Scientists are not always logical, particularly outside of their own fields. Sometimes they cling tenaciously to a theory when there is only a little evidence supporting it and a massive amount contradicting it. The mere creation or discovery of a new theory will often blind the inventor to the evidence against it. What is most prominent in non-mathematical discussion here is not what the views are, but what the citations are. When discussing mathematics, most of the participants most of the time have a good grasp of the mathematical literature. References are made frequently to particular books and their authors and particular theorems and other shared knowledge. Citations for the non-mathematical subjects are missing and certainly I, and I believe others do not have anything more that a casual familiarity with all of the studies and writings on these subjects. Unlike mathematics, the discussion of whether global warming is mainly anthropogenic, or the discussion of the cumulative effects of small doses of radiation, or the discussion of the probability of nuclear accident, require more than just healthy skepticism but require as well meaningful physical data. We are unlikely to get that necessary information on this group. In addition it is possible to have too great a psychological investment in a particular point of view to be able to discuss these subjects rationally. A rational discussion of the various "liberal theories" would require that they be discussed one at a time. There is no linkage that I can see between nuclear safety and global warming. Posting inflammatory statements such as:
This little chuckle pales in comparison to the damage done by the pervasive belief that nuclear power is unsafe, or that human activity is causing global temperatures increases. Explain this last point to the people in Quebec City. It's -50 and the laughter may help warm them.
Or
This little chuckle pales in comparison to the damage done by the pervasive belief that because there is a creation there must be a creator, some kind of God, or the belief that all of the universe began at some finite instance in time with a giant explosion. Explain this to those not waiting for armageddon. Its blastoff -50 and the laughter may pre-heat them.
Both of the above statements, to generate a chuckle, would require that we share a particular set of beliefs among ourselves, which we clearly do not. The beliefs that we do share all have to do with mathematics, and even in this narrow scope there are some disagreements. What is wonderful about math-fun is that all of us have had the opportunity to say, "aha, I see it now" or even "shucks, I was wrong" and everyone here shares a commitment to searching for answers based fundamentally on the same body of proved works, and fundamentally using the same techniques so that, more than in any other science, we can be sure of the results that we present or discuss here. I would like to see math-fun stay both mathematical and fun. Discussions of the probability of nuclear disaster, absent both good statistics and good data, are only marginally mathematical and marginally fun for a number of people on this group. Regards Otto otto@olympus.net