Pew Poll: 6% of Scientists are Republicans

[Caligirl]

I'm a scientist (PhD), have worked in three different universities (one in the midwest and two in california --- ALL were chock full of democrats/liberals even in the OC), and my opinion is that liberal people are more likely to go into science to begin with. Not because the "govenrment butters theiir bread) (in which case party affiliation would change with administration which obviously it doesn't) but because scientists tend to be

- less religious
- more interested in higher education
- less business oriented (please don't ask me to balance a checkbook!)
- philosophically oriented (the Ph in PhD)

-etc

And, anyone that is a square peg to begin with is going to gravitate to areas where they will be accepted. ie gays and atheists are completely accepted in science fields, etc, which also feeds into the whole mentality of the workplace.

and this is ALL kinda more in line with the liberal side of america than the conservative (and particularly, the religious conservative) side of america.

No doubt the regular interaction with people from all over the world affects people in science, too.

Hunh, is this part of the idea that science and religion are at war? What a silly idea, btw.

 

[American Horse]

I'm a scientist (PhD), have worked in three different universities (one in the midwest and two in california --- ALL were chock full of democrats/liberals even in the OC), and my opinion is that liberal people are more likely to go into science to begin with. Not because the "govenrment butters theiir bread) (in which case party affiliation would change with administration which obviously it doesn't) <SNIP>

Just to inform you, you should know that NO Republican controls the bureaucracy and the career employees which make that up. Therefore, none to very little money flows to Republicans in any field of employment when the Republicans are in power. So as to not leave this unsaid, the captains of corporate industry are also mostly liberals which accounts for the ease with which the liberal Obama administration feels little reserve about channeling money to Corps, but very little if any to small businesses. Keep in mind that the vast majority of these big corporate CEOs come out of the large Eastern business schools. Not getting their education there, small business CEOs are far more conservative than are the large corporate CEO, and therefore are far more likely to belong to the R party.

All the rest of what you have said makes sense.

 

[bk1983]

I'm a scientist (PhD), have worked in three different universities (one in the midwest and two in california --- ALL were chock full of democrats/liberals even in the OC), and my opinion is that liberal people are more likely to go into science to begin with. Not because the "govenrment butters theiir bread) (in which case party affiliation would change with administration which obviously it doesn't) <SNIP>

Just to inform you, you should know that NO Republican controls the bureaucracy and the career employees which make that up. Therefore, none to very little money flows to Republicans in any field of employment when the Republicans are in power. So as to not leave this unsaid, the captains of corporate industry are also mostly liberals which accounts for the ease with which the liberal Obama administration feels little reserve about channeling money to Corps, but very little if any to small businesses. Keep in mind that the vast majority of these big corporate CEOs come out of the large Eastern business schools. Not getting their education there, small business CEOs are far more conservative than are the large corporate CEO, and therefore are far more likely to belong to the R party.

All the rest of what you have said makes sense.

You have a link or anything to verify what you are claiming? Or are you just spouting off with grand assumptions?

 

[rdean]

Li'l Bushie said "fuck you" to federal funding, not to science in and of itself.

Why should taxpayers be supporting "scientists" who don't check their politics at the door??

They were merely asked a question about their politics, it wasn't a question whether their politics affected their work. If more Republicans were scientists, you'd probably see more scientists who believe human activity has no relation at all to global warming and more Scientists who proclaim Creationism as truth. Those are scientists who let politics affect their work.

Scientists who are Liberal also sometimes have their work affected by politics but science for the most part is a can you prove this or not sort of thing.

GAFB!!!!!

Science is as political as you can get.....Especially "peer review".

Peer review. The best known journals are extremely stringent when it comes to papers they might publish, and if it's not of a very high quality, they will reject the papers.
Usually, the review is in a two tier process. The first being their own board of review. The second being an outside board of review. They even choose scientists from other countries to try to remove "cultural bias".

Why is the right so ignorant when it comes to science? They make these sweeping statements they know nothing about. I just don't get it. What's worse, they depend on science for everything.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They were merely asked a question about their politics, it wasn't a question whether their politics affected their work. If more Republicans were scientists, you'd probably see more scientists who believe human activity has no relation at all to global warming and more Scientists who proclaim Creationism as truth. Those are scientists who let politics affect their work.

