• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans Reject Science; Scientists Reject Republicans (1 Viewer)

Joe1991

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
861
Location
TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Interesting article, and yes it may sound partisan, except to those conservatives that know rejection of scientific facts is one of the bigger problems the GOP needs to overcome if they ever want to become more than a minority party.

Firedoglake Republicans Reject Science; Scientists Reject Republicans

The Republican Party has a serious infection of anti-science syndrome. And, scientists have noted the The Republican War on Science. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press came out, last week, with a report entitled Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media. This is an interesting polling report, on a number of levels.

528-12.gif


As per the title, let us focus on one item: Scientists and Party affiliation. Once, there were sizable portions of the scientific community in basically all portions of the American political scene. No longer. As can be seen in the table to the right, "Partisan and Ideological Differences", of 2500 polled scientists, just 6 percent of the polled identify themselves as Republicans (as opposed to 23 percent of the overall population).
As Stephen Colbert put it, "reality has a well-known liberal bias". (Although, perhaps it truly is that liberals have a bias toward reality?) Scientists work in, specialize in understanding reality. Should it shock anyone that they have a liberal bias?



Now, as Republicans continue to proudly flaunt their Anti-Science Syndrome (A.S.S.) suffering Haters of a Livable Economy (H.O.L.E.) credentials, this poll suggests some severe political risks of determined attacks on science and the scientific community on issues like Global Warming.
  • "Both scientists and the public overwhelmingly say it is appropriate for scientists to become active in political debates about such issues as nuclear power or stem cell research."
  • While scientists self-identify as liberal, most American's don't see scientists as liberal. Thus, engaged experts might view themselves as politically liberal, the general public is likely not to view them in this way.
  • Scientists are the third most respected profession (after the military and teachers)
These three combine to suggest that scientists could be strong spokesman for "liberal", "progressive", "science-based" policy.


Now, disinformation on key issues clearly has had an impact.
  • "87% of scientists state that evolution is the result of natural processes with just 32 percent public agreement."
  • "the near consensus among scientists about global warming is not mirrored in the general public. While 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees."
These sort of significant gaps between expert and informed knowledge and general, public view should be -- are -- troubling. The scientists identify poor media coverage of science as a key problem. And, journalistic analyses of media reporting on global warming agree with that. Thus, the challenge isn't expert knowledge, but communicating that knowledge to the general public with a thick and confusing media filter while dealing with determined disinformation campaigns.
 
Going to the source i got a break down of the Scientists.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 2: Scientists Assess the State of Their Field - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press



Scientists hold overwhelmingly positive views about the current state of science in the United States. More than three-quarters (76%) say that this is generally a “good time” for science, and about as many (73%) say the same about their scientific specialty. That optimism extends to their views about careers in their specialty field; two-thirds (67%) believe this is a very good or good time to begin a career in their discipline.

American achievements in science are also seen in a very positive light. Nearly all (94%) scientists characterize the country’s scientific achievements as either “best in the world” (49%) or above average (45%) compared with other industrialized nations. And scientists’ assessments of the nation’s achievements in their scientific specialties are also quite positive (88% best in the world or above average).

At the same time, scientists say communication and education of the public are significant challenges for science today. Majorities rate television (83%) and newspaper (63%) coverage of science as only fair or poor, while fully 85% identify the public’s low level of scientific knowledge as a major problem for science.

In terms of public outreach, nearly eight-in-ten scientists (77%) say they often or occasionally talk with non-scientists about science or research findings. However, only about a quarter (24%) have heard or read about town halls or other public meetings where scientists and the public discuss controversial research issues. Among those who are aware of the town halls, overwhelming majorities say they have been at least fairly useful for the public (88%) and scientists (83%).

http://people-press.org/reports/images/528-25.gif


i haven't been able to get the info in the box here 1209 of the sample ( i think it is 2888) its getting late for me i'll see about returning tomorrow.
 
so how do you explain the 9% that are still conservative?


I would imagine that there are many conservative scientists in varying fields that don't conflict with their political views, the rest reconcile it somehow.
 
Interesting article, and yes it may sound partisan, except to those conservatives that know rejection of scientific facts is one of the bigger problems the GOP needs to overcome if they ever want to become more than a minority party.

Firedoglake Republicans Reject Science; Scientists Reject Republicans
Show me this isn't another example of 'the left' using biased polls to create news.

I see that the "public" column was don by Pew, but who conducted the survey producing the "scientists" column?

Were the questions identical, word for word, and were the exact same populations questioned? Were any science disciplines left out?

Even assuming far more scientists are Democrat, how does that in any way mean Republicans are "anti" anything as opposed to simply choosing other valid career fields?
 
Even assuming far more scientists are Democrat, how does that in any way mean Republicans are "anti" anything as opposed to simply choosing other valid career fields?

As the links to the poll showed, 67% said "science conflicts with my beliefs".

We can go down the line from evolution to climate change, heck I even have a conservative sister who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old. :doh
 
That doesn't mean they're "anti-science".

... yes, it does. A belief is a positive affirmation in something. A thought which conflicts with it must be a negative, an "anti".

Anyway, the Republican Party does not in general value scientific observations.
 
As a conservative future scientist I find it ridiculous to claim that Republicans and science reject each other. Most scientists are liberal because it's a profession that attracts liberals, much like art and journalism.
 
... yes, it does. A belief is a positive affirmation in something.

No, it's not. If that's what you think that word means then you need to stop and pull out a dictionary.

"Belief" is no more a conclusive positive claim than a hypothesis is a supported conclusion.

If science conflicts with beliefs it only means that information available today do not support or so far falsify what that person thinks might actually be. "Further study is needed".

I always get a chuckle when some random atheist hears some theist say "God exists" and starts asking for evidence.

To those atheists, asking for evidence of a belief only demonstrates your own profound ignorance of science, so hop on board the STFU and take a ride over to the library and check out a high-school level science text book and get a clue.

It's a belief, not a fact. It's a premise assumed, not a conclusion supported.
 
Last edited:
As a conservative future scientist I find it ridiculous to claim that Republicans and science reject each other. Most scientists are liberal because it's a profession that attracts liberals, much like art and journalism.

You don't even know the data is credible, so why form an opinion either way on it?
 
so how do you explain the 9% that are still conservative?

They make a lot of money, probably, I'd bet many work for corporations. The scientists I'm familiar with care a lot more about getting some credit for their discoveries than money per se.

As a conservative future scientist I find it ridiculous to claim that Republicans and science reject each other. Most scientists are liberal because it's a profession that attracts liberals, much like art and journalism.

Creativity, challenging conventions, and thinking. Yeah sounds liberal.
 
You don't even know the data is credible, so why form an opinion either way on it?

Most scientists are liberal, that's just a fact. I've known that for a while and have cherished the fact that I'll get to debate my colleagues so much when I get there. However, just because most scientists are liberals does not mean liberals are smarter than conservatives.
 
Creativity, challenging conventions, and thinking. Yeah sounds liberal.

Scientific minds tend to have an unfortunate elitist complex, where they view the masses as being too stupid to care for themselves and need those scientific minds to help them. That's the liberal part. That's not to say that all smart people are liberal though, or even all scientists. See Micheal Crichton.
 
Most scientists are liberal, that's just a fact.

Wtf is that bull****? "It's true because I just know it's true". **** that. You don't know who did half the data in the study.
 
I did check the Sited poll. and about half the "scientists" were academics. and in another category half of them were in a medical related field so one must keep in mind that academics lean liberal to begin with. and i don't know to what extent the medical part are real scientist.
 
I did check the Sited poll. and about half the "scientists" were academics. and in another category half of them were in a medical related field so one must keep in mind that academics lean liberal to begin with. and i don't know to what extent the medical part are real scientist.

My physician said, there is not too much of science here. I say there are not too many scientists in the Sited poll, no more than 9%.

In science many are called, but few are chosen.
 
Last edited:
My physician said, there is not too much of science here. I say there are not too many scientists in the Sited poll, no more than 9%.

In science many are called, but few are chosen.

I see that in the past 5 years the subjects "all, most. or a lot of time to" 66% Research, 30% Teaching, 35% Management and Administration, and 6% Clinical Practice. Let's see even with rounding errors 134% is a bit much. I don't have the background to do a critical analysis on it I think that a team in a gifted club in high school might have designed a better test.:2razz:
 
Wtf is that bull****? "It's true because I just know it's true". **** that. You don't know who did half the data in the study.

Tell me: do you deny that most journalists and actors are liberal?
 
The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney

I guess this supports the data. Mooney explores how the GOP denies many scientific findings, as well as embraces whatever bad science supports their wants. So, as a scientist, and a Democrat, I will tell you guys that I have never encountered a Republican scientist in my career. Whether it be from academia, private sector, or anyother setting. I think that the nature of a scientist is to look for progress, and the Democratic party offers political progress. It comes naturally.
 
The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney

I guess this supports the data. Mooney explores how the GOP denies many scientific findings, as well as embraces whatever bad science supports their wants. So, as a scientist, and a Democrat, I will tell you guys that I have never encountered a Republican scientist in my career. Whether it be from academia, private sector, or anyother setting. I think that the nature of a scientist is to look for progress, and the Democratic party offers political progress. It comes naturally.

You are not a scientist.

Why?

1. It is impossible to deny a scientific finding. One has to be mentally handicapped to try. Before insinuating that Republicans are mentally handicapped, I would advise you to look at a mirror.
2. A nature of scientist is not to look for progress. A nature of a scientist is to look at nature. In science we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.
3. You have not met a scientist yet.
 
Tell me, do you want to answer my ****ing questions?

OK, let me try a different approach:

Why do you think so many scientists embrace the idea of global warming being a man-made threat when the science itself is so inconclusive? Maybe scientists are mostly liberal and have a hard time keeping their politics out of science.
 
You are not a scientist.

Why?

1. It is impossible to deny a scientific finding. One has to be mentally handicapped to try. Before insinuating that Republicans are mentally handicapped, I would advise you to look at a mirror.
2. A nature of scientist is not to look for progress. A nature of a scientist is to look at nature. In science we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.
3. You have not met a scientist yet.

You are definitely not a scientist, I see from your response.

I am a Microbiologist and a Chemist. And science is always moving forward, not backward or staying the same. If you believe that, that scientists just set around looking at nature, then you need some education. I have met many, unlike you they were not controlled by the government to support they Rusky agenda.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom