Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   In response to the derp at Alternet: Are Republicans really anti-science? No more than liberals, and why is an english major writing a book on psychology?   (motherjones.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, conservative Catholics, global warming controversy, American conservatives, cultural evolution, evangelical protestant, psychology, liberals  
•       •       •

2985 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Apr 2012 at 1:44 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



215 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-04-09 11:18:51 AM  
I can answer that question, subs.

Because english majors don't have many job options.

/Went 2 years before finding a job for his major.
 
2012-04-09 11:23:04 AM  
Yes, they are. Find me a Republican who is running for high office or is in office that openly agrees with the scientific consensus on global climate change. It's below 5%, and the ones who do are shunned by the party.

Republicans are anti-science and both sides are not the same.
 
2012-04-09 11:34:47 AM  
Science and Republicanism appear to be antithetical to each other.

Science involves coming up with an educated hypothesis, testing it, rejecting it if it is wrong and doing more testing if it seems to be accurate.

Republicanism involves sticking to a single position regardless of external evidence.
 
2012-04-09 11:44:35 AM  
Repubs make better engineers than scientists. Engineering involves testing an actual physical object, rejecting it if it breaks or fails, doing more testing if it seems to work, then shiatcanning it anyway if the front office says so.
 
2012-04-09 11:51:06 AM  

sweetmelissa31: Science involves coming up with an educated hypothesis, testing it, rejecting it if it is wrong and doing more testing if it seems to be accurate.


And then screaming once you figure out someone else did this already.
 
2012-04-09 12:00:33 PM  
Oy. Chris Mooney.
 
2012-04-09 12:16:38 PM  
He says, "No, they aren't" and then goes on to explain why they are.

Make up your damn mind.
 
2012-04-09 12:32:09 PM  
The fact that people are skeptical about some politically-driven scientific claims, like global warming, does not mean that they are anti-science.
 
2012-04-09 12:33:08 PM  
I dunno, Subby. Why are CEOs writing reports on climate change dynamics?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-04-09 12:36:53 PM  

SkinnyHead: The fact that people are skeptical about some politically-driven scientific claims, like global warming, does not mean that they are anti-science.


No, it's pretending that scientific fact is a politically driven political claim that makes them anti science.
 
2012-04-09 12:38:19 PM  

DamnYankees: Oy. Chris Mooney.


I haven't seen anything from that book that we don't see every day here.
 
2012-04-09 12:40:42 PM  
Any time you mix politics with anything you are basically shooting yourself in the foot.
 
2012-04-09 12:41:40 PM  

From the two examples given (evolution and climate change) in reason the first, it seems very likely the author is working from secondary sources. Yes, there's some "liberals do it to" -- the example Mooney talks about is Nuclear Power safety, though I suspect the "innate cognitive traits" of reason the third might fall in the same ballpark (though I don't have data).

The fundamental difference Mooney noted:

As members of the "egalitarian communitarian" group in the study-people with more liberal values-knew more science and math, they did not become more worried, overall, about the risks of nuclear power. Rather, they moved in the opposite direction from where these initial impulses would have taken them. They become less worried-and, I might add, closer to the opinion of the scientific community on the matter.


As for the question of reason the second, "But what's the cognitive trait that makes you anti-science?", it oddly gives the answer earlier on: "There are too many steps involved." See 12:54 greenlight....

DamnYankees: Oy. Chris Mooney.


I don't agree with him on a lot of his prescriptive conclusions, but he does present some interesting descriptive assessments.

Or in other words, he's a better science communicator than sociological engineer.

Bagelox-99: Repubs make better engineers than scientists.


I don't suppose you have a formal scientific study on that? =)
 
2012-04-09 12:49:15 PM  
There's more of a correlation between the Christian right and being anti-science. And since the current republican party does anything the Christian right wants, they have to be anti-science.

The vast majority of actual scientists are liberal for a variety of reasons.

/actual scientist
 
2012-04-09 12:51:22 PM  
Was the author of that article for real?