Scientists who are Liberal also sometimes have their work affected by politics but science for the most part is a can you prove this or not sort of thing.

GAFB!!!!!

Science is as political as you can get.....Especially "peer review".

Peer review. The best known journals are extremely stringent when it comes to papers they might publish, and if it's not of a very high quality, they will reject the papers.
Usually, the review is in a two tier process. The first being their own board of review. The second being an outside board of review. They even choose scientists from other countries to try to remove "cultural bias".

Why is the right so ignorant when it comes to science? They make these sweeping statements they know nothing about. I just don't get it. What's worse, they depend on science for everything.

Untrue. Peer review is NOT just about "high quality", which anyone who REALLY knows about academia can tell you. If your paper doesn't match the ideological bent of the journal's editorial board, it doesn't matter how good the work is. It won't get published. On the other hand, if a paper has flaws but panders to the editorial point of view, it frequently will get published, and then savaged by critics.

As for "ignorant about science", the day I hear a leftist make ANY science-based argument that isn't riddled with mistakes my 13-year-old wouldn't make, you can talk to me about "ignorant".

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm a scientist (PhD), have worked in three different universities (one in the midwest and two in california --- ALL were chock full of democrats/liberals even in the OC), and my opinion is that liberal people are more likely to go into science to begin with. Not because the "govenrment butters theiir bread) (in which case party affiliation would change with administration which obviously it doesn't) but because scientists tend to be

- less religious
- more interested in higher education
- less business oriented (please don't ask me to balance a checkbook!)
- philosophically oriented (the Ph in PhD)

-etc

And, anyone that is a square peg to begin with is going to gravitate to areas where they will be accepted. ie gays and atheists are completely accepted in science fields, etc, which also feeds into the whole mentality of the workplace.

and this is ALL kinda more in line with the liberal side of america than the conservative (and particularly, the religious conservative) side of america.

No doubt the regular interaction with people from all over the world affects people in science, too.

Hunh, is this part of the idea that science and religion are at war? What a silly idea, btw.

By the way, what you've told us is not that leftists are more likely to go into science, but that leftist-controlled colleges are more likely to hire like-minded people.

 

[rdean]

I'm a scientist (PhD), have worked in three different universities (one in the midwest and two in california --- ALL were chock full of democrats/liberals even in the OC), and my opinion is that liberal people are more likely to go into science to begin with. Not because the "govenrment butters theiir bread) (in which case party affiliation would change with administration which obviously it doesn't) but because scientists tend to be

- less religious
- more interested in higher education
- less business oriented (please don't ask me to balance a checkbook!)
- philosophically oriented (the Ph in PhD)

-etc

And, anyone that is a square peg to begin with is going to gravitate to areas where they will be accepted. ie gays and atheists are completely accepted in science fields, etc, which also feeds into the whole mentality of the workplace.

and this is ALL kinda more in line with the liberal side of america than the conservative (and particularly, the religious conservative) side of america.

No doubt the regular interaction with people from all over the world affects people in science, too.

Hunh, is this part of the idea that science and religion are at war? What a silly idea, btw.

By the way, what you've told us is not that leftists are more likely to go into science, but that leftist-controlled colleges are more likely to hire like-minded people.

The right controlled colleges are all tier-four, the lowest rated in the nation (except Notre Dame - they teach evolution).

Wow, you pack so much ignorance into so few words. Amazing. Let's see, you know nothing about peer review, nothing about science, nothing about education and yet you have so much confidence and surety. I have to congratulate you. Hey, you're not Sarah Palin are you?

Republican scientists may be only 6% of the total, but I suspect their contributions are far, far less. Tell me you believe in the science of evolution, the foundation science for botany, biology and physiology. I suspect you don't. So, was the Flintstones a documentary? Noah's Ark a true historical event?

How many "supernatural" and "mystical" creatures do you believe in?
A. Angels
B. Leprechauns
C. Demons
D. Fairies
E. Gods or godlike fantasy beings
F. Ghosts (holy or friendly)
G. Sprites
H. Devils
I. gnomes
J. Trolls
K. Wicked Step Mother
L. Wizards
M. Witches (Sarah Palin believes in witches)

Everything you touch comes from science. What keeps the country safe comes from science. What doctors know comes from science. They must be doing something right.

