Tea Party vs Republican Comparison on Opinions of Science/Environment

[Subyman]

No...that's not anything close to what the graph says.

Uhm, please explain your reasoning.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I see no reason not to suspect that being wrong about very accepted and widely known facts is a pretty good indicator of their overall scientific knowledge. If someone doesn't believe that 2+2=5, it doesn't matter how good they are at doing, say, a geometric proof. I'm still going to consider them to be bad at math.

The problem is the rational used.

OK

You hand out an assignment where I must pick some subject and use logic and rational arguments to prove by scientific means some position.

If I construct an argument which proves something by selectively picking those things I know in advance determine the outcome, is my methodology valid and generally applicable?

If yes, what about my approach is meritorious from a rational and truth seeking, objective sense?

If no, why don't you give me the "A" anyway because I used material to prove a point you agree with?

Look at how Ferguson let a criminal policeman off the hook. I can find dozens of examples of police abuse, some on the Ferguson force. I can find statistics galore. All I have to do is select the most valid for my purpose. Since I can find valid criteria I can link it to my argument by making sure they are very well known and well accepted facts.

Sorry, they may be idiots, but I was looking for a more rigorous and uniform standard applied to "science". That the results are correct hardly recommends the way they were reached.

Yeah, I think like that

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Uhm, please explain your reasoning.

The graph has nothing to do with whether these groups think global warming is occurring or not.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I wish they had asked these groups what percentage of global warming was caused by mankind instead of trying to manipulate this into something black & white. This gives the appearance that the "researchers" were intentionally trying to skew the result and/or have little or no knowledge of the uncertainties involved.

Why didn't they ask their knowledge of physics, or engineering related science? Chemistry?

I don't know what the results would be, but again this is about how this was being sold by the article author in the headline. If it were to so happen that a group was far superior in those subjects I mentioned would those who weren't scientifically illiterate?

Bring science into the mix and I confess I get "picky".

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Why didn't they ask their knowledge of physics, or engineering related science? Chemistry?

Because those aren't perceived to be political, whereas climate science unequivocally is?

 

[fskimospy]

I would like to see a 3rd option...Climate change is happening now, caused by both human activities and natural forces.

That doesn't make any sense. All the options other than the 'climate change isn't happening' one are saying that it is happening due to both human activities and natural forces. The emphasis of the question is on which one people think is more responsible.

If they were to add in your option it would destroy the purpose of the question. Not only would it be unaligned with the other options, which is a big no-no, but it would give people the option to functionally not express an opinion on the very issue the question is asking about, as saying the earth is changing due to both human and natural factors is essentially a truism.

 

[Subyman]

The graph has nothing to do with whether these groups think global warming is occurring or not.

Nice back pedal on semantics lol. Wouldn't have it any other way in P&N.

"Not anything" Tack on "by man" to my statement. Its the trend of the more educated to not believe in the cause that was fascinating. But of course, you have to come along and make a snarky comment that is meaningless based off of minuscule wording in my post.

Got to have a lawyer read my posts to make sure there isn't a fragment someone can dangle an argument from lol.

 

[Zorba]

Why didn't they ask their knowledge of physics, or engineering related science? Chemistry?

I don't think they point was to test their science grade level, it was to show how many accepted scientific theories that have been politicized.

Asking people if they believe in Newton's 3rd law would not result in very interesting results.

 

[Zorba]

You never just sit and talk to your gas line?

Man, I had a lot of typos in that

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Nice back pedal on semantics lol. Wouldn't have it any other way in P&N.

"Not anything" Tack on "by man" to my statement. Its the trend of the more educated to not believe in the cause that was fascinating. But of course, you have to come along and make a snarky comment that is meaningless based off of minuscule wording in my post.

Got to have a lawyer read my posts to make sure there isn't a fragment someone can dangle an argument from lol.

You should be more careful about your words if you want to be understood...saying some disagree with global warming is not equivalent to saying some disagree that global warming is primarily caused by mankind. I wasn't trying to be snarky...words have meaning.

