If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Cracked)   Since politicians think they can be scientists too, here are four crazy scientific theories that were brought up by them   (cracked.com) divider line 84
    More: Amusing, Todd Akin, Paul Broun, lead paint, female genitalia, Genghis Khan, medical doctors, Young Earth creationism  
•       •       •

4989 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Oct 2012 at 10:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



84 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-16 10:57:18 AM
Cracked.com, on my Politics tab?

Oh my.
 
2012-10-16 10:58:55 AM
By no means are these the worst intellectual foundations used to write legislation.

Exhibit A: The Bible
 
2012-10-16 10:59:40 AM
Akin thread? *reads TFA* Akin thread!

i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-16 10:59:43 AM

spelletrader: Cracked.com, on my Politics tab?

Oh my.


Still more credible than half the site that get linked in this tab.
 
2012-10-16 10:59:47 AM
I read this article earlier. I thought it was bullshiat how he opened saying he wouldn't mention party affiliation because that would make him part of the problem. All 4 of these stupid whackjobs are Republicans. How is science helped by not mentioning that?
 
2012-10-16 11:00:17 AM
Let me take a wild guess..... All republicans??? (*)

(*) Unless TFA includes at least one "D" for "Fairness and Balance (tm)" 
 
2012-10-16 11:00:33 AM
Cracked is blocked at work - did they mention Hank's Johnson's theory about how Guam is in danger of tipping over?
 
2012-10-16 11:01:32 AM
Anti-science cretins exist on all parts of the political spectrum. But only Republicans elevate their willfully ignorant nutjobs to the US Congress.
 
2012-10-16 11:02:02 AM

spelletrader: Cracked.com, on my Politics tab?

Oh my.


I know, right? I really miss Townhall and Breitbart hourly links
 
2012-10-16 11:02:11 AM
FTA: Wind is God's way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it's hotter to areas where it's cooler. That's what wind is. Wouldn't it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up?"

*beats head into desk until unconscious*
 
2012-10-16 11:03:03 AM
Can't get to Cracked at work but did they have that moron who thought Guam would tip over if there were too many people on one side of the island?
 
2012-10-16 11:03:18 AM

bsharitt: spelletrader: Cracked.com, on my Politics tab?

Oh my.

Still more credible than half the site that get linked in this tab.


We're looking at you "American Thinker"
 
2012-10-16 11:03:41 AM

Citrate1007: Exhibit A: The Bible


All four of these were based on the Bible, though, or at least based on right-wing hyper-fundamentalist Dominionism.
 
2012-10-16 11:03:44 AM
That article depresses, confuses, and enrages me.
 
2012-10-16 11:03:56 AM
If congress were filled with scientists instead of psychopaths this country would be 100x better off.
 
2012-10-16 11:05:10 AM
Proving that science and god don't mix.
 
2012-10-16 11:05:37 AM

xalres: Can't get to Cracked at work but did they have that moron who thought Guam would tip over if there were too many people on one side of the island?


No, but after reading the article it would have only taken 5th place.
 
2012-10-16 11:06:10 AM

birchman: If congress were filled with scientists instead of psychopaths this country would be 100x better off.


Yeah, but we aren't nearly as charismatic. And most of the time, no one understands us when we speak.
 
2012-10-16 11:07:51 AM

birchman: If congress were filled with scientists instead of psychopaths this country would be 100x better off.


Just because someone is proficient in a certain area doesn't mean they would have any idea how to govern.

I think it's more important that our politicians are scientifically literate, not necessarily scientists.
 
2012-10-16 11:08:21 AM

xalres: Can't get to Cracked at work but did they have that moron who thought Guam would tip over if there were too many people on one side of the island?


They were trying to stick to people who actually believe the ridiculous things they say and who sit on committees related to science. Neither of those are true of Hank Johnson.

When I joke that my head is large enough to capture a small satellite in it's orbit, that doesn't mean I believe that to be literally so.
 
2012-10-16 11:10:09 AM

OneTimed: birchman: If congress were filled with scientists instead of psychopaths this country would be 100x better off.