 

[Old Rocks]

and thats to be expected
why?
because they know which side their bread is buttered on

Not exactly, though it is true that Bush basically said fuck you to scientists over eight years.

It's more of the fact that they are more Liberal about experimentation then Republicans are. Such as with stem cells, about the planet, etc. Plus, Republicans are more of a party of religion then science. Do you truly expect the majority of Scientists to believe in a POV that goes against most of their beliefs?

Li'l Bushie said "fuck you" to federal funding, not to science in and of itself.

Why should taxpayers be supporting "scientists" who don't check their politics at the door??

More ignorance from an ignoramous. Here is the reality on that subject;

Climate Science Censorship - Federal Scientists Accuse Bush of Climate Science Censorship
Science Fair Experiment
Dear EarthTalk: How is it that the Bush Administration is said to have &#8220;censored&#8221; climate scientists?
-- Anna Edelman, Seattle, WA
Word of the White House censoring federal climate scientists on global warming began leaking out to the press early in George W. Bush&#8217;s first term in office, but only in the last few years have a few federal employees themselves been willing to go on record with such accusations.

Federal Employees Report Climate Science Censorship
A report titled &#8220;Investigation Reveals Widespread Suppression of Federal Climate Research&#8221;, released last January by two leading nonprofits, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Government Accountability Project (GAP), found that nearly half of 279 federal climate scientists who responded to a survey reported being pressured to delete references to &#8220;global warming&#8221; or &#8220;climate change&#8221; from scientific papers or reports, while many said they were prevented from talking to the media or had their work on the topic edited.

&#8220;The new evidence shows that political interference in climate science is no longer a series of isolated incidents but a system-wide epidemic,&#8221; says UCS&#8217;s Francesca Grifo. &#8220;Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies.&#8221;

The issue first bubbled to the surface when Rick Piltz, who worked for a decade coordinating federal research on global warming as part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program&#8212;first under President Clinton and then Bush&#8212;quit in mid-2005 alleging that his superiors were misusing and abusing the scientific information he was providing

 

[Old Rocks]

There aren't any Republican controlled colleges that aren't Called West Point, the Airforce Academy of the the naval Academy. And frankly there's more academic freedom there than on most other college campuses in the country.

And yes I was referencing professors not the student body. Which by the way would be obvious if you weren't woring on your masters in douche baggery.

Religious intolerance and conflict in the Air Force Academy

According to the Associated Press in 2005-AUG, allegations surfaced:

"...that evangelical Christians wield so much influence at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs that anti-Semitism and other forms of religious harassment have become pervasive....An Air Force task force concluded that some students and staff at the school have the perception that the academy favors evangelical Christians and is intolerant of those who do not share their faith." 1

The Associated Press reported that the Academy's No. 2 chaplain, Captain Melinda Morton, said that she was fired for speaking up about religious intolerance among cadets and staff. She co-wrote a report in 2004 which criticized "strident" evangelizing of cadets by [conservative] Christian officers. She alleged that evangelical Christians wield too much influence at the Academy. Major General Charles Baldwin, the Air Force's chief chaplain said that she wasn't fired, only reassigned to Japan. 2

The Air Force issued an interim set of guidelines at the end of 2005-AUG concerning the free exercise of religion . The guidelines are to be applied beyond just the Air Force Academy; they apply to all Air Force personnel. They may eventually be enforced across the entire Armed Forces.

Harper's Magazine reported in their 2009-MAY issue that evangelical Christian proselytization and lack of religious freedom continues within the U.S. military.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm a scientist (PhD), have worked in three different universities (one in the midwest and two in california --- ALL were chock full of democrats/liberals even in the OC), and my opinion is that liberal people are more likely to go into science to begin with. Not because the "govenrment butters theiir bread) (in which case party affiliation would change with administration which obviously it doesn't) but because scientists tend to be

- less religious
- more interested in higher education
- less business oriented (please don't ask me to balance a checkbook!)
- philosophically oriented (the Ph in PhD)

-etc

And, anyone that is a square peg to begin with is going to gravitate to areas where they will be accepted. ie gays and atheists are completely accepted in science fields, etc, which also feeds into the whole mentality of the workplace.

and this is ALL kinda more in line with the liberal side of america than the conservative (and particularly, the religious conservative) side of america.

