Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Forum Games / Re: Visual Counting
« Last post by John Albert on Today at 06:44:57 PM »
Tech Talk / Re: Tech.jpg
« Last post by John Albert on Today at 06:41:02 PM »
It's only been 5 weeks since the last one (Rachel Carson)

It has gone on hiatus several times. Bob may research a few at a time. They may have had time constraints recently. Plus they have been preparing for NECSS
Have they run out of forgotten scientists, or has that segment been forgotten altogether?

Or has Bob been too busy to do that segment anymore?
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #680
« Last post by PabloHoney on Today at 04:06:39 PM »
Thanks a lot, Cara.   :cara:
Now I'm hungry for ibex meat.
Suggestions / Re: Podcast Change suggestions
« Last post by John Albert on Today at 04:05:51 PM »
*cough* Forgotten Superheroes of Science *cough*
General Discussion / Re: Cara
« Last post by John Albert on Today at 04:02:52 PM »
Cara is an upgrade in my books.


I had no idea who she was prior to her appearance as a guest rogue in January of 2015, but securing her as a permanent cast member was one of the best improvements to the show.
An ideology is a belief system and a way of thinking about things. Nearly all ideologies are not based on science or evidence and are not open to change as new facts or evidence comes to Light. That is not compatible with skepticism.

Under that definition, the scientific method and even skepticism itself are also ideologies.

Ideologies needn't be resistant to change per se. For example, progressivism is all about stimulating change.

You seem to be referring specifically to dogmatic ideologies.
Some people might just dislike the taste of meat or be disgusted by the idea of eating animal stuff. Or they might have chosen a dietary restriction as a test of personal discipline. Or they might be trying it out as a lifestyle experiment. Or maybe they're doing it for social reasons.

Or they might just prefer not to have an animal killed - directly or indirectly - for their meal, or the suffering that appears to be inflicted on the animals involved. Which kinda sums up my reason.

I would categorize that reasoning under "morality," which I did mention in the previous sentence to the ones you cited above.

The reasoning needn't be based on morality

But vegetarianism is a belief system (that's what ism is) based on things other than science.

It may have started that way with certain religious groups not eating meat, but there has been a phenomenal number of studies since then that suggest that most people would benefit from a reduction in the amount or type of meat that they eat, ie) switch from red meats to white meat or fish.

That is not vegetarianism, by either definition. Also the evidence about the health risks of nesting meat is not the strong and the number of studies is nominal.

There is also a phenomenal amount of scientific evidence about the damage that industrial animal farming is doing to the environment and how everyone reducing the amount of meat they eat would help to reduce green house gases.

Again, one or two studies does not make a phenomenon, even if you ignore the contrary evidence.

But, if someone chooses to not eat meat based on that evidence, that’s perfectly compatible with skepticism.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10