Just because someone is proficient in a certain area doesn't mean they would have any idea how to govern.

I think it's more important that our politicians are scientifically literate, not necessarily scientists.


At least they'd be proficient in the one area. That's one more than the crew we have now.
 
2012-10-16 11:11:13 AM
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say...republicans?
 
2012-10-16 11:11:51 AM

OneTimed: I think it's more important that our politicians are scientifically literate, not necessarily scientists.


I would be happy with one simple yes-or-no question.

"Do you believe in evolution?"

If they answer "No," they're either forced to take a high school science class or banned from politics for life.
 
2012-10-16 11:12:24 AM

gulogulo: birchman: If congress were filled with scientists instead of psychopaths this country would be 100x better off.

Yeah, but we aren't nearly as charismatic. And most of the time, no one understands us when we speak.


Weirdly, I *am* good at explaining parts of science to non-scientists. I apparently managed to describe the light-clock explanation of relativity to a vet major (using only gesticulations, no available drawing surface, no real math, while surrounded by 20 screaming kids at a camp we were volunteering at) in such a way that she understood it well enough to grasp what had been going on in her Physics 2306 class and get a B in the semester.

And stuff like Surface Plasmon Resonance (which is not as scary as it sounds). I should really get off my ass and use this power for Good (youtube videos, maybe? They're a dime a dozen, but gotta start *somewhere*.
 
2012-10-16 11:13:21 AM
All religiously-based and Republican-endorsed.
 
2012-10-16 11:13:22 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: OneTimed: I think it's more important that our politicians are scientifically literate, not necessarily scientists.

I would be happy with one simple yes-or-no question.

"Do you believe in evolution?"

If they answer "No," they're either forced to take a high school science class or banned from politics for life.


I don't think it should be "believe". A better question might be "Do you understand the scientific basis and reasoning behind the theory of evolution?"
 
2012-10-16 11:13:27 AM

quatchi: FTA: Wind is God's way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it's hotter to areas where it's cooler. That's what wind is. Wouldn't it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up?"

*beats head into desk until unconscious*


If you're an ancient tribal priest or philosopher then that sounds like a perfectly reasonable explanation for the wind.

He's not so much wrong, as he's several hundred years behind the rest of the world.

/Hmmmm.... sorta describes the Republican party nicely.
 
2012-10-16 11:14:54 AM

OneTimed: Cracked is blocked at work - did they mention Hank's Johnson's theory about how Guam is in danger of tipping over?


No, these were examples from Politicians that are actually influencing scientific/reproductive policy.
 
2012-10-16 11:14:56 AM

qorkfiend: I don't think it should be "believe". A better question might be "Do you understand the scientific basis and reasoning behind the theory of evolution?"


True enough, but we do have to keep it to small words, since we're talking about Republicans here. :P
 
2012-10-16 11:15:47 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: Citrate1007: Exhibit A: The Bible

All four of these were based on the Bible, though, or at least based on right-wing hyper-fundamentalist Dominionism.


True, let me submit this then,

Exhibit B: Trickle Down Economics
 
2012-10-16 11:16:03 AM
"Wind is God's way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it's hotter to areas where it's cooler. That's what wind is. Wouldn't it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up?"

As a Wind Turbine Technician, this one really rustled my jimmies.
 
2012-10-16 11:17:50 AM

Felgraf: Weirdly, I *am* good at explaining parts of science to non-scientists. I apparently managed to describe the light-clock explanation of relativity to a vet major (using only gesticulations, no available drawing surface, no real math, while surrounded by 20 screaming kids at a camp we were volunteering at) in such a way that she understood it well enough to grasp what had been going on in her Physics 2306 class and get a B in the semester.

And stuff like Surface Plasmon Resonance (which is not as scary as it sounds). I should really get off my ass and use this power for Good (youtube videos, maybe? They're a dime a dozen, but gotta start *somewhere*.


Yeah, well, trying being an ecologist. I think the difference is between your knowledge and 'silo' of science, most laypeople are open to listening because they agree they don't have the education to make judgements about the validity of science. In my field, most laypeople are convinced they know better than the scientists studying it. See: climate change, deforestation, fragmentation, invasive species, cats.
 
2012-10-16 11:20:49 AM

lousyskater: As a Wind Turbine Technician, this one really rustled my jimmies.


gulogulo: Yeah, well, trying being an ecologist. ... In my field, most laypeople are convinced they know better than the scientists studying it. See: climate change, deforestation, fragmentation, invasive species, cats.


My degree was in palaeontology. Imagine how I feel about creationism. :P
 
2012-10-16 11:25:31 AM

qorkfiend: Fluorescent Testicle: OneTimed: I think it's more important that our politicians are scientifically literate, not necessarily scientists.

I would be happy with one simple yes-or-no question.

"Do you believe in evolution?"

If they answer "No," they're either forced to take a high school science class or banned from politics for life.

I don't think it should be "believe". A better question might be "Do you understand the scientific basis and reasoning behind the theory of evolution?"


I'd be happy if they could explain what the criteria are for a hypothesis to become a scientific theory, and then examine where creationism falls and why.

/Three page minimum, single spaced, and I expect these on my desk by the end of the day Friday.
 
2012-10-16 11:27:51 AM

thurstonxhowell: They were trying to stick to people who actually believe the ridiculous things they say and who sit on committees related to science. Neither of those are true of Hank Johnson.

When I joke that my head is large enough to capture a small satellite in it's orbit, that doesn't mean I believe that to be literally so


Hank wasn't kidding...


sprawl15: xalres: Can't get to Cracked at work but did they have that moron who thought Guam would tip over if there were too many people on one side of the island?

No, but after reading the article it would have only taken 5th place.


Jesus christ you are right...
 
2012-10-16 11:37:54 AM

gulogulo: Yeah, well, trying being an ecologist. I think the difference is between your knowledge and 'silo' of science, most laypeople are open to listening because they agree they don't have the education to make judgements about the validity of science. In my field, most laypeople are convinced they know better than the scientists studying it. See: climate change, deforestation, fragmentation, invasive species, cats.


Ah. That.... would be frustrating, yes. I imagine it's sort of like when I hear people citing the laws of thermodynamics for why evolution can't be true, because, why, entropy is decreasing on earth! (AUUGGGH THOSE LAWS ARE FOR CLOSED SYSTEMS! Do you see the farking FLAMING BALL in the sky? EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM.)

I should note that I'm not one of those physicists that goes "Oh, a BIOLOGIST. *snort*." Your field is *especially* important (We've only got one farking Earth!), and a lot of my work (nanophysics) has the ability to greatly impact yours (for good and ill).
 
2012-10-16 11:41:37 AM
Why shouldn't politicians play scientists?

I'm a scientist who makes crazy political comments. My last one...these two political parties are honest and believe in the crap they say. They don't just say it to get votes, control money and power. Is soon to make the cracked list.
 
2012-10-16 11:42:25 AM
Politicians aren't meant to be scientists, they're meant to be representatives of the populace and....

Oh dear....
 
2012-10-16 11:43:10 AM
Only four?
 
2012-10-16 11:47:40 AM
Those aren't "scientific theories," subby. They're just anti-science derp.
 
2012-10-16 11:47:54 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: lousyskater: As a Wind Turbine Technician, this one really rustled my jimmies.

gulogulo: Yeah, well, trying being an ecologist. ... In my field, most laypeople are convinced they know better than the scientists studying it. See: climate change, deforestation, fragmentation, invasive species, cats.

My degree was in palaeontology. Imagine how I feel about creationism. :P


well, being a metaphysicist, imagine how I feel about their paradoxically categorized dualism, god in the cracks optimism, and arbitrarily prescribed moral relativism.
 
2012-10-16 11:49:21 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: lousyskater: As a Wind Turbine Technician, this one really rustled my jimmies.

gulogulo: Yeah, well, trying being an ecologist. ... In my field, most laypeople are convinced they know better than the scientists studying it. See: climate change, deforestation, fragmentation, invasive species, cats.

My degree was in palaeontology. Imagine how I feel about creationism. :P


Bazinga. That would be bad.
 
