Best comment in thread.

This thread just proves everything that I was saying in the original post.

Every statement I made is based on science, and everyone is just making blanket statements about how "none of what you said is based in science, it makes you look ignorant!" um, no, each and every 'undeniable truth' is an undeniable truth. that's not my opinion, that's fact. the details are irrelevant, the statements are true. just because I didn't elaborate on each and every one doesn't mean the statements are wrong.

Also, it's kind of sad that so few people actually responded to the point of the thread, instead you were all quick to jump on the "you're just arrogant and a hypocrite" bandwagon. I knew that would happen, but it's so sad to see some of the people I once respected disagreeing with scientific consensus.

The internet and it's boards are not there for open and free discussion to change opinion develop new ones and educate the masses, it's to voice opinions as loudly as people can, ignoring other arguements and logic. People will defend their opinion because it's their opinion. An issue lies, thought, if it their opinion is based unknown (to them) facts. Telling them the correct facts will not help your cause because their opinion is more important and they don't like the idea that they are wrong. Kind of the reason I haven't had a good internet discussion in a long time.

I don't know why I try to share facts with people if they're going to dismiss them out of habit.  as a self-proclaimed intellectual, I should know better.  I DO know better, but there's a part of me that is always optimistic that sufficient evidence will in fact change people's opinions.  

And there's a difference between opinion and fact.  my OPINION on abortion is very much positive (I'm a huge fan of population control), butI don't pretend that it's a FACT that the world needs more abortions.  my OPINION is that Euthanasia is occasionally acceptable, but it's certainly not a fact that euthanasia should be legal.  It's my OPINION that neutering your pets is a horrible thing to do, but it's not a FACT, in fact, I know there are medical benefits to it.  it's my OPINION that declawing is a disgusting thing to do, but it's a FACT that the cat doesn't really notice much of a change.  There are some situations where there are no facts to push an issue in one direction, but the ones I listed are. 

Circumcision, sexuality, nature, skin color, climate change, Evolution, guns, all of those things are undeniable facts, and yet people STILL insist on arguing.  I didn't say anything about gun control, I said "Guns are designed to kill", and they are.  Sure, some are modified to be nonlethal (which is awesome, I love nonlethal), but their original use was to kill.  I should have clarified that I was refering to INFANTILE circumcision, not circumcision as a whole, and the other stuff is just fact. 

@bold. just like Kasz' post, right?

Except they weren't.  Some are... some aren't.

Which you would know if you followed the research, rather then go with a vague "consensus"

Circumsicion leans towards being barbaric, I know I wouldn't have my child circuimised.  There are some minor advantages though, and many medical proffesionals actually will suggest circumsicion still.  It's still something debated in the academic world... largely seen not as barbaric, but mostly pointless with maybe some negative effects, the one that matters the most to guys likely is lesser sexual enjoyment.

For example of Pro-Circ research http://thestir.cafemom.com/baby/116633/New_Circumcision_Research_Is_Changing  This is from 2011.

Climate Change, assuming you mean man-made climate change, has gone through quite a bit of research that if you followed it, wouldn't allow one to call it an undeniable truth.  It's simply a statistical likelyhood due to the fact that the warming the models predicted.... hasn't really shown up yet.

Most guns... aren't made to kill people, some are made to kill animals, Some handguns are made to wound people for self defense... but most are made for sport shooting. 

The only guns specifically designed to kill are ones modified to take special amunition or your bigger combat arms.   Handguns CAN kill, but aren't primarily designed for it.  While hunting rifles and shotguns were obviously not made.

They're like Bows.  Most are made for practice or hunting and target practice, though you could kill a guy with one.

In general, intellectuals should realize, that if a true scientist lives by one code... it's that "There are no undeniable truths."

There is nothing holy.   As scientists have learned time and time again.   Even basic scientific consensus on simple things like matter have been shattered time and time gain.  I mean... Sub atomic particles?  What's that Einstein?  Those can't exist.

Treating scientific consensus as an absoltue truth is NOT the act of an intellectual. 

That's not to say you should listen to someone who has a nonscientific arguement.  However pretending that there is a 100% chance that your right is a folly that's been made through out the ages.

It's espiecally dangerous when someone just sees a vague consensus and consider your mind closed afterwords ignoring new research.  As seems to be the case at least, with you and circumsion.

May not have been a blanket statement, but it was still wrong.  this thread isn't about Climate Change/Global Warming, this his about the fact that people seem to insist that their 'opinions' mean more than facts.  

Did you know that more scientists worldwide named 'Steve" believe in Climate change than there are scientists that don't?  It's like 98% of the world's scientists who support it, but the incredibly vocal 2% are making it to sound like it's an undefined issue when in reality it's a very one-sided argument. 

If going with the scientific consensus isn't the act of an intellectual, then what is?  Shall we just make up theories for shits and giggles? We're not hippies, we're not republicans, we're not treating this as spirituality, we can't just pick and chose what we want to believe. It would be ignorant to go against the consensus unless we ourselves had done tonnes of research, but I guarantee nobody else in this thread (or on this forum) is educated enough to have the credentials to challenge scientific consensus, not even I. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733850/pdf/v030p00259.pdf

Circumcision: Even the supposed benefits are hotly debated and have not been conclusively proven.  (paraphrased, of course.)  This document also states that a pro-circumcision argument is that it's socially acceptable, but it also does the counterpoint stating that without imperative medical need, circumcision can be seen as a human right's violation, and that was the most recent report I could find.  all the 'pro-circumcision' articles I could find were from the 90's or earlier, and we've come a long way since then.  

Guns are designed to kill.  Not sure if I said people or just kill, but guns are made to kill.  some are altered or modified to be nonlethal, and that's cool, but guns were originally designed with the intention to kill.  I'm not here to argue gun laws, just that guns as their primary function is to kill. 

and yes, if science changes its mind about the consensus, and it becomes an overwhelming majority that we are NOT the cause of climate change, and that we're mistaken, I'll gladly change my opinion.  If it turns out we DO chose our sexuality, then I'll change my mind.  Right now, this is what science says, and this is what I'm going with. 

Except it wasn't wrong.  That's exactly how the research has played out.

Also you seem to be under the impression that "Thinking something happens" means = "100% something is happeneing".

If you think a 10 year disaperrance of the global warming trend isn't something to make you say "Hm, what's going on here" or didn't have most scientists curious...

You are crazy... and don't posess the inquisitve mind that an intellectual would have.

Science very rarely deal in absolutes.  Have you ever read a scientific journal article?

The issue is... you aren't an intellectual.  If anything you more fit a "Middleroad adopter."

A true intellectual is on the cutting edges of the issues they look at, and never believes in absolutes.

The thread isn't about climate change, neither was kasz' post. His post was simply to give an example where "science" says "We see no evidence for climate change", and then after some less trivial ideas and investigation, we find that there is some kind of fog covering the evidence, in this occurrence Coal dust. (I wasn't aware of that but I learnt it in his post)

It makes one sense that it would be good to be wary of bold scientific claims, because there could always be an alternate explanation, or some kind of phenomenon someone isn't thinking of.

That, Runa, should be your burden. To think "maybe we're missing something, maybe we shouldn't be so certain, is there something we're not seeing?"

That is the burden of the true intellectual. imho.

I believe a wise person once said "The more I discover, the more I realize how little I know". I think that's an important attitude to have, and I encourage you to strive for that. There's no doubt there are alot of very smart people online. It would be important for them to keep an open mind because, in the end, they are no greater than their own blind spots. As such, as iron sharpens iron if we keep an open mind we can refine each others' world views by listening and challenging ideas, not attacking people.