« Why doesn't Britain get rid of its monarchy? | Main | Coffee measuring rule: use 2 tablespoons per 6 ounces »

October 31, 2011

Comments

Hey Brian,

Really great article. I can't believe some of the garbage the republicans believe and stand for. I wish that there was a candidate who could take some of the Republican economic models with more Democratic personal beliefs. I couldn't imagine living in a country with someone like Perry preaching Christianity and trying to brainwash everyone.

I don't understand how people discount science so much and still believe in any religion. Religion was great to help people before science was able to explain things, but now its like are you serious, how do you not believe in hard facts that have proof? How can you believe in a "god" when there is 0 proof one exists, but 100% proof science is real. Its ridiculous.

I was wondering if you take suggestions for article ideas. I work for a website that might be interesting to you for you to share in a post. We do comparisons and actually have a whole 2012 presidential candidate comparison that lays out the platforms of all the candidates and lets people actually see what these people believe. You can check it out here: http://2012-presidential-candidates.findthedata.org/

Please send me an email and I would love to give you more information and other comparisons that would be cool to share.

Thanks so much Brian.

Kevin

Does anyone else besides Brian not see the irony and contradictions oozing from his post?

For contradiction, compare the two theses that Brian presents to you for why Republicans are so “unscientific:”
- are Republicans “unscientific” because, as New Scientists says, they’re educated and scientifically LITERATE – and therefore opinionated?
- or, are Republicans “unscientific” because, as Carl Sagan says, people are scientifically ILLITERATE and become fanatical demons attracted to pseudo-science?
Two very contradictory theses, but Brian likes them both. Any thesis will do so long as it fits Brian’s “Democrat good/Republican bad” progressive cultural bias.

For irony, compare Brian’s preface to Aldous:
“…the most ardent global warming skeptics are Tea Party types. So it makes sense to have people WITH WHOM THEY RESONATE explain the climatological facts to them.”
…to Brian’s opening paragraph to the post itself:
“Oh, yeah! Right on! That's what my mind screamed when I opened the mailbox a few days ago and saw the headline on the cover of New Scientist.”

Oh, yeah? Right on? Sounds to me like Brian has been conditioned to tune in to those WITH WHOM HE RESONATES as well.

And, Brian, that means your “cultural filter” (New Scientists term, not mine) is fully engaged. Case in point your comment, “Well, when the best example of Democratic unscientific thinking dates from 86 years ago, this shows how modern attacks on science are almost universally from the Republican side of the political spectrum. Seriously??

Did you filter out the fact that Democrats tend to be more anti-biotech with regard to food safety and genetically enhanced crops/animals?
Did you filter out the fact that Democrats tend to be more anti-biomedical research when animal testing is involved?
Did you filter out the fact that Democrats tend to be more anti-nuclear power?
Did you not know that poll data shows that 22 percent of Democrats believe evolution was guided by a supreme being, and that 30 percent don’t believe in evolution at all?
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/
Did you forget that Democrats tend to be more anti-vaccine when compared to Republicans? In fact, while scientists overwhelmingly favor mandatory childhood vaccinations, Barack Obama said this on the campaign trail in 2008: “We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included.”

So, no, the best examples of Democratic unscientific thinking do not date from 86 years ago. They exist today – not only here in this post and not just among your fellow progressive laymen, but in the Democratic White House itself.

DJ, good try, but the facts aren't on your side. Republicans are more anti-science than Democrats. Read and believe:
http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/04/more-anti-science-democrats-or/singlepage

Brian, I have to agree with some of DJ's observations. You do seem to view the political landscape through a liberal/democrat=good, conservative/republican=bad filter. Are things really that black and white? But hey, it's your blog.

Frankly, I think both sides have screwed things up nicely and I think we need to clean up Washington in order to clean up Wall St.

I just want government to back off until it can find a way to quit wasting our money. Until then, the bad boy should not get an increase in his allowance.

I don't care if the next president believes God is a Flying Spaghetti Monster as long as he/she also believes in fiscal responsibility, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

Brian, please do explain how you can read that article with your filter off and conclude, "Well, when the best example of Democratic unscientific thinking dates from 86 years ago, this shows how modern attacks on science are ALMOST UNIVERSALLY from the Republican side of the political spectrum."

DJ, open your eyes. How many Democratic vs. Republican members of Congress deny the scientific reality of global warming? How many D's vs. R's oppose embryonic stem cell research, or believe that evolution is an unproven theory?

