Trump vs Clinton Round 3. Probably the biggest debate ever.

Yeah there are some atmospheric physicists and other physicists I'll try to find some names when I get home

They don't speak out much, too afraid I guess

They instantly become disreputable when they do

What are going on about Trump and Clinton and society, fourmummy?

It sounds just as well thought out as the previous posts on science and knowledge.

Anyway, to get back to Trump, I think that people are pushing back against a cultural trend, which has asked them to accommodate multiple positions in terms of cultural outlook (science vs religion, black vs white, A vs B). I think that people are perceiving politicians as creating multiple differences (also known as shit stirring), where there wouldn't ordinarily be an issue. Some difference is obviously tolerable but some isn't. One solution is to group according to similarity more than difference, and that explains Trump's popularity. Another is to try to live side-by-side with difference, and that would explain Clinton's popularity.

There is proof which is widely documented in the media if you google it, that she accepted cash for access which she was SoS. The Trump foundation is squeaky clean in comparison.

Not really.
And definitely not.

Even if she had, the money did revert to charitable causes, not to her purse. Unlike Trump, who used Foundation money for very odd purposes.

There are different forms of knowledge to describe the world. Religion is one.

Erm... Religion is not knowledge.

Science does not tell us about truth (neither does religion)
Religion does speak of "truth", but science does deal with facts.

"We used to think that Pluto was a planet and now we don't,*
The knowledge about it didn't change, just the classification, which is different. In that case, the size didn't change, it was just that more planetoids were found and scientists had to decide whether to keep the previous classification or not.
It was the definition of planet (opinion) that changed, not what we knew about Pluto.

Science is valued not because of its ability to tell the truth but because of what emanates from it - quality of life, medical care, technology, guns, planes, cancer drugs,
It is valued because of what it emanates from it, because it is able to actually tell the truth, rather than opinion.
Opinion doesn't translate into reliable data to develop reliable medical care. (see Homeopathy)

ethics such as equality for women.
No, it doesn't come from science. :)

If science told us the absolute truth about something, it would be incontrovertible. It isn't. It's a better way to understand the world (if technology, medicine and whatever are your thing) but it's not 'truth', but, if everyone adheres to it, we'll all be better off (if you like technology, dishwashers, etc.. Some don't - and then there's a clash).

Oh, dear. It doesn't lead to technology if everyone adheres to it or not. FGS. It's whether it tells the truth or not, yes. Machines work with laws that are measurable and don't change according to opinion.

All scientists realise that our current knowledge about the world can be overturned in the future, as it has been in the past.
More like improved.
If there is more data, not when opinions change.
Continents didn't start drifting because more people started believing they did.

Jesus!

PS- I like it when people explain to me what and how scientists think.

Lweji He was passable on how he managed the Clinton foundation. There is proof which is widely documented in the media if you google it, that she accepted cash for access which she was SoS. The Trump foundation is squeaky clean in comparison.

Having quick skim read, not up on this as all of you

I caught some of Paxman on this - and I was most surprised after Trumps comments to see a Muslim - supporting him? He was a Muslim with a large charity or something and said he fully understands what Trump means by halting all travel and he said he and other Muslims understand this is not about them but the corrupt element within it, he said " I am a father I have a family"

The other huge surprise to me was to learn Martin Luther Kings Niece has apparently come out in support of Trump? Anyway - perhaps someone can enlighten me

Can you name any reputable scientists who don't believe in climate change?

She hasn't been charged or convicted of anything so a pardon is a bit moot.

Not so. The president can issue a preemptive pardon; it has happened several times in the past, most notably when Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. I don't think it will happen unless the Republican nominee is elected. If that disaster happens, I think it possible that President Obama would consider it to prevent them from making her life a misery for years.

I'd agree with you if you said no reputable climate change scientist thinks that

Ah. You are under the apprehension that scientists believe that scientific facts aren't subject to change at a later date if more evidence emerges. They don't.

Incidentally, no reputable scientist believes that climate change is not real.