Reason the first: When you read arguments that conservatives are anti-science, the bill of particulars is often fairly long.
Reason the second: There are too many steps involved.
Reason the third: Liberals do it too.

That's some awesomeness in that 800 word blog.
 
2012-04-09 01:02:59 PM  

Codenamechaz: I can answer that question, subs.

Because english majors don't have many job options.

/Went 2 years before finding a job for his major.


Look into technical writing. As long as there are H1-B programmers, there will be jobs for English majors.
 
2012-04-09 01:03:12 PM  

vpb: SkinnyHead: The fact that people are skeptical about some politically-driven scientific claims, like global warming, does not mean that they are anti-science.

No, it's pretending that scientific fact is a politically driven political claim that makes them anti science.


Skepticism is part of science. Questioning global warming is consistent with science. People who insist that global warming is an unquestionable "scientific fact" are the ones who are anti-science.
 
2012-04-09 01:05:35 PM  

SkinnyHead: Questioning global warming is consistent with science. People who insist that global warming is an unquestionable "scientific fact" are the ones who are anti-science


You mean the ones who have peer-reviewed hundreds of studies and found them to be repeatable and verifiable?


Yeah, the scientific method is totally anti-science.
 
2012-04-09 01:17:48 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Questioning global warming is consistent with science. People who insist that global warming is an unquestionable "scientific fact" are the ones who are anti-science

You mean the ones who have peer-reviewed hundreds of studies and found them to be repeatable and verifiable?


Yeah, the scientific method is totally anti-science.


No, the scientific method is not anti-science because the scientific method welcomes skepticism. People who condemn skeptics are the ones who are anti-science.
 
2012-04-09 01:18:34 PM  

DamnYankees: Oy. Chris Mooney.


Mooney's all right when he's not concern trolling atheists.
 
2012-04-09 01:27:40 PM  

SkinnyHead: No, the scientific method is not anti-science because the scientific method welcomes skepticism. People who condemn skeptics are the ones who are anti-science.


People who condemn skeptics who are skeptical even after being shown the discrete, verifiable evidence are not anti-science.

Please try again.
 
2012-04-09 01:28:45 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: No, the scientific method is not anti-science because the scientific method welcomes skepticism. People who condemn skeptics are the ones who are anti-science.

People who condemn skeptics who are skeptical even after being shown the discrete, verifiable evidence are not anti-science.

Please try again.


Did you just invoke a tripple negative?

Wow, mind....blown.
 
2012-04-09 01:30:54 PM  
m.static.newsvine.com

This graph shows the unadjusted mean values for public trust in science, classified by self-reported political ideology between 1974 and 2010. The figures are derived from the General Social Survey.
 
2012-04-09 01:32:23 PM  

Bagelox-99: Repubs make better engineers than scientists. Engineering involves testing an actual physical object, rejecting it if it breaks or fails, doing more testing if it seems to work, then shiatcanning it anyway if the front office says so.


Yes because Republicans are so willing to shiatcan ideas that don't work: Cut taxes to stimulate jobs - didn't work. Cut taxes more! Didn't work. We didn't cut taxes enough! Didn't work. Repeat ad nauseum.
 
2012-04-09 01:37:48 PM  

Sybarite: [m.static.newsvine.com image 500x357]

This graph shows the unadjusted mean values for public trust in science, classified by self-reported political ideology between 1974 and 2010. The figures are derived from the General Social Survey.


blog.lib.umn.edu

The graph I posted makes more sense than the one you did
 
2012-04-09 01:41:19 PM  
i611.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-09 01:50:54 PM  
Republicans: Claiming that their views are just as scientific as anything else and, if proven false, the proof is politically motivated slander.
 
2012-04-09 01:53:01 PM  
Republicans are anti-science, which is eclipsed by their overall anti-intellectualism. It's silly to pretend otherwise.
 
