quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
All they have to do is start singing the praises of Cheeto Man and their budget will magically double.

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
PBS is anti hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I really enjoy PBS and watch quite a bit of their Youtube productions.
From the start lets just say Their content is factual.

But I have thought for quite some time that they would be better if they left out unnecessary political side comment.

on one I watched about dinosaurs, they interrupted their own dialogue to get in a hit on climate change. It just was not needed, and even though I believe in climate change, I could see it was incorrect to be there.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I asked AI the question framed several ways. I liked the answer best when I used the word hate simply because the darn thing scolded me. I figured you would be amused. I was.

It was a test, and AI passed. OTOH, you didn't.

If I had used the word biased:

https://www.google.com/search?...IBy4&sclient=gws-wiz

I can handle being scolded by AI. But not by you. AI did go on to explain the difference worldview re climate science by comparing conservatives/republicans to liberal/democrats.

The reason I brought this up is because you claimed that PBS was biased because:

Quote: "on one I watched about dinosaurs, they interrupted their own dialogue to get in a hit on climate change. It just was not needed, and even though I believe in climate change, I could see it was incorrect to be there."

And

Quote: "Science needs to be impartial! It's a no win situation when politics gets involved."

You exposed your bias.

And

Climate science IS impartial. It's the rightist's politics that makes it impartial and no-win. You are biased just enough that you can't make the distinction.

And

It's just one tidbit of the republican's claim that PBS/NPR are biased, when all along it's the republicans, in general, who are biased, so biased in fact that they can't know it.

Quote: "Yeah that's a different subject. and I hope you got scolded, as it's a very poor leading question that predetermines the answer. Which ironically, is very unscientific."

Political Science is unscientific? Yea I see the irony.

Psychology is unscientific? Yea I see the irony.

Asking AI a question, knowing it was loaded, open to a surprise, and not disappointed, is unscientific. Yea I see the irony.

For example, if AI had confirmed the word "hate" as being real, I would have been disappointed and lost confidence in AI. Instead, the scolding in addition to really answering the question gives confidence.

Yea, I see irony on the flip side.

Regarding climate science, an objective self-aware republican is a double oxymoron. Even conservatives like you, who are aware of and believe climate change is real, have bias against climate science and think it doesn't belong in polite discourse, including policy considerations, or documentaries.

I don't know how you "feel" about anthropogenic climate change so I won't guess. But there's implication in my use of the word "feel". Yea, it's loaded.

After all, if the science regarding what we know about dinosaurs was suppressed and denied as much as climate science is, all we would know about dinosaurs is what the fundamental Christians say. IOW, it's the myths, prejudices, beliefs especially in the supernatural, flat out denials that afflict climate science, not the science itself nor the respect for it. It's been that way since the origins of science shunned the village shaman.

What do you suppose was the shaman's reaction to the neophyte scientist's objectivity?

He might have claimed the scientist just wanted to control the narrative, the village, the present and future, re-write the past, the minds, the culture, society, the economics, deny god's will and plan, etc.

Does that seem familiar somehow?

That's what the catholic priests did many years ago. They didn't want to lose control to the threat of science. The "threat" of course was exposure that they didn't have a handle on or privy to God's will and plan any more than a monkey, maybe less, since they made it all up. It's the same today with fundamentalist preachers.

Now, it's the republicans who "feel" threatened by science. Why? Could it be their self-ID and worldview are threatened?

=================================================================

You may feel the above explanation is off-topic. But, it is on-topic regarding the defunding of PBS/NPR.

It's not about the money. It's about the principle. It's part of the package of controlling the narrative and lies, and worldview. It's about suppression, in the same deplorable basket as weaponization of the rule of law with law suits, not necessarily to win, but to instill fear and distrust and obeyance/compliance. It's about the whole mantra of "fake news" and the accusation of left bias towards anything truthful.

quote:

My statement science needs to be impartial! its a no win when politics gets involved.

Explain to me how that exposes a bias.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
To prove my point. I took you abysmal question. and made a slight rewording and asked AI agin.
Im unsure if this link will take you too the full answer or not so have pasted the text as well.

https://gemini.google.com/app/...FEAAYASAAEgI_4fD_BwE

Hi Gemini, Do you think Repblicans are biased against climate change?

And got a far better response by not leading the AI to an answer.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

My statement science needs to be impartial! its a no win when politics gets involved.

Explain to me how that exposes a bias.

I already did explain. You still didn't get it. The Force is strong with you.

The whole premise and essence of science in impartiality. In the context of climate science, if it's not impartial, it's not science.

Your two sentence paragraph Juxtaposes two or more presumptions which are loaded with implications, and don't connect without the implications, which BTW you consider true.

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Pseudoscience relies on anecdotal or non-verifiable evidence, lacks testability and falsifiability, and often resists critical evaluation, while empirical research is based on observable, measurable, and repeatable evidence gathered through systematic experimentation and analysis. Pseudoscience often uses the language and trappings of science to lend it credibility without adhering to scientific principles.

The Rightist's views and opinions about climate science aren't even Pseudoscience. It's lower than that.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Well, I'm glad you clarified.

The point?

The reason I jumped on your comments is the way you framed it, which has nuance and echoes of much of the Rightist's POV.

Many or most Rightists think of themselves as open-minded critical thinkers.

That appears to be your point.

The way they frame their thoughts and beliefs in expressions exposes the kinks.

That is my point.

When it's not blatant, it's subtle, but still inherent.

quote:

maybe judge on your opinion of me

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
why is it inappropriate for PBS/NPR to mention climate science in a program about dinosaurs, since practically all our knowledge of the critter's existence derives from science?

It triggered you. Why?

It's like the argument that climate has always changed.

Were you there? Thank science for the (selective) knowledge.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Well, I'm glad you clarified.

The point?

The reason I jumped on your comments is the way you framed it, which has nuance and echoes of much of the Rightist's POV.

Many or most Rightists think of themselves as open-minded critical thinkers.

That appears to be your point.

The way they frame their thoughts and beliefs in expressions exposes the kinks.

That is my point.

When it's not blatant, it's subtle, but still inherent.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

maybe judge on your opinion of me

Not true.

In this instance I judged on the framing and the triggering.

Now I'm judging on your attempted defense.

What are you defending?

Is it an identity or an idea? Or maybe the two are entwined?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Well, I'm glad you clarified.

The point?

The reason I jumped on your comments is the way you framed it, which has nuance and echoes of much of the Rightist's POV.

Many or most Rightists think of themselves as open-minded critical thinkers.

That appears to be your point.

The way they frame their thoughts and beliefs in expressions exposes the kinks.

That is my point.

When it's not blatant, it's subtle, but still inherent.

good lord, maggie .. you are like the most idiotic extremist i have ever heard of -- dude talks about PBS in a positive light, and your rapid self tries to force it into an extremist POV ...


you need help