And with all that said, you know which group drives society forward, and which group hold society. Even to this day conservatives are trying to roll back the clock to some yesteryear that civilization intentionally left behind for some odd reason. It is a futile exercise on their part and worthy of little more than casual amusement. And outside this little haven Baron has provided them, they dare not spew the tripe they spew in here.
Conservatives Losing Trust in Science, Study Finds
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
And with all that said, you know which group drives society forward, and which group hold society. Even to this day conservatives are trying to roll back the clock to some yesteryear that civilization intentionally left behind for some odd reason. It is a futile exercise on their part and worthy of little more than casual amusement. And outside this little haven Baron has provided them, they dare not spew the tripe they spew in here.
false analogy
religion vs. science is not equal to liberal vs. conservative
once again the left thinks they own science, even after they tried to attack it several times. F***ing communists- Lefties are moving society towards economic ruin faster than I thought possible, for some reason they want to turn the clock back to failed experiments of the past like the Soviet Union.
If you want to see how the leftist liberal religion treats and perverts science read about Stalin's regime and physics. He actuallly forbade quantum mechanics because the uncertainty principle was in contradiction to Marxism, he had to relent when he learned it was necessary for atomic weapons.
Do not for an instant conflate leftism/liberalism with science, they only want to the veneer of science for political purposes. Whenever a liberal is involved, losing trust is the proper response.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_research_in_the_Soviet_Union
Do not for an instant conflate leftism/liberalism with science, they only want to the veneer of science for political purposes. Whenever a liberal is involved, losing trust is the proper response.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_research_in_the_Soviet_Union
When scientists can't get past their political bias they are no longer scientists. They are political hacks, bought and paid for. Whether it's some climatologist, or some stooge doing studies for the tobacco industry, their finding will always be suspect. Add to that the ignorance of the of general public, most of whom are unable to distinguish the difference between science theory and scientific fact, you have a recipe for gross manipulation of both theory and fact. This leads to all thinking people on both sides of the isle to lose trust. Trust that needs to be earned by having empirical data, unbiased fact finding and reporting. Simply having a PHD behind your name doesn't mean everything that comes out of your mouth will be taken as truth. This is especially true in the current political climate of unsubstantiated bullshit being the preference over factual investigation.
68% of republicans don't believe in evolution, compared to 40% of democrats.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx
An almost exact same ratio occurs in the understanding and beliefs about man-made climate change.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107569/climatechange-views-republicandemocratic-gaps-expand.aspx
These figures demonstrate that republicans/conservatives are, as group, simply stupider, or at least more ignorant, than dems/liberals.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx
An almost exact same ratio occurs in the understanding and beliefs about man-made climate change.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107569/climatechange-views-republicandemocratic-gaps-expand.aspx
These figures demonstrate that republicans/conservatives are, as group, simply stupider, or at least more ignorant, than dems/liberals.
And who has more power and money to "buy" scientists, the vast green power industry or the weak and ineffective fossil-fuel industry ?
I keep hearing about the supposed political bias of scientists but there is absolutely no proof this is happening. Scientists get into science because they love science, not because they are money-hungry political ideologues. The idea that all the world's climatologists would abdicate their intellectual and moral integrity just to put out bad news about the state of the earth is absurd.
What exactly is meant by a question like, "Do you believe in evolution?"
My understanding is that the term covers a vast range of observations, deductions, assumptions, and outright guesses. That's why it is a theory, not the Law of Evolution.
Do I believe that a sample of bacteria exposed to an antibiotic will produce some survivors which will reproduce, eventually leading toa population that is resistant to the antibiotic? Yes.
Do I believe that changing enviromental conditions will gradually result in the extinction of some species and the flourishng of others? Yes.
Do I believe that remote pacific islands contain species never found elsewhere? Yes.
Do I believe that all animal species originated in simple organisms and somehow mutated over eons into their current form? No.
So do I "believe" in evolution? You tell me. The question is idiotic.
Similarly with "Do you believe in AGW?" Like mav, I am willing to believe there has been a gradual increase in temperatures, although the data leave much to be desired. Is the theory that greenhouse gasses lead to heating preposterous? No, it isn't. Is it proven? Not to my satisfaction. Should we wreck our economy in a Quixotic pursuit of greenness, when our efforts will have no discernible effect? No, of course not.
Ultimately, these types of questions reveal more about the group doing the polling than those answering. They are agenda-driven. Science isn't confirmed by polling, nor are skeptics undermined by it.
My understanding is that the term covers a vast range of observations, deductions, assumptions, and outright guesses. That's why it is a theory, not the Law of Evolution.
Do I believe that a sample of bacteria exposed to an antibiotic will produce some survivors which will reproduce, eventually leading toa population that is resistant to the antibiotic? Yes.
Do I believe that changing enviromental conditions will gradually result in the extinction of some species and the flourishng of others? Yes.
Do I believe that remote pacific islands contain species never found elsewhere? Yes.
Do I believe that all animal species originated in simple organisms and somehow mutated over eons into their current form? No.
So do I "believe" in evolution? You tell me. The question is idiotic.
Similarly with "Do you believe in AGW?" Like mav, I am willing to believe there has been a gradual increase in temperatures, although the data leave much to be desired. Is the theory that greenhouse gasses lead to heating preposterous? No, it isn't. Is it proven? Not to my satisfaction. Should we wreck our economy in a Quixotic pursuit of greenness, when our efforts will have no discernible effect? No, of course not.
Ultimately, these types of questions reveal more about the group doing the polling than those answering. They are agenda-driven. Science isn't confirmed by polling, nor are skeptics undermined by it.
And what about the fringe false equivalency arguments against evolution and climate change? The majority of the world's recognized and renowned scientists concur with the science for both. But because a relatively very small and generally unremarkable fringe element of "scientists" is in the denial camp (and don't look now, but they're either bible enthusiasts or have received "research grants" from Big Oil), both sides are arbitrarily given equal weight, if that, by people who choose to wish scientific findings away. Then you have Internet academics like jem and Trader666, representing the tip of an idiot iceberg, who pervert scientific evidence (because they don't know any better and because they don't want to know any better) in the cause of denial.
What about that?