Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 76
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    11,209
    vCash
    1500

    GOP and their WAR on Science

    So what happens if the GOP actually wins this war on science?? What are the consequences we could be facing if someone like Ted Cruz gets elected and shuts down the scientific community. Wouldn't it be better for them in terms of getting the younger voters if they embraced the science instead of acting like they know more than scientists?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    anywhere USA
    Posts
    3,044
    vCash
    1500
    This is the very reason I cannot vote republican, it's the fact they would rather destroy their grandchildren lives and future for a little bit of green paper

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    indianpolis - north side
    Posts
    9,442
    vCash
    1500
    Not a Republican, but this is more than a little bit hyperbolic. The GOP doesn't have a 'War on Science'. They have a couple or three positions that have been [mostly] been proven wrong that they are unwilling to change. Some of them are religious, abortion and evolution. Others are just kinda stupid, imo, Climate Change. But they are not a war on science, they are just emotional/spiritual beliefs that they don't want to change.

    The world will go on with the GOP holding and acting on these things. At some point, their kids or grandkids will see the truths that are actual reality. Life will go on just fine. The GOP is guilty of lots of dumb things, but a 'War on Science' isn't one of them.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    7,775
    vCash
    1500
    War on science, lol. I thought GOP was the side that was supposed to come up with these stupid kinda slogans

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,636
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyFan View Post
    Not a Republican, but this is more than a little bit hyperbolic. The GOP doesn't have a 'War on Science'. They have a couple or three positions that have been [mostly] been proven wrong that they are unwilling to change. Some of them are religious, abortion and evolution. Others are just kinda stupid, imo, Climate Change. But they are not a war on science, they are just emotional/spiritual beliefs that they don't want to change.

    The world will go on with the GOP holding and acting on these things. At some point, their kids or grandkids will see the truths that are actual reality. Life will go on just fine. The GOP is guilty of lots of dumb things, but a 'War on Science' isn't one of them.
    While I agree with you that "war" as terminology is hyperbolic. the gop is not just problematic on a few issues, but also on the process of science. I'm gonna link to another article (that uses "war" but again I agree that that's hyperbolic)that shows a little of what i mean.

    http://io9.com/this-is-what-the-gops...ike-1556202056

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    indianpolis - north side
    Posts
    9,442
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    While I agree with you that "war" as terminology is hyperbolic. the gop is not just problematic on a few issues, but also on the process of science. I'm gonna link to another article (that uses "war" but again I agree that that's hyperbolic)that shows a little of what i mean.

    http://io9.com/this-is-what-the-gops...ike-1556202056
    What I read was the GOP guys trying to defend their position on climate change. IMO, they sounded ignorant in doing so, but ignorant about things related to climate change. It was not about science as a whole, just an unwillingness to change a opinion that has been [mostly] shown to be incorrect. This is more of an emotional issue than a scientific one. They've invested a lot of political and emotional capital in the position and really don't want to be shown up as foolish. So they cling to their position longer than they might if the issue of climate change had not been made such a big deal. This is an emotional unwillingness to change issue rather than a mistrust of science in general.

    I see this 'war on science' as more of an extension of the basic political position of a conservative than anything having to do with science. Conservatives by their nature are unwilling/uninterested in change. They want the world to be the same way it was when they were children for their grand children. Different is bad. They've taken a position on abortion, that life begins at conception, that is a religious one [mostly]. They will not be interested in anything that challenges that. Not because they hate science, but because they believe what they believe. Chimate Change is the same. They believe that man cannot change the climate. That has become an emotional issue for them, one that they've gotten mad/emotional about and don't want to look bad. Evolution is another, the base reasoning here is also a religious belief. That push back on science here is not about science, but that science conflicts with their religious/emotional belief. Religious beliefs are core things that are not easily changed.

    The GOP's war on science is not about a war on science, but rather those parts of science that conflict with their world view. Science is fine to go to the moon. Science is fine to invent better cell phones. Science is fine to make better HDTV's. Science is fine to find ways to frak oil from shale. Science is fine to do science things to make life better. The only time science is not fine is when it tell us things that we don't want to hear. When it conflicts with political or religious or emotional beliefs that are either core beliefs or things we've fought about and are really really unwilling to change. Then science is bad.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    11,209
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyFan View Post
    What I read was the GOP guys trying to defend their position on climate change. IMO, they sounded ignorant in doing so, but ignorant about things related to climate change. It was not about science as a whole, just an unwillingness to change a opinion that has been [mostly] shown to be incorrect. This is more of an emotional issue than a scientific one. They've invested a lot of political and emotional capital in the position and really don't want to be shown up as foolish. So they cling to their position longer than they might if the issue of climate change had not been made such a big deal. This is an emotional unwillingness to change issue rather than a mistrust of science in general.

