Conservatives: Why are you anti-science?

[Ausm]

once you understand liberals are liars their motives and outcomes are predicable.

Hey man thx for the explanation my life is complete now!

D:

 

[fskimospy]

It goes both ways... just on different topics. On climate change and evolution, the far right certainly has it backwards. However, the far left is just as messed up when it comes to certain aspects of modern medicine (vaccines, belief in homeopathic medicine) and environmental risk assessment (the dangers of nuclear power, BPA from water bottles, etc.). Nearly everyone, across the entire political spectrum, mis-associates correlation with causation as it suits them, leading to "A was done, then B happened, so A must have caused B" arguments.

A lot has been made of "pledges", particularly on the right, that candidates have been signing to take hard lines on certain issues. I wish instead that we'd get people to sign pledges to make rational decisions. It would be completely unenforceable, but I would like to see rational thought brought back into the discussion as a requirement for good governance.

Once again, this is false equivalence. What Democratic politicians for President in 2008 (or currently) were anti-vaccine or advocates for homeopathic medicine? Obama is a supporter of nuclear power, and Clinton said she was agnostic on the issue. BPA in water bottles is being studied by the EPA under Obama, but certainly he hasn't banned it. The only candidate I could possibly think of that would hold these positions would be Kucinich, and he was barely a real candidate.

On one hand you have positions about evolution and global warming that are held and celebrated by a significant majority of major political figures in a party, and on the other hand you have issues that are rejected by the major figures, but perhaps endorsed by fringe candidates. They are not even close to the same.

 

[JockoJohnson]

The anti-science wing of the Republican party is truly a tiny minority. With that in mind, lets take a look and see how many of their current presidential candidates accept the theory of evolution.

Michele Bachmann - Supports teaching creationism in schools, doubts evolution.
Rick Perry - Supports teaching creationism in schools, doubts evolution.
Rick Santorum - Supports teaching creationism in schools, doubts evolution.
Ron Paul - Doubts evolution! (and public schools for that matter)
Tim Pawlenty - Supports teaching creationism in schools, personally a full blown creationist.
Newt Gingrich - Not a creationist, doesn't support it in schools. (bravo!)
Mitt Romney - Not a creationist, dodged question on teaching creationism in schools (shocker)
Jon Huntsman - Full supporter of evolution. Opposes teaching creationism.

So, out of the 8 most prominent candidates for the Republican nomination for the most powerful office on planet earth, 62.5% of them don't accept the fundamental organizing principle of all modern biology.

According to this 2010 Gallup poll, a full 52% of Republicans are young earth creationists, almost 20 points higher than Democrats and Independents:

Truly a tiny minority!

The percentage of Democratic politicians that believe we should cancel high school science and math classes because there are too many whites in them? Zero. I am unaware of any candidate for the 2008 nomination that believed this either. So on one hand we have the standard bearers for one of the two major parties in the US rejecting science, and on the other hand we have some people at a high school acting dumb.

Yeah, both parties are totally the same. No false equivalence here! Thanks for another insightful post, QP.

Sadly, the Republican field is chock full of pathetic candidates. There is no arguing it. I wish Palin would join in for more LOLs and fireworks, just to spice things up a bit. No one good will run against Obama and he will have a clear victory in the next campaign.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

DSF: That's odd....I'm a conservative and love science too. Go figure.
zsdersw: Even when it disproves or makes dubious some of your long-held beliefs?
DSF: And which long-held beliefs are those?
zsdersw: I don't know; the question was in-general.
DSF: Here's a specific question...why do you feel compelled to single me out to ask that question?
zsdersw: Why not?

Am I to believe that this was just an innocent question that you would ask anyone here...or if there is something about me or my "perceived" beliefs which would provoke you to ask such a loaded and insulting question?

 

[zsdersw]

DSF: That's odd....I'm a conservative and love science too. Go figure.
zsdersw: Even when it disproves or makes dubious some of your long-held beliefs?
DSF: And which long-held beliefs are those?
zsdersw: I don't know; the question was in-general.
DSF: Here's a specific question...why do you feel compelled to single me out to ask that question?
zsdersw: Why not?

Am I to believe that this was just an innocent question that you would ask anyone here...or if there is something about me or my "perceived" beliefs which would provoke you to ask such a loaded and insulting question?

I do not have control or influence over what you believe. I'm simply asking a question; your perception of it as "loaded" and "insulting" is entirely your responsibility.

Feel free to continue side-stepping it, though. It's as entertaining as any answer you would've given to the actual question, anyway.

 

[BoberFett]

Then answer the question yourself zdersw. Do you trust in science even when it's in contrast to your long held beliefs?

 

[zsdersw]

Do you trust in science even when it's in contrast to your long held beliefs?

Yes.

 

[BoberFett]

Yes.

Ah, so you do have long held beliefs not based in science. You some kinda religious right wing nutjob?

As you can see, it was a loaded question, there was no correct answer.

 

[zsdersw]

Ah, so you do have long held beliefs not based in science. You some kinda religious right wing nutjob?

As you can see, it was a loaded question, there was no correct answer.

Not at all. None of my beliefs, long-held or otherwise, are rooted in religion or religious traditions.

As you can see, it was a loaded question only to those who assume, which is generally a very un-scientific thing to do.

 

[Munky]

Too much fail in the OP. In fact, that level of fail can't be even equaled by something like:

"Why do liberals insist on running out nation broke into the ground with ridiculous social welfare programs we can't afford? BTW, if you voted Democrat in the past 30 years, your answer doesn't count."

