"The Republicans’ war on science and reason"

[Upchurch]

No, it's just boring.

Boring you does not make it off topic.

This thread had some interest to me, being a science minded Republican.

No longer.

I find that when people announce that they are done with a thread, as opposed to merely stopping reading/posting to it, they usually mean the exact opposite.

So, as a science minded Republican, how do you feel about the strong anti-science tone running throughout the Republican party these days?

 

[Corsair 115]

This is not a thread on global warming.

True enough. But the reply of mine that you quoted was in direct reference to something Mr. Prey had stated, and thus, it seems to me, on point in terms of rebutting his argument. And in any case it's not global warming that is the point as much as Mr. Prey's allegations of what underlies it. Which, you will note, is precisely what I have been focusing on. He's made some extravagant claims. Is it not legitimate to call those claims into question and then ask for evidence which supports them? Is one simply to let slide by such bold claims as, "the whole movement is rooted in 19th century spread the wealth Marxism" without ever asking for proof?

 

[Corsair 115]

Whitewash or Greenwash????

[snip]

Please explain precisely and with appropriate evidence how the British Parliament, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the U.S. National Science Foundation are all are "rooted in 19th century spread the wealth Marxism."

It's what you're claiming, so lay out your case. Convince me. Show me the unequivocal evidence that the British Parliament, Department of Commerce, and National Science Foundation are all out to advance the cause of 19th century spread the wealth Marxism. While you're at it, please add NASA and NOAA to that list (not to mention a huge numbers of other organizations and agencies, but let's keep the list to the five named so that your task of assembling the evidence of politically motivated chicanery and scientific fraud is manageable).

I'm still waiting, Mr. Prey. Show me the documentation that reveals the named agencies and organizations, amongst many others, are being motivated by 19th century spread the wealth Marxism. Your certainty that this is the case suggests you have some ironclad evidence. So please present it. Don't be shy, this is your chance. Make your case. Change everyone's mind. (Win a Pulitzer Prize if you are so inclined.) You do have such ironclad evidence, yes? You're not just clutching at conspiracy-themed straws, are you?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

So, as a science minded Republican, how do you feel about the strong anti-science tone running throughout the Republican party these days?

I have an interesting perspective.

I'm regularly on just a handful of sites - this one, the SGU forum, a forum dedicated to a specific airplane type and one dedicated to a specific motorcycle type.

In general, the airplane/motorcycle sites are heavily conservative/republican. Liberal voices are few and far between*.

In general, the two "skeptical" sites lean heavily towards the liberal/democratic end of the spectrum.

I used to watch Bill O'Reilly. I thought it was ludicrous when he would drone on and on about some sort of secular "War on Christmas". But I now think it equally ludicrous when Chris Mooney writes a book on the "Republican War on Science", and threads like this echo the same sentiment.

Each party is made up of individuals. To label an entire party as anti-science or anti-Christmas is painting with far too broad a brush.

I don't want my country's leaders swayed by fundamentalist beliefs. I'd have to think long and hard before getting behind a Republican candidate that was a creationist or spoke in tongues or was waiting for Armageddon - I want his or her decisions informed by reason and not religion.

Then again, I'm saddened to no end by the fact that under our current President our manned space program was allowed to wither and die, and that we now can only go into space with the permission and assistance of the Russians. I think Kennedy's vision of space exploration was "pro-science". I can only see Obama's lack of vision as itself "anti-science", at least in this one area.

I pointed out, either here or over on the SGU site, that Newt Gingrich is an amateur paleontologist, having debated Jack Horner over whether T-Rex was a carnivore or a scavenger, and holding his own very well. I don't think either Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman are seen as being anti-science, so it's a reach to paint the entire field of Republican candidates with such a broad brush regarding having a "war on science and reason" - refreshingly getting back to the thread topic.

To the extent that this thread devolves into a global warming debate, I'll ignore it. I've participated in a few of those and found them marked by intransigence, cherry picking and lots of bad logic. Not worth my time - I'll inform myself elsewhere and come to my own conclusions.


*reminds me of this quote: “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” My only guess is that those with the wherewithal to own an airplane or a BMW motorcycle are likely to be older and richer, and hence have more to "conserve".

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I used to watch Bill O'Reilly. I thought it was ludicrous when he would drone on and on about some sort of secular "War on Christmas". But I now think it equally ludicrous when Chris Mooney writes a book on the "Republican War on Science", and threads like this echo the same sentiment.

Well, is it equally ludicrous? Do the last several election cycles produce equal numbers of anti-science candidates on both sides? Seems to me the "War on Christmas" paranoia and the "War on Science" are coming from exactly the same pile of stupid.

BTW for another thread I suppose, but do scientists think science was best served by the manned or unmanned space programs?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Well, is it equally ludicrous?