2012-04-09 01:54:07 PM  

bulldg4life: Republicans and Democrats: Claiming that their views are just as scientific as anything else and, if proven false, the proof is politically motivated slander.


FTFY

How many nuclear power plants are being picketed right now?
 
2012-04-09 01:54:29 PM  
Article author seems to have confused "Republicans" with "Conservatives" (as opposed to "Conservatives(TM).") While it's a common mistake, since most Republicans seem to falsely think they're conservatives, and expend a lot of effort spreading the misconception around, the end effect is that the entire article refuting the book is completely meaningless. Even more meaningless than it would have been if the only problem had been the author's confusion between European and US brands of conservatism.
 
2012-04-09 01:54:47 PM  
Anyone remember the science wars of the '80s and '90s? That brawl didn't get the headlines that climate change and evolution do today, but it was just as big and just as important.

uh huh.. sure it was.
 
2012-04-09 01:55:27 PM  

cman: How many nuclear power plants are being picketed right now?


wat

Is someone picketing a nuclear power plant because they view them as unsafe on par with people claiming evolution and global warming aren't real?
 
2012-04-09 01:57:22 PM  

cman: How many nuclear power plants are being picketed right now?


The one at Fukushima isn't
 
2012-04-09 01:57:28 PM  

bulldg4life: cman: How many nuclear power plants are being picketed right now?

wat

Is someone picketing a nuclear power plant because they view them as unsafe on par with people claiming evolution and global warming aren't real?


Yes it is because that man born in Australia leaked some things that showed that the Government was behind 9/11. Their whole mission is to STEAL MY BODILY FLUIDS THOSE farkING ASSfarkERS
 
2012-04-09 01:57:58 PM  
GAT_00:
Republicans are anti-science and both sides are not the same.

You know, the nice liberal lady I was talking to the other day said much the same thing, and when I asked her why she thought that, she told me that she had to be right because Mercury was in retrograde and she just had her Feng Shui consultant over to clear up her home's energy levels.
 
2012-04-09 01:59:27 PM  

bulldg4life: cman: How many nuclear power plants are being picketed right now?

wat

Is someone picketing a nuclear power plant because they view them as unsafe on par with people claiming evolution and global warming aren't real?


Both sciences are bad, vote Numberology.
 
2012-04-09 01:59:28 PM  
there once was a time when the religious folks in the US accepted evolution. it was when they owned slaves, and it made since to them, since they thought slaves were the missing link.
 
2012-04-09 02:00:52 PM  

cirby: GAT_00:
Republicans are anti-science and both sides are not the same.

You know, the nice liberal lady I was talking to the other day said much the same thing, and when I asked her why she thought that, she told me that she had to be right because Mercury was in retrograde and she just had her Feng Shui consultant over to clear up her home's energy levels.


Wake me when "nice liberal lady" is crafting our laws based on that crap.
 
2012-04-09 02:01:03 PM  

cman: Yes it is because that man born in Australia leaked some things that showed that the Government was behind 9/11. Their whole mission is to STEAL MY BODILY FLUIDS THOSE farkING ASSfarkERS


Is this english?

Can someone help me out here?
 
2012-04-09 02:02:30 PM  

bulldg4life: Is someone picketing a nuclear power plant because they view them as unsafe on par with people claiming evolution and global warming aren't real?


Yes! You would have just as much trouble finding a concrete example of nuclear power plants being hazardous as you would finding evidence of weird climate events!

So there!
 
2012-04-09 02:02:48 PM  

cirby: GAT_00:
Republicans are anti-science and both sides are not the same.

You know, the nice liberal lady I was talking to the other day said much the same thing, and when I asked her why she thought that, she told me that she had to be right because Mercury was in retrograde and she just had her Feng Shui consultant over to clear up her home's energy levels.


Yeah I hate how liberal legislators are always pushing for an astrology-based school curriculum and writing legislation based on Feng Shui. It's terrible how both sidez are equally teh badz, amirite?
 
