Why do some people frame the stem cell and global warming debate incorrectly?

Question

They claim Christians are against stem cell research and that people deny global warming when in reality its that most are against using aborted fetuses to get the stem cells (not against the research) and they just dont agree that humans are causing global warming.

Do you think its on purpose to try to manipulate the argument or do you think its just ignorance of the actual debate going on?

Its done here all the time and everytime I see a question like it, it makes me wonder.

Answer 1

Most stem cell researches do not abort fetuses per se, they wait until there are roughly 100 cells, and then extract them

100 cells is not anything. Just 100 cells that can be used to turn into anything in the human body

and global warming: We are the problem

EDIT:

The problem is mis-information. They get all their info from biased sources with an agenda. But, when someone actually does research on the topic, they come to an intelligent conclusion

Answer 2

Most fundies have no idea what stem cells are dear....

And of course the have no idea what science is and what scientific research are for.

Fortunately, in every modern civilized countries with an efficient public school system, thanks to education for all, religious delusions and superstitions are quietly fading away...

Answer 3

There is a fair amount of ignorance involved.  This is particularly the case with global warming, which is predicated on computer simulations -- which are notoriously unreliable, as any weather forecaster can tell you.

Answer 4

Depending upon who is doing it, it could be either.

As evidenced just a couple inches above me....

Which is more likely?  On this question, I think most of the answers are from people who believe what they are saying.  I don't think there's much attempt at manipulation going on.

Answer 5

Well if you want to talk about framing the issue incorrectly, you just did.  Most embryonic stem cells don't come from aborted fetuses. They come from in-vitro fertilization.  These bunch of cells were never even in a human and have been grown in a petri dish and were destined to be thrown away.

I think most intelligent people familiar with the issues, speak of global warming, and not "human caused global warming" because it is a matter of semantics.  There is no doubt as far as the scientific community is concerned what the cause it and potential solutions are to mitigate global warming.

The ignorance seems to come from the other side.  Whether you believe we are causing it or not, the consequences are dire.  Don't you think erring on the side of caution is prudent?  The other point is the oil gravy train is a dead end street, we are going to run out if we continue our glutinous consumption.

edit: To be honest with you, I don't think there is any debate.  If the general public is just too d**n lazy to attempt to understand I really don't know how to deal with it.  I think there is a general sense of apathy about global warming in particular.  Short of California falling into the ocean some people will not wake up to the facts.  (I am using that metaphorically, I do know we aren't going to fall in the ocean)

Answer 6

There has been little in the development of extracting stem cells from the umbilical cord. and yes humans happen to be the factor in the cause of global warming

Answer 7

I think it's both.

Those that are heading the 'humans cause global warming' and 'christians hate all stem-cell research' know exactly what they're doing and are playing games with semantics.

But many of their followers are ignorant of the facts of the debate, they've been spoon-fed an idea and repeat it like parrots.  Much like how some christians parrot the attacks of their pastors on other faiths w/out doing any of their own research.

Answer 8

FASCINATING!

The framing of an argument is very subjective but is very crucial to the discovery and determination of the truth.  Let's see if I can shed some light on what you're talking about - because I agree with you completely.

In the human sciences (ethics of the above questions would fall in that category) there are two schools of thought to prove or determine the truth of the topic:  Empiricism and Rationalism.

Rationalism holds that the senses are easily fooled and that pure logic alone, coupled with training, are necessary to determine the truth.  However, the drawback to rationalism is - what if you miss a step in your logic?   The framing of the question would be an example of a debatable point of logic.

The fact that you disagree with their framing of the question poses a serious hinderance to their logic, because if they are in fact correct, they have to be able to demonstrate it.  And if you disagree, then they have failed to do so - starting with the framing of the question.

Rationalism also primarily operates on theories.  The theory of relativity and of black holes are examples of rationalism.  There is in these cases no way to PROVE what is believed.  Global warming is an example of this.  Global warming would fall outside the scientific method and would fall under the abductive method of experimentation - i.e. rather than conducting an experiment to observe the outcome, in this case with global warming it is impossible to do this, so instead they observe a phenomenon and make a hypothesis as to how it occurred and why.  

Outside rationalism, there is empiricism.  Empricism holds that logic can be flawed and only an experiment or demonstration of the truth by observation can ascertain the truth.  However, rationalism holds that the conclusion "proven" by empricism can be incorrect, despite a successful experiment.

In both these modes of thought - there is the question of whether or not consensus is required.  Empiricism holds that consensus is important to the determination of truth - i.e. the experiment or demonstration must be "reliable" and "repeatable" and "valid".  However, consensus alone does not determine truth.  Those responsible for observation must be trained in the sciences and art of empiricism.  Debate is expected and is neccessary - as well as dissent - so as to account for any missed viewpoints or perspectives to assure that there are no missed perspectives or theories.

In the global warming debate - there is consensus but it is not universal.  In this case - consensus - is inconclusive.  With two camps (actually 3) there is no "conclusion" on global warming that PROVES global warming is actually what any of the three camps are saying (it is a natural cycle there is nothing to worry about / global warming is occuring but we don't know for a fact that man is doing it more study is needed / and global warming is occuring and is for a fact manmade all technology must stop).

In all of these cases, the framing of the question MUST be correct for a correct determination to be made.  Without the correct question - one cannot expect to arrive at the correct answer.  Often an incorrect question demonstrates an incorrect premise - and will result in an incorrect conclusion.

*edit* Being a factor in something does not mean it is a controlling factor.  In order to correctly ascertain your outcome you have to factor everything in and determine whether or not it is the controlling factor or the independent variable.  The number of variables in weather are so numerous and the scale of the "experiment" is so large that except in theory you cannot prove or demonstrate that humans are the independent variable.

Answer 9

I agree with Bekah Rose: A lot of people just don't bother researching anything and just parrot what they hear.

I'm a Christian, but I am one to say that a lot of people just assume that "whatever pastor says is what I should believe." And they repeat this without ever finding out the truth for themselves.

There IS a difference between a "fundie" and a true Christian.

Answer 10

What difference does it make if global warming is caused by humans or by nature? I would like to know why many Christians deny that the planet is warming. I believe that Fundamentalists deny global warming because it is an issue strongly acknowledged by Democrats, and thus a threat to right wing ideology that ferments in literalist Christianity.

If liberal Atheistic Democrats are correct on Global Warming, maybe they are right on abortion and womans choice. Maybe they are right on secularism. Maybe they are right on their concerns of overpopulation. Maybe they are right on isssues concernig birth control.

Answer 11

The phenomenon of Christianity certainly hinders stem-cell research and also hinders attempts to protect the environment or improve the world.  (This world, not the 'next')  It's one of the main reasons I bother trying to persuade people to think.