I'd think it was obvious I thought so, from the fact that I said it.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Seems to me the "War on Christmas" paranoia and the "War on Science" are coming from exactly the same pile of stupid.

Is it simply an ad hominem attack to call the other side "stupid?"

I see conservatives heap similar scorn upon liberals.

Does not move any discussion forward. I think many liberal philosophies are wrong, but I'll stipulate that liberals/democrats are not stupid as a class.

Nor are conservatives/republicans.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Is it simply an ad hominem attack to call the other side "stupid?"

I suppose it is if it isn't supported with evidence of stupidity. Is there not enough evidence in this thread of the particular stupidities being discussed?

 

[leftysergeant]

Does not move any discussion forward. I think many liberal philosophies are wrong, but I'll stipulate that liberals/democrats are not stupid as a class.

Nor are conservatives/republicans.

At the same time, Grover's punks believe in piddle-down ecconomics, so, based upon the drongos they send to congress, this is unsupported by reality.

If people get too used to the idea of evaluating claims based upon historical precendent or preserved records of any kind, to include the fossil record, they might apply the same standards to political BS and then the GOP is screwed.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Nor are conservatives/republicans [stupid as a class].

I'd agree and stipulate to that (I'm actually registered as a Republican, but it's pretty wrong at this point). But particular fundamentalist Christian stupidities have become very important in the Republican nominating process: evolution is a very routine litmus test question during Republican nominating pre-primary debates; and AGW denialism has a heavy "God gave us dominion" component to it.

I can't find any polls devoted to assessing how many Republicans buy in to the War on Christmas meme, so I spent a couple minutes trying to find someone of note who was spouting the War on Christmas meme but wasn't also spouting some anti-science such as AGW denialism or creationism. Couldn't find any.

 

[Bri]

The recent disclosure of hacked e-mails from global warming biased "scientists" show further evidence that the entire movement is in fact an attempt to extract wealth from the productive, to the benefit of the non-productive -- 19th century spread the wealth "Marxism"

So you didn't read the article I cited for you way back at the beginning of the discussion. It's not a very long article. You might actually want to read it. Had you read it, you might have been spared the embarrassment of taking at face value the unsubstantiated claims of your fellow global warming skeptics:

Perry also charged that scientists have been manipulating data. He could be referring to a 2009 incident when stolen e-mails from the Climatic Research United at the University of East Anglia were released on the Internet. Global warming skeptics said the e-mails showed climate researchers were manipulating data.

But several inquiries debunked those allegations, including investigations by the British Parliament, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Pennsylvania State University and the InterAcademy Council. The inquiries found that, while the scientists had made rude remarks about people who questioned climate change, they were not falsifying data. Some of the investigations recommended greater transparency and sharing of climatic data, but the independent investigations exonerated the researchers of falsifying data.​

-Bri

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I'd agree and stipulate to that (I'm actually registered as a Republican, but it's pretty wrong at this point).

I am inclined to think that any intelligent person MUST accept the Theory Of Evolution. I mean, the evidence for it is enormous and convincing - how could one not?

Yet, the fact of the matter is that many "otherwise" intelligent people reject evolution. And that fact remains a mystery to me.

I once saw a billboard with a prince and a frog on it. The caption was "EVOLUTION - Fairy Tale For Adults". How does it make you feel if someone says you have to be stupid to believe in evolution? Maybe that they're even MORE stupid to say such a thing? As I said, name calling and stereotypes do NOT move the discussion forward.

I'm content to provisionally accept the hypothesis that "the other side" is simply wrong, but that stupidity has little or nothing to do with it.

But That's Just Me™!

 

[Robert Prey]

Please explain precisely and with appropriate evidence how the British Parliament, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the U.S. National Science Foundation are all are "rooted in 19th century spread the wealth Marxism."

It's what you're claiming, so lay out your case. Convince me. Show me the unequivocal evidence that the British Parliament, Department of Commerce, and National Science Foundation are all out to advance the cause of 19th century spread the wealth Marxism. While you're at it, please add NASA and NOAA to that list (not to mention a huge numbers of other organizations and agencies, but let's keep the list to the five named so that your task of assembling the evidence of politically motivated chicanery and scientific fraud is manageable).

I'm still waiting, Mr. Prey. Show me the documentation that reveals the named agencies and organizations, amongst many others, are being motivated by 19th century spread the wealth Marxism. Your certainty that this is the case suggests you have some ironclad evidence. So please present it. Don't be shy, this is your chance. Make your case. Change everyone's mind. (Win a Pulitzer Prize if you are so inclined.) You do have such ironclad evidence, yes? You're not just clutching at conspiracy-themed straws, are you?

Their actions speak for themselves.