2012-10-16 11:49:45 AM

qorkfiend: Fluorescent Testicle: OneTimed: I think it's more important that our politicians are scientifically literate, not necessarily scientists.

I would be happy with one simple yes-or-no question.

"Do you believe in evolution?"

If they answer "No," they're either forced to take a high school science class or banned from politics for life.

I don't think it should be "believe". A better question might be "Do you understand the scientific basis and reasoning behind the theory of evolution?"


Every single creationist or ID proponent I've talked to is absolutely convinced they understand the theory of evolution, they just think it's wrong. I'm comfortable with "believe", since I believe in the reality of evolution just like I believe in the reality of a heliocentric solar system.
 
2012-10-16 11:50:35 AM

Felgraf: I should note that I'm not one of those physicists that goes "Oh, a BIOLOGIST. *snort*." Your field is *especially* important (We've only got one farking Earth!), and a lot of my work (nanophysics) has the ability to greatly impact yours (for good and ill).


I appreciate that. And well, we need all the levels (math, physical sciences, biological sciences, and social science) in order to understand the world.
 
2012-10-16 11:50:48 AM

timswar: quatchi: FTA: Wind is God's way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it's hotter to areas where it's cooler. That's what wind is. Wouldn't it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up?"

*beats head into desk until unconscious*

If you're an ancient tribal priest or philosopher then that sounds like a perfectly reasonable explanation for the wind.

He's not so much wrong, as he's several hundred years behind the rest of the world.

/Hmmmm.... sorta describes the Republican party nicely.


Would explain how they manage to completely embrace the tortured Aristotelian logic that is the Austrian School of economics (which was founded on the idea that using pure logic rather than examining historical data and finding a theory to fit the pattern is the best way to figure out how the economy works.) Then they go around and say all non-Austrian school proponents (AKA, the vast majority of actual economists) don't have enough proof for their theories so go with the one that we say isn't falsible because data is meaningless.
 
2012-10-16 11:51:20 AM
I vote we go back to putting people to death for challenging the Catholic church's position that the Earth is the center of the universe.
 
2012-10-16 11:51:40 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: lousyskater: As a Wind Turbine Technician, this one really rustled my jimmies.

gulogulo: Yeah, well, trying being an ecologist. ... In my field, most laypeople are convinced they know better than the scientists studying it. See: climate change, deforestation, fragmentation, invasive species, cats.

My degree was in palaeontology. Imagine how I feel about creationism. :P


Awesome; I'm assuming that since you specify your degree was in paleo, you're applying it in your career just as much as I am.
 
2012-10-16 11:51:48 AM

Erix: Every single creationist or ID proponent I've talked to is absolutely convinced they understand the theory of evolution, they just think it's wrong don't, actually.

 
2012-10-16 11:54:58 AM
"Wind is God's way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it's hotter to areas where it's cooler. That's what wind is. Wouldn't it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up?"

Clearly, this man has never walked in Phoenix during July. I was there a few years back for a convention, and when the wind picked up, it felt like someone was holding a giant hair dryer on me.

/also, what kind of screwed-up place names the roads "1st St, 2nd St, 3rd St" in one direction, and "1st Ave, 2nd Ave, 3rd Ave, etc." in the other direction. I was trying to walk from my hotel to the convention center, and ended up of Joe Arpaio's front porch. Had to ask the hotdog vendor for directions.
 
2012-10-16 11:56:07 AM

gulogulo: Felgraf: I should note that I'm not one of those physicists that goes "Oh, a BIOLOGIST. *snort*." Your field is *especially* important (We've only got one farking Earth!), and a lot of my work (nanophysics) has the ability to greatly impact yours (for good and ill).

I appreciate that. And well, we need all the levels (math, physical sciences, biological sciences, and social science) in order to understand the world.


Yeah, that "purity of sciences" comic from xkcd makes sense, but it's also missing the fact that with increasing purity comes an increase in reductionism. The more pure sciences end up stripping away the complexities that make real world application feasible. Physics is "pure" and extremely useful, but say very little about the way humans, ecosystems, and other complex systems actually work.
 
Displayed 50 of 84 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report