 

[Subyman]

Everyone but you understood what I was saying, just check the other posts. The trend is what was interesting and what I was asking about. The "by man" is clearly labeled on the graph.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't think they point was to test their science grade level, it was to show how many accepted scientific theories that have been politicized.

Asking people if they believe in Newton's 3rd law would not result in very interesting results.

I do agree but let me turn this around a bit. There's a conclusion drawn that Tea Party members do not acknowledge the mainstream scientific conclusions of climate change because of their political orientation and not due to understanding the issues. Democrats are different. They acknowledge the science and therefore are not idiots because they understand what is happening.

Well.. I think that's not quite right. Do Democrats who agree do so because they are more intelligent and therefore "not idiots" or are the majority equally ignorant and ill informed but say global warming is correct because of political peer pressure?

I'm inclined to say that both sides are influenced by political tendencies which influence judgement one way or another independent of knowledge of a subject. Therefore it appears that in this case Democrats are smarter even if they mindlessly picked the correct answer.

I tend to look at things in broader terms and frame them in more than one way. Consequently I wonder what part political pressure plays in acceptance of a subject, in this case climate change, as opposed to rational conclusions based on verifiable evidence.

What lies underneath?

 

[glenn1]

I don't think they point was to test their science grade level, it was to show how many accepted scientific theories that have been politicized.

Asking people if they believe in Newton's 3rd law would not result in very interesting results.

Why not conduct the test with science the left is uncomfortable with and see how many of them are "deniers." Stuff like

* The average IQ distribution of blacks is lower than whites or Asians.
* There is no evidence whatsoever that GMO foods present any health risk
* Crime is caused (or increased) by poverty
* Keynesian economics works

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That doesn't make any sense. All the options other than the 'climate change isn't happening' one are saying that it is happening due to both human activities and natural forces. The emphasis of the question is on which one people think is more responsible.

If they were to add in your option it would destroy the purpose of the question. Not only would it be unaligned with the other options, which is a big no-no, but it would give people the option to functionally not express an opinion on the very issue the question is asking about, as saying the earth is changing due to both human and natural factors is essentially a truism.

I believe that CO2 and natural factors are both highly significant reasons for climate change. However, I also believe that we can't say with high confidence that either are these are the absolute major driver of current climate change at this point in time. Recent studies are showing much lower sensitivity to CO2 than previously estimated. We've had a significant lull in global warming the last 2 decades that was not predicted by the climate models which suggests a huge gap in our understanding of this very young science. Here's a few of the many explanations for the lull that you may find humorous. Enjoy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why not conduct the test with science the left is uncomfortable with and see how many of them are "deniers." Stuff like

* The average IQ distribution of blacks is lower than whites or Asians.
* There is no evidence whatsoever that GMO foods present any health risk
* Crime is caused (or increased) by poverty
* Keynesian economics works

That's weird. Most on the left I know would say that crime is increased by poverty.

 

[dank69]

I do agree but let me turn this around a bit. There's a conclusion drawn that Tea Party members do not acknowledge the mainstream scientific conclusions of climate change because of their political orientation and not due to understanding the issues. Democrats are different. They acknowledge the science and therefore are not idiots because they understand what is happening.

Well.. I think that's not quite right. Do Democrats who agree do so because they are more intelligent and therefore "not idiots" or are the majority equally ignorant and ill informed but say global warming is correct because of political peer pressure?

I'm inclined to say that both sides are influenced by political tendencies which influence judgement one way or another independent of knowledge of a subject. Therefore it appears that in this case Democrats are smarter even if they mindlessly picked the correct answer.

I tend to look at things in broader terms and frame them in more than one way. Consequently I wonder what part political pressure plays in acceptance of a subject, in this case climate change, as opposed to rational conclusions based on verifiable evidence.

What lies underneath?