 

[Robert Prey]

Not explicitly, but it is one of the sciences Republicans are fighting a war on. As such, it is certainly on topic.

How about the Democrats war on science??? After all, Democrats believe that money grows on trees.

 

[cwalner]

Their actions speak for themselves.

This is clearly not the case. If it were, then your claims would be obvious to other people. Since they are not, please specify which actions by the agency (other than their position on AGW) shows an affinity for '19th century spread the wealth Marxism'

 

[cwalner]

How about the Democrats war on science??? After all, Democrats believe that money grows on trees.

Again, Please support that claim. What economic policies are promoted by Democrats that are in opposition to a consensus of economists?

 

[lomiller]

I have an interesting perspective.

The fact that you don’t actually want to discuss the anti-science positions of the Republican Party makes your position suspect IMO.

I used to watch Bill O'Reilly. I thought it was ludicrous when he would drone on and on about some sort of secular "War on Christmas". But I now think it equally ludicrous when Chris Mooney writes a book on the "Republican War on Science", and threads like this echo the same sentiment.

I think it’s a given that anyone who gives something a title of the form “War on...” is an idiot”, but that isn’t the subject of this thread.
That said, people like O’Reilly who get worked up about people exercising their freedom to celebrate holidays any way they want take that stupidity to different level, so comparing it to a real issue like Republican rejection of science is still false equivocation in a big way.

Then again, I'm saddened to no end by the fact that under our current President our manned space program was allowed to wither and die, and that we now can only go into space with the permission and assistance of the Russians. I think Kennedy's vision of space exploration was "pro-science". I can only see Obama's lack of vision as itself "anti-science", at least in this one area.

Neither is funding the subject of this thread. Even if it were funding levels are decided of Congress not the president.

We are discussing the position of Republicans on science and the tendency of Republican decision makers to eschew scientific mythology and results. The most obvious examples are Climate Science, Evolution, Stem Cell research but we see the same things in Republican approach to economics. Going back a few years you can also see similar anti-science in Republic groups that supported the pro-tobacco lobbyists and republican groups that oppose action of CFC’s. In fact even today you will see conservative groups claiming there was no need to regulate CFC’s, arguing against the dangers of second hand smoke or arguing the possibility of Nuclear winter was somehow disproven.

It’s perfectly obvious Republicans view Academia and Universities in general as the enemy and as a result reject peer reviewed literature whenever it contradicts their belief system.

 

[lomiller]

I am inclined to think that any intelligent person MUST accept the Theory Of Evolution. I mean, the evidence for it is enormous and convincing - how could one not?

Yet, the fact of the matter is that many "otherwise" intelligent people reject evolution. And that fact remains a mystery to me.

I once saw a billboard with a prince and a frog on it. The caption was "EVOLUTION - Fairy Tale For Adults". How does it make you feel if someone says you have to be stupid to believe in evolution? Maybe that they're even MORE stupid to say such a thing? As I said, name calling and stereotypes do NOT move the discussion forward.

I'm content to provisionally accept the hypothesis that "the other side" is simply wrong, but that stupidity has little or nothing to do with it.

But That's Just Me™!

The problem isn’t “belief in evolution”. The issue is what you do when the peer reviewed literature says one thing and you believe something else. The approach Republican leadership is taking is that when this occurs something must be wrong the scientific process and that it should be “fixed” so it gives the results they are looking for.

Don’t like evolution, then re-define science so that it includes intelligent design
Don’t like the implications of climate change then claim it’s all a big fraud to get research grants.
Don’t like what modern economics has to say, ignore it and tell your base that “Austrian” economics is somehow legitimate
Don’t like regulation of smoking, tell you base that “scientists are not really sure if it causes cancer”

There is no question you will get people ignorant of what the actual science says in all parts of the political spectrum, but the real question is what the leaders do and say when confronted with a consensus in the scientific literature they don’t agree with, do they adapt their position to accept this as the best understanding of the issue or do they continue to insist the problem had to be in the literature.

 

[Chaos]

Their actions speak for themselves.

So you refuse to provide evidence, then?

 

[varwoche]

Each party is made up of individuals. To label an entire party as anti-science or anti-Christmas is painting with far too broad a brush.

The leaders of the republican party are overwhelmingly on the wrong side of GW and evolution. Unfortunately, your broad brush complaints just don't wash. (And I'll bet there are opinion polls indicating the same is true for the general GOP population.)

I'm glad that not all republicans think this way. It must be incredibly frustrating to see this lineup of anti-science kooks running for POTUS.

I can see why you object to the GW science debate here. I do too, come to think of it. Discussing the detailed science here is off-topic; we're just indulging an anti-science troll.

But the metadata of AGW denial is totally pertinent. To overlook that is to bury your head in the sand.