There are different forms of knowledge to describe the world. Religion is one. Science is another. There are others. We describe the same phenomena in radically different ways (cf Copernicus). Science does not tell us about truth (neither does religion) - no form of knowledge does (evidence for this assertion = radically different ways of describing the world). We used to think that Pluto was a planet and now we don't, or some scientists think that global warming is happening while others don't. Science is valued not because of its ability to tell the truth but because of what emanates from it - quality of life, medical care, technology, guns, planes, cancer drugs, ethics such as equality for women. All scientists realise that our current knowledge about the world can be overturned in the future, as it has been in the past. Because no type of knowledge, inc science, is linked to 'truth', it leaves the door open for manipulation by current cultural trends, funding issues, etc..If science told us the absolute truth about something, it would be incontrovertible. It isn't. It's a better way to understand the world (if technology, medicine and whatever are your thing) but it's not 'truth', but, if everyone adheres to it, we'll all be better off (if you like technology, dishwashers, etc.. Some don't - and then there's a clash).

can someone explain how laughing at a rape victim and supporting your husband in denying affairs that happened is even in the same ball park of immorality as actually sexually assaulting people?

Clinton certainly is no saint....but nobody actually seriously thinks she has committed sexual assault do they?

I am constantly mystified why she doesn't just come out and say 'I have never assaulted anyone and I have never bragged about using my celebrity status to get away with it' or 'why are you talking about my husband? Should we be talking about your wives?'

Misti!

Two birds with one stone there!

"Mistigirl - Nope. All knowledge is malleable. There is no universally accepted fact and never has been (hence the clash in cultures, which is really all about clash between knowledges). Those with influence, wealth and power get to define truth, even scientific truth"

That really makes no sense at all . Opinion is malleable..........

Mistigirl - Nope. All knowledge is malleable. There is no universally accepted fact and never has been (hence the clash in cultures, which is really all about clash between knowledges). Those with influence, wealth and power get to define truth, even scientific truth

Tell you what - try jumping out of a fourth floor window while repeating to yourself that there is no such thing as scientific truth and that gravity is just a theory. Once you've done that, there might be a productive discussion to be had on this topic.

But Clinton has been investigated by the FBI already and has no case to answer. So nothing to pardon.

"But everything would be done according to law."

It already has been........

Yes, I'm likely to form my opinions from random right wing op eds in the NY post ... not.

you might as well say that Trump will remain on the hook for sexual assault - unless Obama pardons him. Well you could say that in fact.

Despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the trumpites, Hillary Clinton was investigated by the FBI (an FBI clearly not sympathetic to her) and it was found that she should not be prosecuted for any possible crimes as there was no evidence of any criminal wrong doing. But, as with the election results, Trump is incapable of appreciating or complying with the most basic and most important tenets of US society - the rule of law, peaceful transition of power. I think he is intellectually incapable of understanding them myself, but even if he were capable, he doesn't care as he does not fundamentally believe in democracy or our legal process. I think he would do a lot better in Russia.

If elected (ha) he would probably ignore the FBI investigation and prosecute her and try to "lock her up" because his style of politics and jurisprudence is more suited to the Congo (and my apologies to the Congo) than US.

Making it illegal doesn't benefit anyone apart from a bunch of catholic priests who don't have families to feed.

It's not so much the Catholics in the US, is it, though?
My impression is that it's mostly the very conservative churches in the Republican centre states. The ones that indoctrinate for abstinence.

He nailed her on the Clinton foundation.
I don't think so. There isn't much to nail her on, in that respect, actually. Whereas he has actually used his own foundation to pay events to his own companies and buy a huge painting of himself, as well as some dodgy contributions possibly related to his own interests regarding lawsuits. And she reverted back the accusation, after clarifying that his accusations were lies.

Obama may pardon her

Obama can't pardon her. She hasn't been convicted of anything!!

Trump can reopen the investigation(s) but unless he magics up new evidence... (oh wait, he knows all about rigged evidence already, doesn't he? :( ).