No doubt the regular interaction with people from all over the world affects people in science, too.

Hunh, is this part of the idea that science and religion are at war? What a silly idea, btw.

By the way, what you've told us is not that leftists are more likely to go into science, but that leftist-controlled colleges are more likely to hire like-minded people.

The right controlled colleges are all tier-four, the lowest rated in the nation (except Notre Dame - they teach evolution).

Topic-hopping. Next time, just admit that you can't dispute the fact that leftists in colleges refuse to hire anyone besides other leftists, and let it go at that.

Wow, you pack so much ignorance into so few words. Amazing. Let's see, you know nothing about peer review, nothing about science, nothing about education and yet you have so much confidence and surety. I have to congratulate you. Hey, you're not Sarah Palin are you?

Let's see. You pack so much nothing into so many words. "You know nothing about peer review, and just take my word for that, because I have no intention of saying anything concrete about it." "You know nothing about science, and just take my word for THAT, because I haven't actually heard you say anything about any scientific topics, but I just KNOW that if you did, it would be wrong." "You know nothing about education, that's just the same as science, but I'm SURE it's true." "And hey, I can stick in a gratuitous swipe at a totally unrelated conservative celebrity, just to suck up to all the other leftists and make them think I'm clever."

Yeah, I have confidence and surety. I spent years helping to prepare papers for submission to scientific journals, and only a fool or a liar claims that it's a completely objective, high- and pure-minded process. I'm also sure and confident because at least part of my post referred to conversation I PERSONALLY have had on this board. Were you here for them? No. Even if you were, you wouldn't be better-positioned than me to speak to what happened.

Republican scientists may be only 6% of the total, but I suspect their contributions are far, far less.

I must have missed the point where I begged you to fill me in on your narrow-minded, bigoted hatred.

Tell me you believe in the science of evolution, the foundation science for botany, biology and physiology. I suspect you don't. So, was the Flintstones a documentary? Noah's Ark a true historical event?

Tell me you've EVER bothered to read any of the discussions on the subject of evolution, instead of just taking it as gospel that evolution was totally settled, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and the only item in the entire scientific universe that could never, EVER be questioned. Yeah, that's what I thought, Science Boy.

And while you're telling me things, tell me you believe that a fetus is a living human organism. Medical science and biology do, but I have yet to meet a leftist who's caught up with the times and stopped spouting nonsense like "clump of cells", "tissue mass", and my personal favorite scientific description, "potential person".

How many "supernatural" and "mystical" creatures do you believe in?
A. Angels
B. Leprechauns
C. Demons
D. Fairies
E. Gods or godlike fantasy beings
F. Ghosts (holy or friendly)
G. Sprites
H. Devils
I. gnomes
J. Trolls
K. Wicked Step Mother
L. Wizards
M. Witches (Sarah Palin believes in witches)

I actually know some witches, who would be quite offended by you saying they don't exist.

As far as imaginary creatures go, I'm glad scientists of the past didn't have your blinkered, materialistic viewpoint when it came to "fantasies" like viruses, cells, mitochondria, black holes, Pluto . . . We'd have never learned a damned thing if REAL scientists were as self-satisfied, arrogant, and uncurious as you are.

It must suck to live in a universe small and boring enough to be encompassed by your personal experience and understanding.

Everything you touch comes from science. What keeps the country safe comes from science. What doctors know comes from science. They must be doing something right.

Yeah, and the problem is that doofuses like you don't know thing one about what they're doing, while proclaiming to worship at their altar. Pitiful.

 

[xsited1]

I'm a scientist (PhD), ...

PhD in what?

 

[rdean]

I was right. You believe evolution, the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology is a "lie". You say you prepare papers for "scientific journals" and believe evolution is a lie? FOFLOL.

That is too, too funny. Really.