2012-04-09 02:03:28 PM  

bulldg4life: cman: Yes it is because that man born in Australia leaked some things that showed that the Government was behind 9/11. Their whole mission is to STEAL MY BODILY FLUIDS THOSE farkING ASSfarkERS

Is this english?

Can someone help me out here?


POE OPE
 
2012-04-09 02:04:26 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Science and Republicanism appear to be antithetical to each other.

Science involves coming up with an educated hypothesis, testing it, rejecting it if it is wrong and doing more testing if it seems to be accurate.

Republicanism involves sticking to a single position regardless of external evidence.


TEACH THE CONTROVERSY
 
2012-04-09 02:05:09 PM  
FTFA
When you read arguments that conservatives are anti-science, the bill of particulars is often fairly long. But really, there are only two big-ticket items: evolution and climate change.

When they go after evolution and climate change they do so by not attacking the theories themselves, but by attacking the very foundations of science.

It's not just attacking science, it's anti intellectualism and fancy book learnin'. They want to cut basic research, space exploration, and science education - education in general for that matter.
 
2012-04-09 02:05:18 PM  

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Questioning global warming is consistent with science. People who insist that global warming is an unquestionable "scientific fact" are the ones who are anti-science

You mean the ones who have peer-reviewed hundreds of studies and found them to be repeatable and verifiable?


Yeah, the scientific method is totally anti-science.

No, the scientific method is not anti-science because the scientific method welcomes skepticism. People who condemn skeptics are the ones who are anti-science.


No, the scientific method is testing something over and over and over again and if the results are always the same, it becomes a law or axiom, if not it becomes a theory.
 
2012-04-09 02:05:40 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Yeah I hate how liberal legislators are always pushing for an astrology-based school curriculum and writing legislation based on Feng Shui. It's terrible how both sidez are equally teh badz, amirite?


Deny it all you like, homeopathy could really reduce healthcare costs in this country. Not only are the medications cheaper, you don't wind up having to care for some critically ill patient for years on end.
 
2012-04-09 02:06:15 PM  
Rick Santorum, an off-and-on front runner for the Republican presidential ticket, doesn't believe in...I'll just go with evolution as the shortest answer.

Jenny McCarthy, an ex super model whose primary viewers are anyone bored enough to watch daytime TV, doesn't believes vaccines cause autism.

/do me a favor, Conservies: look up false equivalency and tell me what you find.
//I think you might be surprised!
 
2012-04-09 02:08:50 PM  

Jake Havechek: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Questioning global warming is consistent with science. People who insist that global warming is an unquestionable "scientific fact" are the ones who are anti-science

You mean the ones who have peer-reviewed hundreds of studies and found them to be repeatable and verifiable?


Yeah, the scientific method is totally anti-science.

No, the scientific method is not anti-science because the scientific method welcomes skepticism. People who condemn skeptics are the ones who are anti-science.

No, the scientific method is testing something over and over and over again and if the results are always the same, it becomes a law or axiom, if not it becomes a theory.


wtf?
 
2012-04-09 02:10:01 PM  
Republicans are not anti-science

They just believe

1) that science is a made up social construction and there is no way to evaluate theories thus all viewpoints should be considered.

2) If science and religion seem to be in conflict then religion trumps science.

3) Certain fields that are called science are really just fake science. This includes evolution, ecology, global climate change, environmental studies, and in fact anything that might conflict with their held goals and beliefs.

See they are not anti-science because they know how to correctly interpret so-called science.
 
2012-04-09 02:11:51 PM  

Jake Havechek: No, the scientific method is not anti-science because the scientific method welcomes skepticism. People who condemn skeptics are the ones who are anti-science.

No, the scientific method is testing something over and over and over again and if the results are always the same, it becomes a law or axiom, if not it becomes a theory.


If the scientific method does not welcome skepticism, why test something over and over. If questioning a scientific claim is anti-science, then those who test something over and over would be considered anti-science, no?
 
Displayed 50 of 215 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report