I don't think the important thing here is that anyone understands the science, the important thing is whether or not they think they are smarter than the people who do understand the science.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Everyone but you understood what I was saying, just check the other posts. The trend is what was interesting and what I was asking about. The "by man" is clearly labeled on the graph.

There's lot's of really stupid people in the world...I don't know you and I'm not a mind reader...sorry.

 

[dank69]

There's lot's of really stupid people in the world...I don't know you and I'm not a mind reader...sorry.

The problem is when you characterize a minor wording issue as "not anything close." I hope you can understand that this makes you look like a dishonest asshole.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The problem is when you characterize a minor wording issue as "not anything close." I hope you can understand that this makes you look like a dishonest asshole.

I hope you can understand that I did not perceive this to be a minor wording issue. And now you call me a "dishonest asshole" because I read his words as written? Sigh.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't think the important thing here is that anyone understands the science, the important thing is whether or not they think they are smarter than the people who do understand the science.

Tell me this.

Suppose you and I have political leanings on a subject we really don't understand well enough on our own to have an educated opinion.

Your party picks one side and on that basis you agree accordingly.

My party picks one side and on that basis I also agree.

One party is right and one is wrong. As far as being "smarter" based on the subject at hand who would that be and why? Note something. I didn't say who is right because under these conditions neither one knows. We know what we are told.

 

[senseamp]

No one knows anything, it's just science. It's like this computer I am typing it on. Scientists say it's an electronic device, but who really knows?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Tell me this.

Suppose you and I have political leanings on a subject we really don't understand well enough on our own to have an educated opinion.

Your party picks one side and on that basis you agree accordingly.

My party picks one side and on that basis I also agree.

One party is right and one is wrong. As far as being "smarter" based on the subject at hand who would that be and why? Note something. I didn't say who is right because under these conditions neither one knows. We know what we are told.

That is the definition of "willful ignorance." Generally, the smarter someone is, the more they realize their own ignorance about a particular subject and will defer to experts who have studied it in greater detail. Remaining willfully ignorant but insisting you know more than the experts is almost exclusively done by stupid people who are unable to gauge their own level of intelligence with regards to an issue.

 

[Retro Rob]

I think most people simply accept whatever the science currently supports...blindly, mind you.

People believed the earth didnt move, because the science of the day supported it. People belived continents were always static, because the science of the time supported it.

All we really care about is being on the "popular" side of an opinion, lest we risk looking like "idiots". Objective reasoning hardly ever plays a part in that.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That doesn't make any sense. All the options other than the 'climate change isn't happening' one are saying that it is happening due to both human activities and natural forces. The emphasis of the question is on which one people think is more responsible.

If they were to add in your option it would destroy the purpose of the question. Not only would it be unaligned with the other options, which is a big no-no, but it would give people the option to functionally not express an opinion on the very issue the question is asking about, as saying the earth is changing due to both human and natural factors is essentially a truism.

A good survey question covers all reasonable answer choices. If I believe that both human activities and natural forces are both significant factors affecting global warming and can't say with any degree of certainty that human activities or natural forces constitute the majority or the warming we've observed....then how should I answer this question?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I think most people simply accept whatever the science currently supports...blindly, mind you.

People believed the earth didnt move, because the science of the day supported it. People belived continents were always static, because the science of the time supported it.

All we really care about is being on the "popular" side of an opinion, lest we risk looking like "idiots". Objective reasoning hardly ever plays a part in that.

So what's your point? That we shouldn't trust science? Should people have distrusted the scientists who went against traditional wisdom and said the Earth revolved around the sun? Should everyone just come up with their own theories on everything and damn the consensus of so-called "experts" who only got the title because they've devoted their entire life to studying things that most people don't care enough about to study themselves? I mean, I understand that people accept conventional scientific wisdom as truth and it may later turn out to be wrong... but what's the alternative? Healthy skepticism is one thing, but discounting the opinion of the entire scientific community in the hopes that this will be one of the things they turn out to be wrong about hundreds of years from now seems irrational.