So, do these "witches" you know have, uh, "Powers"? Can they make "things happen"? Do they have names like "Samantha" and "Endora"?

Philosophy in science? Not sure what that means. It's "science".

You quote "Terry Pratchett"? Cool. You "MythAppropriated his words".

I said:

Peer Review: Usually, the review is in a two tier process. The first being their own board of review. The second being an outside board of review. They even choose scientists from other countries to try to remove "cultural bias".

You said:

"You know nothing about peer review, and just take my word for that, because I have no intention of saying anything concrete about it."

Which of course, isn't what I said.

Put the Kool-aid away and watch the science channel. Robert Tilton and Rod Parsley will still be there when you get back.

 

[DiveCon]

I was right. You believe evolution, the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology is a "lie". You say you prepare papers for "scientific journals" and believe evolution is a lie? FOFLOL.

That is too, too funny. Really.

So, do these "witches" you know have, uh, "Powers"? Can they make "things happen"? Do they have names like "Samantha" and "Endora"?

Philosophy in science? Not sure what that means. It's "science".

You quote "Terry Pratchett"? Cool. You "MythAppropriated his words".

I said:

Peer Review: Usually, the review is in a two tier process. The first being their own board of review. The second being an outside board of review. They even choose scientists from other countries to try to remove "cultural bias".

You said:

"You know nothing about peer review, and just take my word for that, because I have no intention of saying anything concrete about it."

Which of course, isn't what I said.

Put the Kool-aid away and watch the science channel. Robert Tilton and Rod Parsley will still be there when you get back.

wow, you dont know SOOOO much

 

[Cecilie1200]

I was right. You believe evolution, the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology is a "lie". You say you prepare papers for "scientific journals" and believe evolution is a lie? FOFLOL.

Actually, I believe evolution is an unproven theory that is being promoted as though it's a religion by uneducated poseurs like you. Unlike you, I have no real stake in it being true or false, because the things I believe will still be there either way.

And if evolution is the "foundation science" of biology, why is it that Gregor Mendel, the father of modern biology and a contemporary of Charles Darwin, thought he was a crackpot? In fact, how is it he managed to father modern biology without this so-called "foundation science"?

That is too, too funny. Really.

I'd imagine any serious attempt by you to actually explain how evolution is "foundational" to any of these areas would be even funnier.

So, do these "witches" you know have, uh, "Powers"? Can they make "things happen"? Do they have names like "Samantha" and "Endora"?

Clearly, someone needs to teach you the difference between television and reality, little boy. Call me when you move out of short pants.

Philosophy in science? Not sure what that means. It's "science".

You quote "Terry Pratchett"? Cool. You "MythAppropriated his words".

Are you schizophrenic? This made absolutely no sense, completely aside from the fact that Pratchett didn't write the "Myth" books. Robert Asprin did.

I said:

Peer Review: Usually, the review is in a two tier process. The first being their own board of review. The second being an outside board of review. They even choose scientists from other countries to try to remove "cultural bias".

You said:

"You know nothing about peer review, and just take my word for that, because I have no intention of saying anything concrete about it."

Which of course, isn't what I said.

Actually, Schizo Boy, that quote from me wasn't in reference to the quote you gave from yourself. It was in reference to your "Wow, you pack so much ignorance into so few words. Amazing. Let's see, you know nothing about peer review, nothing about science, nothing about education and yet you have so much confidence and surety. I have to congratulate you. Hey, you're not Sarah Palin are you?" Which would be why I quoted that particular paragraph when I said it. Duhhh.

To spell it out for you, Oh champion of intellectual academia, it's easy to say, "That's just ignorant", and not so easy to actually PROVE it, which I assume is why you said it and didn't prove it.

Put the Kool-aid away and watch the science channel. Robert Tilton and Rod Parsley will still be there when you get back.

Oh, yeah. The Science Channel. THAT'LL getcha edumacated about science, 'n' shit. Why bother with that silly "going to college" thing when you can just flip on the cable TV?

 

[rdean]

I was right. You believe evolution, the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology is a "lie". You say you prepare papers for "scientific journals" and believe evolution is a lie? FOFLOL.

That is too, too funny. Really.

