"The Republicans’ war on science and reason"

Humes fork

Banned
Humes fork
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
3,358
From The Washington Post:

The 18th century was defined, in many ways, by the Enlightenment, a philosophical movement based on the idea that reason, rational discourse and the advancement of knowledge, were the critical pillars of modern life. The leaders of the movement inspired the thinking of Charles Darwin, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin; its tenets can be found in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. But more than 200 years later, those basic tenets — the very notion that facts and evidence matter — are being rejected, wholesale, by the 21st-century Republican Party.

CONTINUES
Click to expand...

I'm very happy to live in a part of the world in the US Republican Party would be unelectable, though admittedly that unelectability wouldn't come from (at least not mainly) their anti-science.
 
I truly believe the Republican party has figured out what PT Barnum knew so well, half of USA are idiots, and they can exploit that. Same reason they are anti education, want to regulate the internet, criticize universities and highly educated people, it's all just a way to pander to the moron vote, and keep a good supply of morons.

I'm sure the ones at the top are well aware of what is happening, as are some of the right wing pundits, they haven't cared about anything but lower taxes for the rich since Reagan, yet half the people keep believing they care about what's good for America.

If Rush Limbaugh had said he believed in Global Warming, I believe the Republican party would have had to accept his opinion, but he didn't so they have to go with what the fat rich man says. By denying what is obvious to 98% of scientists, they can keep their ignorant base in line and praying for a job.
 
Last edited:
A rather disappointing article. Heuvel doesn't seem to understand that the GOP and the Democrats both have their propaganda intended to portray their policy positions as rational and scientific. I don't deny that the GOP's is especially dishonest, but that doesn't make the Democrats' propaganda honest. So really just a lot of self-assurance and preaching to the choir by another self-congratulating "progressive."
 
Last edited:
Gazpacho said:
A rather disappointing article. Heuvel doesn't seem to understand that the GOP and the Democrats both have their propaganda intended to portray their policy positions as rational and scientific. I don't deny that the GOP's is especially dishonest, but that doesn't make the Democrats' propaganda honest. So really just a lot of self-assurance and preaching to the choir by another self-congratulating "progressive."
Click to expand...
You are being intellectually lazy. The subject is science. Please talk about the subject. Maybe you can list the democratic leaders and the anti-science positions they hold.
 
So far, the Republican contenders for the presidential nomination have, almost to a man (or in one case woman) claimed that Darwin was wrong and that global climate change is fiction. In a word, they have shown contempt for science if acknowledging it would offend their know-nothing constituents. Does anybody not get this?
 
DavidJames said:
You are being intellectually lazy. The subject is science. Please talk about the subject. Maybe you can list the democratic leaders and the anti-science positions they hold.
Click to expand...
The subject is a newspaper article in which the writer assumes a position of absolute certainty and makes lazy declarations that economic policy A has a rational justification and policy B does not. As such it serves little purpose than I can see other than ideological reinforcement.
 
Here's Rick Santorum on evolution and global climate change.

Here's Michele Bachmann on evolution.

Here's Ron Paul saying he doesn't accept evolution.

Herman Cain denies global climate change is a problem (a la the Koch bothers) and apparently has no view on evolution (!?).

Newt Gingrich has waffled on climate change, as has Romney.
 
Last edited:
Gazpacho said:
The subject is a newspaper article in which the writer assumes a position of absolute certainty and makes lazy declarations that economic policy A has a rational justification and policy B does not. As such it serves little purpose than I can see other than ideological reinforcement.
Click to expand...

The subject, as clearly stated, is the Republican Party's anti-science attitudes. Please stay on topic.

I must note that it is undeniable that the Republican Party denies much of modern science, going directly against evidence and understanding. If any candidate can remain viable while rejecting evolution, even one, that's hard evidence. Here we have at least 3 if not 5 who reject things that can, and have, been tested.
 
Last edited:
Republicans also have a tendency to reject modern economics, in much the same way. While they like to reference Friedman they typically reject much of what Friedman actually said and favour Austrian school “economics” which Friedman was highly critical of. (For example it’s well documented that Friedman advocated printing as much base money as required to keep the M2 money supply expanding to recover from liquidity traps caused by financial system meltdowns. Austrian economists and almost all Republicans have spoken out quite loudly against the Fed doing this.)

