Sentences with phrase «ignorant about science»

@md2205 — if you choose to be ignorant about science, why would you go onto internet message boards and demonstrate that ignorance?

The ordinary man is more ignorant about science than is the philosopher, for the latter knows that changes are to be attributed to the «particular constitution of its [a body's] primary qualities» (E-I 179).

The problem is that «Pastor Dave» is just as ignorant about science as you are.

Why do people who purposefully choose to ignorant about science come onto message boards and demonstrate that ignorance for all to see?

rc's post is an excellent example of what happens when you purposefully choose to be ignorant about science, and instead get your «sciency» sounding information from the «Pastor Dave's» of the world.

Religious nutters have no right to try and withhold civil rights from a group of US citizens just because the nutters choose to be ignorant about the science of sèxual orientation.

Yet, bizarrely, you, and other fundiots, who purposefully choose to be ignorant about science, ignore all that and then have the balls to turn around and repost the exact same lies again.

The fact that you personally choose to be purposefully ignorant about science, doesn't mean that everyone else does.

Your god — via the itinerant bronze - age shepherds he «talked» to were totally ignorant about the science of se.xual orientation (like he was totally ignorant about most things in biology, chemistry, and physics).

Why do religious nutters, who purposefully choose to be ignorant about science, come onto internet boards and demonstrate that ignorance for all to see?

Just because a significant portion of the population is ignorant about science (and I mean that in the nicest possible way), doesn't mean they get to dictate what is involved in science.

Finally, if you purposefully choose to be ignorant about science, why would you go onto an internet thread and demonstrate that ignorance for all to see?

I always wonder why folks who purposefully choose to be ignorant about science come onto internet message boards and demonstrate that ignorance for all to see.

The other point, is that Graham, Cathy, and the other religious nutters want to legalize and legislate discrimination against a group of US citizens simply because the purposefully choose to be ignorant about the science of sèxual orientation.

Right off the bat — I'm curious, if you purposefully choose to be ignorant about science, why are you on here denigrating it?

Again, why is that people who purposefully choose to be ignorant about science, come onto these boards and demonstrate that ignorance for all to see.

Not exact matches

This is 2014, stop listening to the ignorant non-scientists, to get your information about science... or trying to remember your lessons in 1960 something science class.

and that comment just shows how ignorant you really are about what science says.

and that comment just shows how ignorant you really are about what science says ---------------- Fine.

So a proven, verified, science is hokum to you, but a book written by ignorant men all about god magic makes sense?

The nicest thing I can say to you is that you are completely and totally ignorant about what atheism is, not to mention, ignorant about what science says about our creation.

Reading some of the ignorant comments on here about science does make it hard to accept evolution, because so many comments here don't evidence evolution.

Blue is hopelessly ignorant about evolution and will probably never understand the science.

This shows that you are ignorant about the very basics of science.

All I can hope is to refute the few ignorant claims about science you make, and then see you throw yourself into the realm of complete irrelevancy.

The simple fact that you continue to insist that scientists tell you what you must believe, just reinforces the fact that you purposefully choose to be ignorant about, science, scientists, and the scientific method.

I will keep marching to the beat of being «intellectually dishonest / willfully ignorant about much of reality» while atheists walk around with the certainty of what «Modern Science» has to offer...

They must fill women with misinformation about childbirth and keep those same women ignorant of what science actually shows.

Kimmelin Hull, «a Lamaze Certified Childbirth Educator, Physician Assistant, American Red Cross First Aid / CPR instructor, novelist and freelance writer for local and international parenting magazines,» is, sadly, grossly ignorant about childbirth, science and scientific evidence.

Look, the ignoramus asserts, science admits it is abysmally ignorant about the nature of things.

Mr. Landau, seventh - grade science teacher, has unrolled a beaten - up poster of the ignorant tongue map, and he's explaining about how people have misunderstood the science of taste since the beginning of time.

Not much you can do about science with a bunch that is proud of being ignorant.

If Andy and John Holdren did as much to raise consciousness about biogeochemical cycles other than carbon and CO2, it would deny the advertising men on both sides of this dueling tuba contest their lawful prey - an innumerate audience ignorant of natural history and science alike.

Communists always harped so on science versus \ ignorant \ religion, even as their \ scientific \ Marxism - Leninism was anything but scientific and had nothing to offer about science or morality.

Either they haven't learned from experience, or they simply aren't old enough to have any past experience upon which to judge these fearmongers, or they lack critical thinking skills, or they're naive, or they're ignorant about history and / or science, or they're hopelessly ideological — or perhaps a combination of all of the above.

Nearly everyone I have encountered who dismisses AGW is either pretty ignorant about doing science (that's fine, I am sure they are good at other things - it's unrealistic to believe scientific literacy could be universal), or are just plainly unable to contemplate or accept the changes required in the organisation of human affairs (even though these changes would also happen in the absence of global warming), or are just full of anti-environmental politics for various delusional reasons of their won.

Its no wonder these people are so ignorant about climate science, they live in a Warmist bubble created and promoted by the likes of the Grauniad and the BBC.

Each of these monsters, whatever they may have preached about the importance of science, showed the same propensity to interfere with it, to politicize it and to wrench it into conformity with some dull but dangerous, ingenious but ignorant, marketable but murderous Party Line as environmentalist International Socialism does today.

It can be said that in the process of choosing which science is going to get funded, we make as many decisions regarding those aspects of knowledge we are going to remain ignorant about, as we do about those aspects of knowledge we are going to find out more about.

If you can't understand the basics of climate science, like the repeatedly validated and extended «hockey stick» then why should we think you less ignorant about any other part of the science?

Ignore the relevant science, smear everyone involved with accusations of incompetence, repeat — again — the * stupid * remark about forecasting — as if anyone can forecast natural variability... But it all sounds convincing to the ignorant.

In a conversation about trying to educate an ignorant environmentalist about the realities of Global Warming, Kenner sums up for me the essence of Crichton's presentation of science in State of Fear:

It has already been pointed out that if he in the same article speaks about something like skeptics in such an incredibly ignorant fashion, why should his science be any less so?

[It is actually tragic to see a renowned Nobel Prize winning scientist blow his reputation by making silly political proclamations about a science of which he is totally ignorant, as cell biologist Sir Paul Nurse of the RS did.]

It's simply ain't a credible argument that 49 ex-NASA astronauts, administrators, scientists [including a meteorologist] & technical specialists w advanced science & / or technical degrees & a combined total of OVER 1000 YRS at NASA - could all be ignorant / naïve about science — especially coming from a division of NASA [IE: GISS].

You've written that I'm claiming that the 49 ex-NASA employees are «ignorant / naive about science (emphasis added),» when in fact I've never made that claim.

I've claimed that they are ignorant and / or naive about climate science, but not about science in general.

Don't act so ignorant about the way that science works.