So, do these "witches" you know have, uh, "Powers"? Can they make "things happen"? Do they have names like "Samantha" and "Endora"?

Philosophy in science? Not sure what that means. It's "science".

You quote "Terry Pratchett"? Cool. You "MythAppropriated his words".

I said:

Peer Review: Usually, the review is in a two tier process. The first being their own board of review. The second being an outside board of review. They even choose scientists from other countries to try to remove "cultural bias".

You said:

"You know nothing about peer review, and just take my word for that, because I have no intention of saying anything concrete about it."

Which of course, isn't what I said.

Put the Kool-aid away and watch the science channel. Robert Tilton and Rod Parsley will still be there when you get back.

wow, you dont know SOOOO much

I know a little. Which is more than some.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I was right. You believe evolution, the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology is a "lie". You say you prepare papers for "scientific journals" and believe evolution is a lie? FOFLOL.

That is too, too funny. Really.

So, do these "witches" you know have, uh, "Powers"? Can they make "things happen"? Do they have names like "Samantha" and "Endora"?

Philosophy in science? Not sure what that means. It's "science".

You quote "Terry Pratchett"? Cool. You "MythAppropriated his words".

I said:

Peer Review: Usually, the review is in a two tier process. The first being their own board of review. The second being an outside board of review. They even choose scientists from other countries to try to remove "cultural bias".

You said:

"You know nothing about peer review, and just take my word for that, because I have no intention of saying anything concrete about it."

Which of course, isn't what I said.

Put the Kool-aid away and watch the science channel. Robert Tilton and Rod Parsley will still be there when you get back.

wow, you dont know SOOOO much

That was absolutely the saddest thing I've seen all day. How about you?

 

[rdean]

I was right. You believe evolution, the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology is a "lie". You say you prepare papers for "scientific journals" and believe evolution is a lie? FOFLOL.

That is too, too funny. Really.

So, do these "witches" you know have, uh, "Powers"? Can they make "things happen"? Do they have names like "Samantha" and "Endora"?

Philosophy in science? Not sure what that means. It's "science".

You quote "Terry Pratchett"? Cool. You "MythAppropriated his words".

I said:

Peer Review: Usually, the review is in a two tier process. The first being their own board of review. The second being an outside board of review. They even choose scientists from other countries to try to remove "cultural bias".

You said:

"You know nothing about peer review, and just take my word for that, because I have no intention of saying anything concrete about it."

Which of course, isn't what I said.

Put the Kool-aid away and watch the science channel. Robert Tilton and Rod Parsley will still be there when you get back.

wow, you dont know SOOOO much

I was right. You believe evolution, the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology is a "lie". You say you prepare papers for "scientific journals" and believe evolution is a lie? FOFLOL.

Actually, I believe evolution is an unproven theory that is being promoted as though it's a religion by uneducated poseurs like you. Unlike you, I have no real stake in it being true or false, because the things I believe will still be there either way.

And if evolution is the "foundation science" of biology, why is it that Gregor Mendel, the father of modern biology and a contemporary of Charles Darwin, thought he was a crackpot? In fact, how is it he managed to father modern biology without this so-called "foundation science"?

That is too, too funny. Really.

I'd imagine any serious attempt by you to actually explain how evolution is "foundational" to any of these areas would be even funnier.



Clearly, someone needs to teach you the difference between television and reality, little boy. Call me when you move out of short pants.



Are you schizophrenic? This made absolutely no sense, completely aside from the fact that Pratchett didn't write the "Myth" books. Robert Asprin did.

I said:

Peer Review: Usually, the review is in a two tier process. The first being their own board of review. The second being an outside board of review. They even choose scientists from other countries to try to remove "cultural bias".

You said:

"You know nothing about peer review, and just take my word for that, because I have no intention of saying anything concrete about it."

Which of course, isn't what I said.

Actually, Schizo Boy, that quote from me wasn't in reference to the quote you gave from yourself. It was in reference to your "Wow, you pack so much ignorance into so few words. Amazing. Let's see, you know nothing about peer review, nothing about science, nothing about education and yet you have so much confidence and surety. I have to congratulate you. Hey, you're not Sarah Palin are you?" Which would be why I quoted that particular paragraph when I said it. Duhhh.

