Compare this with the Sokal hoax and you get an idea of how scientists have no right to criticize the humanities for anything.

"But it was too late. Months too late. You don’t need to be Sun Tzu to realize that, when it comes to guys like Ken Ham, you can’t really win. If you refuse to debate them, they claim to be censored. If you agree to debate them, you give them a public platform on which to argue that, yep, they’re being censored. Better not to engage at all, at least directly. Nye may be the last to understand a point that seems to be circulating more widely these days: creationism is a political issue, not a scientific one, and throwing around scientific facts won’t dissuade those who don’t accept scientific authority in the first place."

The Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate was a Nightmare for Science

The one quibble I would have with this is that it still buys into the notion that science is something that is outside of politics, but it captures why debates like this are always going to be self-defeating. 

"Without even opening his book, a lot of otherwise intelligent people are going to go around believing that Jane Austen “was” a game theorist, just as lots of them undoubtedly believe that Proust “was” a neuroscientist. Which means that Chwe’s book, like Lehrer’s, reinforces the notion that art is merely a diffuse or coded form of scientific or social-scientific 
knowledge, and that its insights are valid only insofar as they approximate (or can be made to seem to approximate) those of those disciplines—or worse, the latest fashions in those disciplines."
"The critique of bad science leads directly to an analysis of the material conditions of the production of knowledge and to a personal identification of the objective voice behind the ‘pure, unadulterated facts.’ Reality has an author. The author always has a proper name, but it has a way of disappearing into declarative sentences or even graphs embedded in published papers issuing from well-funded laboratories."
— Donna Haraway

hookedonsemiotics:

dingraha:

christinsanity:

Lightnings, flat earth, geocentric model, reproductive  model, big bang - here goes your societal bullshit. RELIGION WAS FIRST AND MAINLY CREATED TO EXPLAIN THE WORLD AROUND PRIMITIVE CAVEMEN. Tha baggage it gathered later was solely due to the environment it was acting in (societies). So cut the crap. There would be absolutely NO NEED of religion had it not been for the requirement of some means to explain the world. The fact that religion never did the trick and science did - is a FACT. The fact that religion wouldn’t be around (or would be insignificantly small) had we had the science from beginning - is a FACT. 

All those traits you speak about are nicely worded but empty. For instance:

>science emerges from the concatenation of and crystallization of certain discourses that rely on “authority”

Bullshit. You mistyped ‘religion’. Science does not and never did rely on “authority”.


> the church is the reason science exists as a discipline: they hired people to prove them right


BULLSHIT^3

Science existed long before ‘the church’. Go read about ancient Greece. I see no point in talking to you - I advise getting some ‘education’. I don’t recommend religious schools.

Bye.

look you should really reblog pritch to talk about this stuff because im limited to like 100 words MAX at a time 

Science is objective, ahistorical, transcendental, and deals only in The Truth. It doesn’t need “authority”; it has FACTS.

Sounds like fundamentalism to me.

Yeah ancient Greece wasn’t religious at all.

thenoobyorker:

portraitoftheartistasayoungman:

xkcd has the answer

The ending was incredible, read this if you have a few minutes.

The sphere on the left represents all the water on the planet:

If you gathered all the world’s water—from oceans, lakes, groundwater, water vapor, everything—into a sphere, it would have a diameter of 860 miles. That’s the distance between Salt Lake City and Topeka, Kansas.

Jay Kimball graphed just how little of that is fresh - the sphere on the right. Coby Beck heightens our worry:

And don’t forget that that ball of freshwater is mostly out of range of our drinking glasses and irrigation systems. A full 74.5% of that much smaller ball is locked away in ice caps and glaciers and 24.7% is groundwater (much of that out of reach). There is only .56% of the world’s freshwater circulating in lakes, rivers, rainfall, soil and the biosphere.

This is why mathematicians are not allowed to make puns.

(I’ll admit I laughed.)

From Dino Sejdinović, “Mathematics of the Human-Vampire Conflict”, Math Review 16 (2008)  14-15.

"We are sliding back into a dark era…And there seems little we can do about it. I am profoundly depressed at just how difficult it has become merely to get a realistic conversation started on issues such as climate change or genetically modified organisms."