true stuff

Posted: February 4, 2015 in climate change, economic policy, Fox "news", science-ish
Examples of true stuff
  • 10309192_380985722026469_5178060331706932765_nVaccines do not cause autism or mental retardation.  Proven fact.
  • The climate is warming up.  Fact.
  • Human activity is contributing to the warming of the climate.  Fact.
  • Most living creatures (including humans) will suffer in many, many ways as the climate warms.  Duh.
  • The earth is not 6,000-10,000 years old.  It is around 4.5 billion years old.  Regardless of how many “generations” are listed in your religion’s holy book.
  • Certain economic policies, usually associated with more liberal politicians, tend to improve our economy.  Certain other economic policies, usually associated with more conservative politicians, tend to harm our economy.
  • Rape really is a thing. Benghazi really wasn’t. Our Constitution was not based on the Bible. Most homosexuals didn’t “choose” their sexuality. These things are just true, despite the stuff that Fox “News” bombards its viewers with.

10940990_10205877078512706_7880031694690054037_nWhat I find in my work with people is that a lot of folks, instead of seeking truth, want reassurance that what they already believe is true.

What science has recently revealed, also, is that some brains are more geared toward allowing new facts to adjust their belief system, while other brains are geared toward defending against changes in beliefs by rejecting facts.

What if we took our lead from the Enlightenment thinkers and based our opinions on facts, instead of on feelings, superstitions, ancient books, left or right-leaning news stations or paid-for-by-corporations-politicians?

10801490_841598792528350_6274072335919502555_n

 

 

 

 

 

Comments
  1. Anonymous says:

    Hi Mike, a note. Heard Janet Parschal (sp?) on radio (evangelical comment “In the Market with janet Parschal”) and ran into that phenomenon noted in Proverbs “One man’s case seems convincing, until you hear the other man’s.” NASA climate scientist, one of 60 scientists, 32? of which were climate guys, whom signed a letter of dissent from the climate change status quo, saying yes mankind has warmed the earth…pretty darn little, but the mass of it is a natural cycle and the climate change alarm policies will raise prices generally which will only hurt the poor and developing nations. The computer models are wrong and scientists have been caught pressuring other scientists to get in line and faking data. Sounded legit to me. Is it a conspiracy? Which side? Same with the vaccine deal. Both sides can sound convincing. How do you gain confidence in choosing one so confidently? Should you make me nervous for being so certain?? Hope you are well, Hi Chris. Torg

    • nash says:

      Hey Torger – thanks for your comment. Why am I certain? It’s about believing in actual facts. Here’s what I mean. Are there people out there who don’t believe we actually landed on the moon? Yes, there are. But that doesn’t make this a debatable issue. Are there a few scientists who don’t support climate change? Yes. But 97% of them do. Check out http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/, for more. If you actually dig in and read the consensus, you will be convinced. But if you do what I believe most Christians do – which is take what they WANT to be true, find a few people who support it, then proclaim it as a “debatable issue,” you’ll stay where you are. Same with vaccinations. Check out the science and the consensus. The ONLY study that “showed” that vaccines cause autism was clearly discredited. The scientific community does NOT believe this…but a lot of conservatives do. So you have one scientist who disagrees with 60 of them. Does this a debatable issue make? I’m just wishing conservatives would START with a neutral position, then weigh the scientific community consensus (on climate change, evolution, vaccines, homosexuality and more), then come to a conclusion, instead of starting with their very entrenched and unbending belief system and then cherry pick the very scant (and usually conservative-biased) statements they find on the internet to support their belief system. (By the way – check out who MOST of the 3% of the scientists who dispute climate change are funded by.)

  2. Torger Helgeland says:

    test for title of post

  3. Torger Helgeland says:

    Sorry, now I see how to label self. That was me as anonymous. I’m too impatient on puter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s