To spell it out for you, Oh champion of intellectual academia, it's easy to say, "That's just ignorant", and not so easy to actually PROVE it, which I assume is why you said it and didn't prove it.

Put the Kool-aid away and watch the science channel. Robert Tilton and Rod Parsley will still be there when you get back.

Oh, yeah. The Science Channel. THAT'LL getcha edumacated about science, 'n' shit. Why bother with that silly "going to college" thing when you can just flip on the cable TV?

Sorry, I guess I got a little enthusiastic. "Evolution" an "unproven theory? That just flabbergasts me. How can you even hint that you are any type of scientist and say that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I was right. You believe evolution, the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology is a "lie". You say you prepare papers for "scientific journals" and believe evolution is a lie? FOFLOL.

That is too, too funny. Really.

So, do these "witches" you know have, uh, "Powers"? Can they make "things happen"? Do they have names like "Samantha" and "Endora"?

Philosophy in science? Not sure what that means. It's "science".

You quote "Terry Pratchett"? Cool. You "MythAppropriated his words".

I said:

Peer Review: Usually, the review is in a two tier process. The first being their own board of review. The second being an outside board of review. They even choose scientists from other countries to try to remove "cultural bias".

You said:

"You know nothing about peer review, and just take my word for that, because I have no intention of saying anything concrete about it."

Which of course, isn't what I said.

Put the Kool-aid away and watch the science channel. Robert Tilton and Rod Parsley will still be there when you get back.

wow, you dont know SOOOO much

Actually, I believe evolution is an unproven theory that is being promoted as though it's a religion by uneducated poseurs like you. Unlike you, I have no real stake in it being true or false, because the things I believe will still be there either way.

And if evolution is the "foundation science" of biology, why is it that Gregor Mendel, the father of modern biology and a contemporary of Charles Darwin, thought he was a crackpot? In fact, how is it he managed to father modern biology without this so-called "foundation science"?



I'd imagine any serious attempt by you to actually explain how evolution is "foundational" to any of these areas would be even funnier.



Clearly, someone needs to teach you the difference between television and reality, little boy. Call me when you move out of short pants.



Are you schizophrenic? This made absolutely no sense, completely aside from the fact that Pratchett didn't write the "Myth" books. Robert Asprin did.



Actually, Schizo Boy, that quote from me wasn't in reference to the quote you gave from yourself. It was in reference to your "Wow, you pack so much ignorance into so few words. Amazing. Let's see, you know nothing about peer review, nothing about science, nothing about education and yet you have so much confidence and surety. I have to congratulate you. Hey, you're not Sarah Palin are you?" Which would be why I quoted that particular paragraph when I said it. Duhhh.

To spell it out for you, Oh champion of intellectual academia, it's easy to say, "That's just ignorant", and not so easy to actually PROVE it, which I assume is why you said it and didn't prove it.

Put the Kool-aid away and watch the science channel. Robert Tilton and Rod Parsley will still be there when you get back.

Oh, yeah. The Science Channel. THAT'LL getcha edumacated about science, 'n' shit. Why bother with that silly "going to college" thing when you can just flip on the cable TV?

Sorry, I guess I got a little enthusiastic. "Evolution" an "unproven theory? That just flabbergasts me. How can you even hint that you are any type of scientist and say that?

I never said I was a scientist, dumbass. I'm just an educated adult who spent sixteen years working in the medical and education fields.

How can you claim to be educated and suck so badly at reading comprehension? THAT is the question that flabbergasts me.

Here is what one scientist, Nobel laureate Ernst Chain, said in 1972, though: "The Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution . . . is based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory . . . I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation." Hey, why don't you go tell HIM that he's not "any type of scientist" to say that?

Gregor Mendel, father of modern biology, actually worked from findings that directly contradicted Darwin's theories. Go dig him up and tell him he wasn't a scientist.

 

[Darkwind]

Well hell.

I thought this thread was going to say that 6% of scientists think the other 94% suck ass....

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well hell.

I thought this thread was going to say that 6% of scientists think the other 94% suck ass....

They're probably too tactful to say so out loud.