soon as commented. Look over the convo. On one post I intentionally used the word exaggerate rather than hyperbole.cause I could tell by tone of the other responses that within a few minutes some pompous ass was going to say something like âThe word you meant was hyperbole.â and right on cue it happened. If the person knew to tell me which word was more âappropriateâ is it safe to assume that the word I used was sufficient in conveying the meaning I intended? The intention of the correction was not for instructional purposes it was to be demeaning, which is how 99% of those responded to me on here, if you are down with that, cool. Have a nice day!
No one here has ever argued that the âscientific and academic elite are above reproachâ. Thatâs your interpretation based on, if I understand you correctly, hurt feelings because you expressed an opinion that others disagreed with. Youâve since offered a variety of unclear arguments without providing any facts to back them up. If you canât back up your point admit that rather than changing the subject.
As for people behaving like pompous asses youâve done quite a bit of that yourself. Why is it okay for you to be condescending and insulting to others? Show a little consideration and try to understand what others are saying instead of dismissing other peopleâs comments as âtrite and boringâ. Being educated is not a fault.