Interestingly the Austrian school of economics holds that you shouldn’t do hypothesis testing and instead work out all economics from “first principles”, in other words they reject the scientific method.
 
jj said:
The subject, as clearly stated, is the Republican Party's anti-science attitudes. Please stay on topic.
Click to expand...
If someone opens a thread by quoting a newspaper article then I darn well will consider it appropriate to comment on that article, unless the OP or a moderator tells me otherwise. Report me if you want.
 
Gazpacho said:
If someone opens a thread by quoting a newspaper article then I darn well will consider it appropriate to comment on that article, unless the OP or a moderator tells me otherwise. Report me if you want.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what the article did or didn't say, what do you think of the stated positions of most of the Republican contenders on the following subjects?:

1) anthropogenic climate change.

2) evolution.

3) personhood of fertilized ova, also birth control.

4) homosexuality as a free-will choice.
 
TimCallahan said:
Regardless of what the article did or didn't say, what do you think of the stated positions of most of the Republican contenders on the following subjects?:

1) anthropogenic climate change.

2) evolution.

3) personhood of fertilized ova, also birth control.

4) homosexuality as a free-will choice.
Click to expand...

But..but..but... those are all controversial subjects! Criticism of those ARE sc..... BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... sorry, I couldn't keep a straight face. Carry on. I'll go back to lurking.
 
lomiller said:
Republicans also have a tendency to reject modern economics, in much the same way. While they like to reference Friedman they typically reject much of what Friedman actually said and favour Austrian school “economics” which Friedman was highly critical of. (For example it’s well documented that Friedman advocated printing as much base money as required to keep the M2 money supply expanding to recover from liquidity traps caused by financial system meltdowns. Austrian economists and almost all Republicans have spoken out quite loudly against the Fed doing this.)

Interestingly the Austrian school of economics holds that you shouldn’t do hypothesis testing and instead work out all economics from “first principles”, in other words they reject the scientific method.
Click to expand...

The Republicans are far from pioneers in economics. IIRC, more American economists favor the Democrats than the Republicans. Bill Clinton negotiated NAFTA, George W. Bush violated it.
 
TimCallahan said:
Regardless of what the article did or didn't say, what do you think of the stated positions of most of the Republican contenders on the following subjects?:

1) anthropogenic climate change.

2) evolution.

3) personhood of fertilized ova, also birth control.

4) homosexuality as a free-will choice.
Click to expand...
Regarding some of them, obviously I am an enemy of reason. But don't worry, I vote Democrat.
 
Rashmi said:
I truly believe the Republican party has figured out what PT Barnum knew so well, half of USA are idiots, and they can exploit that. Same reason they are anti education, want to regulate the internet, criticize universities and highly educated people, it's all just a way to pander to the moron vote, and keep a good supply of morons.
Click to expand...


The majority of readily-available moron voters are already on the DemocraticParty/U.S.Treasury/Citizen TaxpayersBurden Payroll.

When the people that pay the bills remain, the voters are very much fewer.

Gimme, gimme, gimme more, while condemning the greedy...
 
Last edited:
Humes fork said:
The Republicans are far from pioneers in economics. IIRC, more American economists favor the Democrats than the Republicans. Bill Clinton negotiated NAFTA, George W. Bush violated it.
Click to expand...

Despite Europe, Democrats think America should be more and more like Europe.

Needless to say, they are not very big fans of the Founding Fathers, or Evil White America..
 
Last edited:
JudeBrando said:
The majority of readily-available moron voters are already on the Democratic Payroll.

When the people that pay the bills remain, the voters are very much fewer.
Click to expand...

Why do you hate democracy so much?
 
JudeBrando said:
The majority of readily-available moron voters are already on the DemocraticParty/U.S.Treasury/Citizen TaxpayersBurden Payroll.
Click to expand...

I think you need to provide testable, verifiable evidence for that claim. Bear in mind that some of us here are in one or more of the catagories you list, so you'd better have some solid evidence.

While you're at it, you can explain why the more obvious current Republicans are anti-evolution, anti-space, anti-medicine, and anti-economics. In short, you need to explain why the republicans hate america.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom