Is the right wing's reputation for being anti science and anti education justified?

[Peach]

Thing is, becs, that stat about scientists.... dweebie uses it out of context. That's already been proved more than once.... I think he thinks we'll all forget how he got his ass kicked with that that chart last time. Or maybe he has conveniently forgotten it. Either way, it's out of context... and bullshit.

That makes him dumb and dishonest.

But funny.

Yes.... but repetitive humor loses it's impact over time.

One poll proves nothing of course; the "Dem" scientists may be cross over voters, ya know.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is the right wing's reputation for being anti science and anti education justified?

Short answer, no.

Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

PRINCETON, NJ -- The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. This suggests that when three Republican presidential candidates at a May debate stated they did not believe in evolution, they were generally in sync with the bulk of the rank-and-file Republicans whose nomination they are seeking to obtain.

This has nothing to do with the question, even if it is your favorite talking point.

Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution


Of those who identify as Republicans, about 49 percent said in the 2001 Gallup survey that they believe the effects of global warming have already begun – a number that dropped to 29 percent in 2010. Meanwhile, the percentage of Democrats who believe global warming has already begun increased from about 60 in 2001 to 70 in 2010. All told, the gap between these “believers” in the two parties increased from 11 percent in 2001 to 41 percent in 2010.

A similar trend held for people who identify as either conservative or liberal. When it came to believing that global warming has already begun, the gap between conservatives and liberals increased from about 18 percent in 2001 to 44 percent in 2010.

Among liberals and Democrats, having a college degree increases the likelihood of reporting beliefs consistent with the scientific consensus. Yet, among conservatives and Republicans, having a college degree often decreases the likelihood of reporting such beliefs.

If I can some up your point here, liberals and Democrats are more likely to agree with the majority as they get a higher degree, while conservatives and Republicans are less likely to do so. Could that be because most liberals get degrees in arts because math is hard while most conservatives get degrees in engineering because they like to understand how things work?

Data, even if accurate, can be interpreted in all sorts of ways rdean, something you would actually know if you ever actually worked with it.

Political parties increasingly divided over global warming | MSU News | Michigan State University

House GOP Unveils Plan To Cut Job Training And Education Programs

Republicans target health, education for cuts

Then you start going state by state and you get these types of reports:

Senate Republicans pass $30 million cut to higher education | The Daily

A Closer Look: After Gutting Health And Education Funding, Idaho Republicans Advanc Bill To Cut Top Tax Rate And Corporate Tax

Guided by their tough position against taxes, and spurred on by what they saw as voter distaste toward big government, Republicans in many states made deep cuts, sometimes even when they had other options available. An expected $4 billion cut to public schools in Texas, for instance, comes despite the state having more than $6 billion in its rainy-day fund.

In an era of one-party rule, Republicans pass a sweeping state agenda

Can you explain why Obama, and the democrats, keep cutting funds for the voucher program in DC? The one that is incredibly popular among black parents and children, that has drastically increased graduation rates, and is actually one of the few things the government actually got right.

Republicans think the federal government should not take money from the states just to give it back to the, Maybe if the federal taxes weren't so high states could raise taxes to support education.

Which reminds me, why haven't you posted about Governor Brown and his continued cuts to education in California? Did you know that the UC system is cutting classes entirely, that schools are increasing class sizes, and that students are having to deal with tuition increases every semester? Texas only increases its tuition on a yearly basis.

By the way, why shouldn't Texas keep its emergency fund intact? Do you think they should spend money even though hurricane season is coming up? What about wildfires? Should Texas spend that money now, and then cut spending after people were told they had the money? People in California hate that.

Honestly, I don't know what else to say. So called "liberal" science has brought us ALL of our "useful" science. Conservative science? Not sure what that is. You can find entire organizations online with "black scientists" generating an interest in science among you blacks, the same with gays and women.

You could try honesty, if that isn't to novel a concept.

By the way, which science is liberal? The only thing I ever heard called liberal were politics and arts, science is called hard or soft. Are the liberal sciences the soft ones?

But "conservative" science and scientists? Couldn't find one and I looked.

So does the right wing deserve this devastating reputation? Seems likely.

I wonder what real scientists think about that.

It’s probably my own naïveté, but I’m constantly disappointed how so many science questions that I research turn out to be political questions.
I consistently find that the conservative attitude on many science questions tends to be “everything’s fine” and the liberal attitude tends to be “the sky is falling”. And, of course, that’s exactly what conservative and liberal mean: Conserve things the way they are, and change things liberally. I don’t find that either viewpoint is especially more likely to represent the current science more than the other. Conservatives tend to be more accurate in their assessments of food production and medical science; liberals tend to better represent actual science in their perspectives on evolution and climate change. Some issues, such as the environment, are torn right down the middle, with extremists on both ends being about equally wrong, and the moderates being about equally right. Too many fans of science tend to express their fandom only when the science matches the ideology.
Why does this frustrate me so much? I guess it’s because my true love is learning. I jump up and down like a giddy child when I learn something new in my research. Even obscure factoids that seem drearily mundane to many get my blood rushing. I love sharing that excitement with my listeners. And so often, when I try to share something that struck me simply as “cool”, the reaction is one of disgust because it conflicts with someone’s political agenda.

Skepticblog » Conservative Science vs. Liberal Science

Gee, could it be that people who think of themselves as scientists refuse to let their politics influence their science? Could it be that the AAAS is more likely to be filled with people who are liberal, and not people who are scientists? Could it be that actual scientists prefer to stick with data and don't care about liberal/conservative issues because what matters are facts?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Conservatives are opposed to science and education only when what is being researched or taught conflicts with rightist dogma. The same is true, of course, with regard to their relationship concerning law and public policy.

You are so full of shit you make rdean look like a wingnut.

 

[rdean]

Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

PRINCETON, NJ -- The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. This suggests that when three Republican presidential candidates at a May debate stated they did not believe in evolution, they were generally in sync with the bulk of the rank-and-file Republicans whose nomination they are seeking to obtain.

Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution


Of those who identify as Republicans, about 49 percent said in the 2001 Gallup survey that they believe the effects of global warming have already begun – a number that dropped to 29 percent in 2010. Meanwhile, the percentage of Democrats who believe global warming has already begun increased from about 60 in 2001 to 70 in 2010. All told, the gap between these “believers” in the two parties increased from 11 percent in 2001 to 41 percent in 2010.

A similar trend held for people who identify as either conservative or liberal. When it came to believing that global warming has already begun, the gap between conservatives and liberals increased from about 18 percent in 2001 to 44 percent in 2010.

Among liberals and Democrats, having a college degree increases the likelihood of reporting beliefs consistent with the scientific consensus. Yet, among conservatives and Republicans, having a college degree often decreases the likelihood of reporting such beliefs.

Political parties increasingly divided over global warming | MSU News | Michigan State University

House GOP Unveils Plan To Cut Job Training And Education Programs

Republicans target health, education for cuts

Then you start going state by state and you get these types of reports:

Senate Republicans pass $30 million cut to higher education | The Daily

A Closer Look: After Gutting Health And Education Funding, Idaho Republicans Advanc Bill To Cut Top Tax Rate And Corporate Tax

Guided by their tough position against taxes, and spurred on by what they saw as voter distaste toward big government, Republicans in many states made deep cuts, sometimes even when they had other options available. An expected $4 billion cut to public schools in Texas, for instance, comes despite the state having more than $6 billion in its rainy-day fund.

In an era of one-party rule, Republicans pass a sweeping state agenda

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Honestly, I don't know what else to say. So called "liberal" science has brought us ALL of our "useful" science. Conservative science? Not sure what that is. You can find entire organizations online with "black scientists" generating an interest in science among you blacks, the same with gays and women.

But "conservative" science and scientists? Couldn't find one and I looked.

So does the right wing deserve this devastating reputation? Seems likely.

Not to be sardeanic (pun intended,) but rdean keeps starting theme threads. The only trouble is, the theme never changes. It's the samo-samo saga:

we good you bad
​

The reason scientists tap Demmies is simple: easy money, no achievement rush.

Thing is, becs, that stat about scientists.... dweebie uses it out of context. That's already been proved more than once.... I think he thinks we'll all forget how he got his ass kicked with that that chart last time. Or maybe he has conveniently forgotten it. Either way, it's out of context... and bullshit.

Just because some right wing teanut, such as yourself, says something, doesn't make it "proof".

Considering what right wingers ON THIS VERY BOARD say about science, scientists and education, well, you know. Just admit the truth. Just once.

 

[Dot Com]

rdean rings the bell & the resident con

come running again

 

[rdean]

Is the right wing's reputation for being anti science and anti education justified?

Short answer, no.

Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

PRINCETON, NJ -- The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. This suggests that when three Republican presidential candidates at a May debate stated they did not believe in evolution, they were generally in sync with the bulk of the rank-and-file Republicans whose nomination they are seeking to obtain.

This has nothing to do with the question, even if it is your favorite talking point.



If I can some up your point here, liberals and Democrats are more likely to agree with the majority as they get a higher degree, while conservatives and Republicans are less likely to do so. Could that be because most liberals get degrees in arts because math is hard while most conservatives get degrees in engineering because they like to understand how things work?

Data, even if accurate, can be interpreted in all sorts of ways rdean, something you would actually know if you ever actually worked with it.



Can you explain why Obama, and the democrats, keep cutting funds for the voucher program in DC? The one that is incredibly popular among black parents and children, that has drastically increased graduation rates, and is actually one of the few things the government actually got right.

Republicans think the federal government should not take money from the states just to give it back to the, Maybe if the federal taxes weren't so high states could raise taxes to support education.

Which reminds me, why haven't you posted about Governor Brown and his continued cuts to education in California? Did you know that the UC system is cutting classes entirely, that schools are increasing class sizes, and that students are having to deal with tuition increases every semester? Texas only increases its tuition on a yearly basis.

By the way, why shouldn't Texas keep its emergency fund intact? Do you think they should spend money even though hurricane season is coming up? What about wildfires? Should Texas spend that money now, and then cut spending after people were told they had the money? People in California hate that.



You could try honesty, if that isn't to novel a concept.

By the way, which science is liberal? The only thing I ever heard called liberal were politics and arts, science is called hard or soft. Are the liberal sciences the soft ones?

But "conservative" science and scientists? Couldn't find one and I looked.

So does the right wing deserve this devastating reputation? Seems likely.

I wonder what real scientists think about that.

It’s probably my own naïveté, but I’m constantly disappointed how so many science questions that I research turn out to be political questions.
I consistently find that the conservative attitude on many science questions tends to be “everything’s fine” and the liberal attitude tends to be “the sky is falling”. And, of course, that’s exactly what conservative and liberal mean: Conserve things the way they are, and change things liberally. I don’t find that either viewpoint is especially more likely to represent the current science more than the other. Conservatives tend to be more accurate in their assessments of food production and medical science; liberals tend to better represent actual science in their perspectives on evolution and climate change. Some issues, such as the environment, are torn right down the middle, with extremists on both ends being about equally wrong, and the moderates being about equally right. Too many fans of science tend to express their fandom only when the science matches the ideology.
Why does this frustrate me so much? I guess it’s because my true love is learning. I jump up and down like a giddy child when I learn something new in my research. Even obscure factoids that seem drearily mundane to many get my blood rushing. I love sharing that excitement with my listeners. And so often, when I try to share something that struck me simply as “cool”, the reaction is one of disgust because it conflicts with someone’s political agenda.

Skepticblog » Conservative Science vs. Liberal Science

Gee, could it be that people who think of themselves as scientists refuse to let their politics influence their science? Could it be that the AAAS is more likely to be filled with people who are liberal, and not people who are scientists? Could it be that actual scientists prefer to stick with data and don't care about liberal/conservative issues because what matters are facts?

Being who you are, you will never know.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Now way!!!

ANOTHER 6% thread by Deanie-do????

It has been a while since he made a thread about it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is the right wing's reputation for being anti science and anti education justified?

Short answer, no.



This has nothing to do with the question, even if it is your favorite talking point.



If I can some up your point here, liberals and Democrats are more likely to agree with the majority as they get a higher degree, while conservatives and Republicans are less likely to do so. Could that be because most liberals get degrees in arts because math is hard while most conservatives get degrees in engineering because they like to understand how things work?

Data, even if accurate, can be interpreted in all sorts of ways rdean, something you would actually know if you ever actually worked with it.



Can you explain why Obama, and the democrats, keep cutting funds for the voucher program in DC? The one that is incredibly popular among black parents and children, that has drastically increased graduation rates, and is actually one of the few things the government actually got right.

Republicans think the federal government should not take money from the states just to give it back to the, Maybe if the federal taxes weren't so high states could raise taxes to support education.

Which reminds me, why haven't you posted about Governor Brown and his continued cuts to education in California? Did you know that the UC system is cutting classes entirely, that schools are increasing class sizes, and that students are having to deal with tuition increases every semester? Texas only increases its tuition on a yearly basis.

By the way, why shouldn't Texas keep its emergency fund intact? Do you think they should spend money even though hurricane season is coming up? What about wildfires? Should Texas spend that money now, and then cut spending after people were told they had the money? People in California hate that.



You could try honesty, if that isn't to novel a concept.

By the way, which science is liberal? The only thing I ever heard called liberal were politics and arts, science is called hard or soft. Are the liberal sciences the soft ones?



I wonder what real scientists think about that.

It’s probably my own naïveté, but I’m constantly disappointed how so many science questions that I research turn out to be political questions.
I consistently find that the conservative attitude on many science questions tends to be “everything’s fine” and the liberal attitude tends to be “the sky is falling”. And, of course, that’s exactly what conservative and liberal mean: Conserve things the way they are, and change things liberally. I don’t find that either viewpoint is especially more likely to represent the current science more than the other. Conservatives tend to be more accurate in their assessments of food production and medical science; liberals tend to better represent actual science in their perspectives on evolution and climate change. Some issues, such as the environment, are torn right down the middle, with extremists on both ends being about equally wrong, and the moderates being about equally right. Too many fans of science tend to express their fandom only when the science matches the ideology.
Why does this frustrate me so much? I guess it’s because my true love is learning. I jump up and down like a giddy child when I learn something new in my research. Even obscure factoids that seem drearily mundane to many get my blood rushing. I love sharing that excitement with my listeners. And so often, when I try to share something that struck me simply as “cool”, the reaction is one of disgust because it conflicts with someone’s political agenda.

Skepticblog » Conservative Science vs. Liberal Science

Gee, could it be that people who think of themselves as scientists refuse to let their politics influence their science? Could it be that the AAAS is more likely to be filled with people who are liberal, and not people who are scientists? Could it be that actual scientists prefer to stick with data and don't care about liberal/conservative issues because what matters are facts?

Being who you are, you will never know.

I actually quoted a real scientist, unlike you.

Think about it.

 

[rdean]

Short answer, no.



This has nothing to do with the question, even if it is your favorite talking point.



If I can some up your point here, liberals and Democrats are more likely to agree with the majority as they get a higher degree, while conservatives and Republicans are less likely to do so. Could that be because most liberals get degrees in arts because math is hard while most conservatives get degrees in engineering because they like to understand how things work?

Data, even if accurate, can be interpreted in all sorts of ways rdean, something you would actually know if you ever actually worked with it.



Can you explain why Obama, and the democrats, keep cutting funds for the voucher program in DC? The one that is incredibly popular among black parents and children, that has drastically increased graduation rates, and is actually one of the few things the government actually got right.

Republicans think the federal government should not take money from the states just to give it back to the, Maybe if the federal taxes weren't so high states could raise taxes to support education.

Which reminds me, why haven't you posted about Governor Brown and his continued cuts to education in California? Did you know that the UC system is cutting classes entirely, that schools are increasing class sizes, and that students are having to deal with tuition increases every semester? Texas only increases its tuition on a yearly basis.

By the way, why shouldn't Texas keep its emergency fund intact? Do you think they should spend money even though hurricane season is coming up? What about wildfires? Should Texas spend that money now, and then cut spending after people were told they had the money? People in California hate that.



You could try honesty, if that isn't to novel a concept.

By the way, which science is liberal? The only thing I ever heard called liberal were politics and arts, science is called hard or soft. Are the liberal sciences the soft ones?



I wonder what real scientists think about that.

Skepticblog » Conservative Science vs. Liberal Science

Gee, could it be that people who think of themselves as scientists refuse to let their politics influence their science? Could it be that the AAAS is more likely to be filled with people who are liberal, and not people who are scientists? Could it be that actual scientists prefer to stick with data and don't care about liberal/conservative issues because what matters are facts?

Being who you are, you will never know.

I actually quoted a real scientist, unlike you.

Think about it.

Hilarious. You are such a tard. What you consider a scientist's "education". Think about it.

Education
Computer Science, Brigham Young University (1983-84); Film and Television, UCLA (1985-87); Fiction Writing, UC Irvine (1988-1992)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Dunning_(skeptic)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Being who you are, you will never know.

I actually quoted a real scientist, unlike you.

Think about it.

Hilarious. You are such a tard. What you consider a scientist's "education". Think about it.

Education
Computer Science, Brigham Young University (1983-84); Film and Television, UCLA (1985-87); Fiction Writing, UC Irvine (1988-1992)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Dunning_(skeptic)

You are being a snob again. What, exactly, is wrong with his education? Einstein never attended a university at all, he went to the equivalent of a technical high school, does that mean he wasn't a scientist by your standards?

 

[Toro]

6% of all of rdean's threads are original and new.

 

[Dot Com]

 

[whitehall]

Now it's "reputation". Here's how it works, the left makes crazy claims, skews data and even justifies the assault of conservative speakers on campus. We saw union teachers in Wisconsin call in sick to riot and when you suggest that municipalities have the right to limit contract negotiations or you suggest that the global warmers might not be honest the left does what it does best. Instead of arguing they act like school kids and say nah nah you are anti-education and anti science. The argument is becoming so transparent only the radical left tries it anymore.

 

[rdean]

I actually quoted a real scientist, unlike you.

Think about it.

Hilarious. You are such a tard. What you consider a scientist's "education". Think about it.

Education
Computer Science, Brigham Young University (1983-84); Film and Television, UCLA (1985-87); Fiction Writing, UC Irvine (1988-1992)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Dunning_(skeptic)

You are being a snob again. What, exactly, is wrong with his education? Einstein never attended a university at all, he went to the equivalent of a technical high school, does that mean he wasn't a scientist by your standards?

Yea because Einstein also studied "television" and "fiction writing".

Education isn't for "snobs". It's for everyone, even you. Especially you.

 

[rdean]

Now it's "reputation". Here's how it works, the left makes crazy claims, skews data and even justifies the assault of conservative speakers on campus. We saw union teachers in Wisconsin call in sick to riot and when you suggest that municipalities have the right to limit contract negotiations or you suggest that the global warmers might not be honest the left does what it does best. Instead of arguing they act like school kids and say nah nah you are anti-education and anti science. The argument is becoming so transparent only the radical left tries it anymore.

Except we have data. You don't.

Santorum said "Education is for snobs" and received wild applause. Kind of makes a statement. Don't cha think?

 

[whitehall]

Now it's "reputation". Here's how it works, the left makes crazy claims, skews data and even justifies the assault of conservative speakers on campus. We saw union teachers in Wisconsin call in sick to riot and when you suggest that municipalities have the right to limit contract negotiations or you suggest that the global warmers might not be honest the left does what it does best. Instead of arguing they act like school kids and say nah nah you are anti-education and anti science. The argument is becoming so transparent only the radical left tries it anymore.

Except we have data. You don't.

Santorum said "Education is for snobs" and received wild applause. Kind of makes a statement. Don't cha think?

Nah nah we have data and you don't. Every prominent conservative speaker has been the victim of assault on a college campus during his/her career. Some like David Horowitz have been assaulted several times. What's the reason? Lefties would rather assault their opponents than listen to an argument they disagree with. What does that say about science and education?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hilarious. You are such a tard. What you consider a scientist's "education". Think about it.

Education
Computer Science, Brigham Young University (1983-84); Film and Television, UCLA (1985-87); Fiction Writing, UC Irvine (1988-1992)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Dunning_(skeptic)

You are being a snob again. What, exactly, is wrong with his education? Einstein never attended a university at all, he went to the equivalent of a technical high school, does that mean he wasn't a scientist by your standards?

Yea because Einstein also studied "television" and "fiction writing".

Education isn't for "snobs". It's for everyone, even you. Especially you.

Computer science is TV and fiction writing?

The man writes for a TV show that uses science to attack ghosts and psychics, he doesn't write fiction. Did the fact that Carl Sagan wrote for TV make him not a scientist? What about Isaac Asimov, did his writing of science fiction make him not a scientist? It is not what you study in school that makes you a scientist, it is what you do with everything you know.

Seriously rdean, drop this, you can't possibly win.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Now it's "reputation". Here's how it works, the left makes crazy claims, skews data and even justifies the assault of conservative speakers on campus. We saw union teachers in Wisconsin call in sick to riot and when you suggest that municipalities have the right to limit contract negotiations or you suggest that the global warmers might not be honest the left does what it does best. Instead of arguing they act like school kids and say nah nah you are anti-education and anti science. The argument is becoming so transparent only the radical left tries it anymore.

Except we have data. You don't.

Santorum said "Education is for snobs" and received wild applause. Kind of makes a statement. Don't cha think?

No, he did not.

 

[Liability]

6% of all of rdean's threads are original and new.

lair!

 

[Liability]

rderp "asks" the question, "Is the right wing's reputation for being anti science and anti education justified?"

The answer is "no."