    I see this 'war on science' as more of an extension of the basic political position of a conservative than anything having to do with science. Conservatives by their nature are unwilling/uninterested in change. They want the world to be the same way it was when they were children for their grand children. Different is bad. They've taken a position on abortion, that life begins at conception, that is a religious one [mostly]. They will not be interested in anything that challenges that. Not because they hate science, but because they believe what they believe. Chimate Change is the same. They believe that man cannot change the climate. That has become an emotional issue for them, one that they've gotten mad/emotional about and don't want to look bad. Evolution is another, the base reasoning here is also a religious belief. That push back on science here is not about science, but that science conflicts with their religious/emotional belief. Religious beliefs are core things that are not easily changed.

    The GOP's war on science is not about a war on science, but rather those parts of science that conflict with their world view. Science is fine to go to the moon. Science is fine to invent better cell phones. Science is fine to make better HDTV's. Science is fine to find ways to frak oil from shale. Science is fine to do science things to make life better. The only time science is not fine is when it tell us things that we don't want to hear. When it conflicts with political or religious or emotional beliefs that are either core beliefs or things we've fought about and are really really unwilling to change. Then science is bad.
    So basically science is good when it helps make make money or build weapons of war but bad in other phases. I think you summed it up pretty well. I think it's probably what bothers me most about GOP as that they try to discredit science when it doesn't fit their beliefs even when your talking about billions of lives being at stake yet they have a real concern about "kicking the can down the road" with tax reform/entitlements like that has more real world consequences.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Arvada, Colorado
    Posts
    17,615
    vCash
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyFan View Post
    What I read was the GOP guys trying to defend their position on climate change. IMO, they sounded ignorant in doing so, but ignorant about things related to climate change. It was not about science as a whole, just an unwillingness to change a opinion that has been [mostly] shown to be incorrect. This is more of an emotional issue than a scientific one. They've invested a lot of political and emotional capital in the position and really don't want to be shown up as foolish. So they cling to their position longer than they might if the issue of climate change had not been made such a big deal. This is an emotional unwillingness to change issue rather than a mistrust of science in general.

    I see this 'war on science' as more of an extension of the basic political position of a conservative than anything having to do with science. Conservatives by their nature are unwilling/uninterested in change. They want the world to be the same way it was when they were children for their grand children. Different is bad. They've taken a position on abortion, that life begins at conception, that is a religious one [mostly]. They will not be interested in anything that challenges that. Not because they hate science, but because they believe what they believe. Chimate Change is the same. They believe that man cannot change the climate. That has become an emotional issue for them, one that they've gotten mad/emotional about and don't want to look bad. Evolution is another, the base reasoning here is also a religious belief. That push back on science here is not about science, but that science conflicts with their religious/emotional belief. Religious beliefs are core things that are not easily changed.

    The GOP's war on science is not about a war on science, but rather those parts of science that conflict with their world view. Science is fine to go to the moon. Science is fine to invent better cell phones. Science is fine to make better HDTV's. Science is fine to find ways to frak oil from shale. Science is fine to do science things to make life better. The only time science is not fine is when it tell us things that we don't want to hear. When it conflicts with political or religious or emotional beliefs that are either core beliefs or things we've fought about and are really really unwilling to change. Then science is bad.
    If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying it's less to do with war on science, but rather for many conservatives, the underlying issues are more so stubbornness and ignorance?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    indianpolis - north side
    Posts
    9,442
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudvayne91 View Post
    If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying it's less to do with war on science, but rather for many conservatives, the underlying issues are more so stubbornness and ignorance?
    No, the underlying issues are an unwillingness to give up long held beliefs. Or an unwillingness to give up political positions that are based on emotional or religious reasons. To be fair, beliefs that have not totally been proven wrong.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    7,775
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyFan View Post
    What I read was the GOP guys trying to defend their position on climate change. IMO, they sounded ignorant in doing so, but ignorant about things related to climate change. It was not about science as a whole, just an unwillingness to change a opinion that has been [mostly] shown to be incorrect. This is more of an emotional issue than a scientific one. They've invested a lot of political and emotional capital in the position and really don't want to be shown up as foolish. So they cling to their position longer than they might if the issue of climate change had not been made such a big deal. This is an emotional unwillingness to change issue rather than a mistrust of science in general.

    I see this 'war on science' as more of an extension of the basic political position of a conservative than anything having to do with science. Conservatives by their nature are unwilling/uninterested in change. They want the world to be the same way it was when they were children for their grand children. Different is bad. They've taken a position on abortion, that life begins at conception, that is a religious one [mostly]. They will not be interested in anything that challenges that. Not because they hate science, but because they believe what they believe. Chimate Change is the same. They believe that man cannot change the climate. That has become an emotional issue for them, one that they've gotten mad/emotional about and don't want to look bad. Evolution is another, the base reasoning here is also a religious belief. That push back on science here is not about science, but that science conflicts with their religious/emotional belief. Religious beliefs are core things that are not easily changed.

    The GOP's war on science is not about a war on science, but rather those parts of science that conflict with their world view. Science is fine to go to the moon. Science is fine to invent better cell phones. Science is fine to make better HDTV's. Science is fine to find ways to frak oil from shale. Science is fine to do science things to make life better. The only time science is not fine is when it tell us things that we don't want to hear. When it conflicts with political or religious or emotional beliefs that are either core beliefs or things we've fought about and are really really unwilling to change. Then science is bad.
    well, isn't that just human nature? I mean I've heard many times the liberal side talking about some kinda gay gene, or some stupid **** like that. Isn't it just human nature that we kind of have these opinions, and once there's an emotional attachment to a specific side of an argument, we then kind of focus on whatever helps back our side of the story and somewhat ignore what backs the other?

    Even on this sports forum, look at how people use stats or whatever to back up their positions. Isn't the reality that many things have evidences that can be used to defend either side. Like with climate change, or abortion. I mean, that was kind of out of left field, what does science say on abortion? How has it been decided when "life" starts?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,636
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    well, isn't that just human nature? I mean I've heard many times the liberal side talking about some kinda gay gene, or some stupid **** like that. Isn't it just human nature that we kind of have these opinions, and once there's an emotional attachment to a specific side of an argument, we then kind of focus on whatever helps back our side of the story and somewhat ignore what backs the other?

    Even on this sports forum, look at how people use stats or whatever to back up their positions. Isn't the reality that many things have evidences that can be used to defend either side. Like with climate change, or abortion. I mean, that was kind of out of left field, what does science say on abortion? How has it been decided when "life" starts?
    it hasn't... the supreme court decided that because it cant be decided (its a philisophical question about the meaning of the word life) that it is the # weeks (on average a child can live outside the womb unaided.

    It's not that people use the info on both sides... it's that they purposefully or unpurposefuly misunderstand science. For example your example
    Evolutionary biologist Marlene Zuk says:

    One of my favorite [misuses] is the idea of behavior being "learned vs. innate" or any of the other nature-nurture versions of this. The first question I often get when I talk about a behavior is whether it's "genetic" or not, which is a misunderstanding because ALL traits, all the time, are the result of input from the genes and input from the environment. Only a difference between traits, and not the trait itself, can be genetic or learned — like if you have identical twins reared in different environments and they do something different (like speak different languages), then that difference is learned. But speaking French or Italian or whatever isn't totally learned in and of itself, because obviously one has to have a certain genetic background to be able to speak at all.
    Last edited by flips333; 06-17-2014 at 08:22 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    7,775
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    it hasn't... the supreme court decided that because it cant be decided (its a philisophical question about the meaning of the word life) that it is the # weeks (on average a child can live outside the womb unaided.

    It's not that people use the info on both sides... it's that they purposefully or unpurposefuly misunderstand science. For example your example
    Yea exactly, that's what I'm saying. It just seems to be how people operate, regardless of political affiliation

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    12,793
    vCash
    1500
    I think there are going to be a lot of generalizations here, so with that disclaimer out there:
    It seems to me, the majority of the conservatives I have had interaction with (most if which likely belong to the vocal right, probably not a true majority) simply do not understand science as a whole. The method, what it does, how it works, etc.. Evolution and climate change being the big ones.

    I have seen a lot of examples of people just ignoring aspects of the science in favor of things that support their side. And while all people, regardless of political affiliation are at times guilty of this, in my experience, the GOP is Guilty far more often.

    Those who though ken Ham beat Bill Nye, or take Hams creation museum as fact, and call the true science behind evolution "unscientific."

    And then there are those who think they know more about science than the 97% of scientists who agree that climate change is a real problem.
    You have no idea how excited I am right now.


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    12,793
    vCash
    1500
    To the OP though, I don't think a president has the power to shut down all scientific progress or science education. That's why we have a three branch government and not a dictatorship.
    You have no idea how excited I am right now.


  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    12,793
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    Yea exactly, that's what I'm saying. It just seems to be how people operate, regardless of political affiliation
    You don't think conservatives are guilty of it far more often? Climate change? Evolution? Both widely, widely, accepted by the scientific community, yet denied by a large portion (or what seems to be a large portion) of the GOP.
    You have no idea how excited I am right now.


Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •