Difference between revisions of "Talk:Politicized science"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::You're just playing guilt by association. They're two unrelated fields. Your claim that evolution is a polticized science, and thus incorrect, should be able to stand on its own. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 22:36, 13 November 2008 (EST) | ::You're just playing guilt by association. They're two unrelated fields. Your claim that evolution is a polticized science, and thus incorrect, should be able to stand on its own. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 22:36, 13 November 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | :::I still think that this would make a very lovely essay. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:54, 13 November 2008 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 03:54, November 14, 2008
Essay space? HelpJazz 17:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
"We cannot trust evolution advocates to be any more objective than Greenhouse Theory advocates are. Too many examples exist of scientists and teachers losing their positions or having their funding cut, for pointing out contrary evidence." So... you just put up evidence for AGW being a political issue and claimed that, because AGW advocates are screwy, anyone who advocates the teaching of evolution must be, as well? HDCase 21:49, 13 November 2008 (EST)
- The linkage isn't that tight, but the bias of one seems related to the bias of the other. --Ed Poor Talk 22:25, 13 November 2008 (EST)
- You're just playing guilt by association. They're two unrelated fields. Your claim that evolution is a polticized science, and thus incorrect, should be able to stand on its own. HDCase 22:36, 13 November 2008 (EST)