 

[BoberFett]

Not at all. None of my beliefs, long-held or otherwise, are rooted in religion or religious traditions.

As you can see, it was a loaded question only to those who assume; generally a very un-scientific thing to do.

A long held belief with no basis in fact didn't come from nowhere. That you assumed something to be a fact without the requisite research means you're just another ignorant right wing hack praying to Jeebus to save him.


Now obviously I don't think these things of you, I generally respect your opinion around here, but this is not a forum of rational discussion. This is a forum of hacks from both sides attempting to bludgeon one another to death with half-facts and hyperbole.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I do not have control or influence over what you believe.

I never said or insinuated that you did. Why did you even write that sentence...it has absolutely no relevance.

I'm simply asking a question; your perception of it as "loaded" and "insulting" is entirely your responsibility.

Feel free to continue side-stepping it, though. It's as entertaining as any answer you would've given to the actual question, anyway.

And I simply asked you a direct question that you continue to side-step.

I'm done playing your games...so we'll play mine...the answer to your original question is whatever you want it to be...as I have little hope of convincing you otherwise.

 

[sm625]

Do you have any idea how corrupt the institutional "sciences" are these days? Or how far backwards we really are in the name of protecting the money grubbers?

Pascual Jordan, Samuel Warren Carey, and all the expanding earth scientists. This stuff is so obvious in hindsight yet you have literally thousands of so called educated people believing in a crackpot theory and bastardizing science in a million different ways in order to support a broken theory.

The wave structure of matter.

Pair production in the core of planets.

The incredible properties of water, which we appear to know almost nothing at all about.

It is only a matter of time before the entire country gets left behind because you can only advance so far while entire fields of science are being withheld.

 

[zsdersw]

I never said or insinuated that you did. Why did you even write that sentence...it has absolutely no relevance.

You asked "Am I to believe ...", and since I don't have any influence or control over what you believe, I said so.

And I simply asked you a direct question that you continue to side-step.

I side-stepped nothing. You asked why I picked you, I answered "why not?", using exactly as much indifference as I did when determining who to ask.

I'm done playing your games...so we'll play mine...the answer to your original question is whatever you want it to be...as I have little hope of convincing you otherwise.

There you go again, assuming things. I'm not looking to be convinced, nor am I here in this particular instance to make any judgments.

 

[JD50]

"why not?" is not a valid answer to a question. You're either playing some really weird game or you have some kind of grudge against Doc Savage Fan.

 

[zsdersw]

"why not?" is not a valid answer to a question. You're either playing some really weird game or you have some kind of grudge against Doc Savage Fan.

Answering a question about an indifferent choice with an indifferent answer is perfectly valid.

 

[SparkyJJO]

So let me get this straight.

You assumed that science somehow does conflict with some long-held belief of his, simply because he is conservative, and challenged him on that assumption.

He asked you what the conflict is. Your response is vague because you have no idea. Yet you come across as being sure there must be something.

So he asks you why you asked him such a question in the first place, and you accuse him of sidestepping yours.

If I have that right, did you ever consider that maybe he's not sidestepping your question because your assumption was wrong, there isn't anything in conflict in the first place, so there is nothing to sidestep? Yet you keep trying to pin something on him.

Why?

 

[charrison]

Your attempt to move the Goalposts away from Japan has been noted. Sorry, but you're Failing.

Still waiting for you answer how many people died the Japanese accident caused. Near as I can tell the answer is still zero.

 

[wirelessenabled]

I can the left has been parroting, what is in my opinion very bad science. I have been developing computer sim models for about the past decade and know quite a bit about how they work and how they can be abused. and it pretty obvious those climate models have been abused to get the desired answers. But hey, what do I know....

Yup! And you know the really stupid part ...... all those dumb animals and plants who are paying attention to those "abused" computer sims and moving up in elevation and North/South ward because they think they have to escape Global Warming.

Of course the stupid glaciers and ice fields are all melting even though there is no reason for them to do so. Probably the Left is out there melting the glaciers with propane torches to make the real world fit their "abused" computer sims!

 

[charrison]

Yup! And you know the really stupid part ...... all those dumb animals and plants who are paying attention to those "abused" computer sims and moving up in elevation and North/South ward because they think they have to escape Global Warming.

Of course the stupid glaciers and ice fields are all melting even though there is no reason for them to do so. Probably the Left is out there melting the glaciers with propane torches to make the real world fit their "abused" computer sims!

Take some time and read this...

http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

all of it.

 

[JD50]

Answering a question about an indifferent choice with an indifferent answer is perfectly valid.

nope.

 

[nick1985]

zsdersw got beat the hell up here...wow. lol!

 

[Hacp]

Yup! And you know the really stupid part ...... all those dumb animals and plants who are paying attention to those "abused" computer sims and moving up in elevation and North/South ward because they think they have to escape Global Warming.

Of course the stupid glaciers and ice fields are all melting even though there is no reason for them to do so. Probably the Left is out there melting the glaciers with propane torches to make the real world fit their "abused" computer sims!

Who do you trust? Someone who seems to have no scientific background(you), or someone who has obviously undergone scientific training, specifically in simulation and modeling?

 

[Baasha]

34% of Democrats think "God" created man within the last 10,000 years? WTF!?!

 

[zsdersw]

nope.

Yup.