Yes, Democrats can ignore scientific facts also. But what I was referring to when I talked about modern attacks on science was, obviously, attacks on science. Meaning, Democrats may disagree with certain scientific findings without good reason, but Republicans are MUCH more likely to attack science as a whole -- often for religious reasons.

Every Republican presidential candidate other than Jon Huntsman is anti-science, in that each denies the reality of global warming and often also of evolution. Can you imagine the same number of Democratic presidential candidates getting such high approval numbers from his/her party for being anti-science?

The facts are clear. The Republican party is much more anti-science than the Democratic party.

Brian once again proves he’s the master contortionist. Move that goalpost, Brian!

OK, so you’re no longer making your claim regarding ALL of science? Just three topics…global warming, evolution, and embryonic stem cell research?? From reading the article you provided, I can understand why. Food safety, genetically enhanced food, medical testing on animals, nuclear power, vaccinations…your article points out that Democrats are more anti-science on each of these topics.

Fine, let’s take one of your chosen topics, embryonic stem cell research. Mooney (the voice your thesis most RESONATES WITH in your ‘supporting article’) believes partisan differences on this topic are a “science-related POLICY disagreement” not to be “confused with cases of science rejection.”

Explain how you can read that with your filter off and still conclude it is an example of a Republican attack on science. If Mooney dismisses anti-science as the source of Republican disagreement, why don’t you? Doesn’t it support your argument?

Your claim is now down to just two topics, and arguably less than that given the Democrat poll stats on evolution. The last time I checked two is not a trend. And lack of trend hardly qualifies as a UNIVERSAL ATTACK by Republicans.

PS: For your own credibility you might want to stop citing Huntsman as credible on science. As I’ve pointed out on your blog before he holds among the least scientific credentials of the Republican candidates. He’s what Carl Sagan warned about. A spoiled rich kid with family connections who dropped out of high school to join a rock band, had to instead later get his GED, and went on to get a bachelor’s degree in political science. A degree in political science with no scientific understanding means a career of politicized science.

DJ, thanks for proving the point of this right-on piece: "Classic false equivalence on political abuse of science."
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/22/326556/classic-false-equivalence-on-political-abuse-of-science/

Your comment is a classic use of "they all do this, so Republicans and Democrats are equally at fault." Wrong. Quantity matters, as does quality.

The sucking-up of every leading Republican presidential candidate (other than Huntsman) to anti-science rhetoric speaks loudly to the voters they're trying to attract. If a Dem did that, they'd lose voters, because anti-science doesn't play well with the Democratic base.

Check out "The Republicans' War on Science and Reason."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-republicans-war-on-science-and-reason/2011/10/24/gIQALl3BEM_story.html

Also, "The Republican War on Science."
http://www.desmogblog.com/republican-war-science-returns

Then you can send me links to books and opinion pieces in leading newspapers about the Democratic war on science. Since you claim equivalence between the two parties, you shouldn't have any trouble sending me an Amazon link to a book I can read about how Democratic political leaders, and the party itself, are engaged in an effort to make science irrelevant to policy-making.

I don't want individual instances of anti-science views. I want evidence that the Democratic party as a whole is strongly anti-science. If you're correct, this should be easy for you to provide.

And there you go moving the goalpost again, Brian.

Your original position: "Well, when the best example of Democratic unscientific thinking dates from 86 years ago, this shows how modern attacks on science are almost universally from the Republican side of the political spectrum.”

Your latest watered-down challenge: "I don't want individual instances of anti-science views. I want evidence that the Democratic party as a whole is strongly anti-science."

I love it. In the span of a few comments you've had to alter your view from admitting zero “individual instances” of Democratic anti-science in the last 86 years - all the way to “show me the party as a whole is anti-science.” I’ll call that a win and cash in my chips.

My work here is done.

DJ, I guess what you're trying to say -- but without really saying it-- is that I was correct in this post when I wrote, "It's mostly Republicans who are trying to lead us back to the Dark Ages of irrationality."

Thanks for agreeing with me that there isn't any evidence of the Democratic Party leading an anti-science crusade, while there is lots of evidence that Republicans have gone off the irrational deep end.

Oh, here's a book you should be interested in. It's being published next year: "The Republican Brain -- The Science of Why They Don't Believe in Science."
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/08/363268/the-republican-brain-science-mooney/

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Strange Up Salem

Welcome to HinesSight

  • Salem Political Snark
    My local political rants are now made on this badass blog. Check it out. Dirty politics, outrageous actions, sleaze, backroom deals — we’re on it. 

  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • Church of the Churchless
    Visit my other weblog, Church of the Churchless, where the gospel of spiritual independence is preached.

  • Welcome to HinesSight. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...