The Anti-Science Doctrines: Democrats and Liberals

[PoliticalChic]

It is an herculean task to keep up with, and skewer, the lies of the Left….but, a task that I am ready and willing to assume.
In this case, the question of which is aptly called "anti-science."


One of the lies that is as galling as it is diaphanous, is that it is the right that is anti-science. In actuality, it is the Left that uses pretend-science, with the political aim of using it against the Constitution.




1.Recently, John Stossel sat down with John Tierney. For 25 years, John Tierney has written about science for the New York Times, who ”recently argued that the real war on science comes from the left. That seems odd since surveys show people on the right are more likely to believe in creationism.

Tierney: Right, but creationism doesn't affect science. It doesn't affect the way science is done.

Stossel: But wait, what about President Bush's opposition to stem cell research?

George W. Bush: Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical.

Tierney: He didn't stop stem cell research….I can't find examples where the right-wing stopped the progress of science, whereas you can look on the left and you see so many areas that are taboo to research.



2.Stossel: Some research on genetically modified foods became taboo because of protests from the left. Tierney says that stifled research into what could have been a second Green Revolution to feed Africa. Also, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and her baseless claim that DDT caused cancer in humans is still taught in high schools today, but there's no mention of the millions killed by malaria because countries needlessly banned DDT. And scientists can't even talk about whether genes affect intelligence.




3. Tierney: People who studied IQ needed bodyguards for their lectures. It's something that can't be discussed.

Stossel: Likewise, researching gender differences has become taboo.

Tierney: You can't talk about sexual differences between men and women. I mean, it's ok if they favor women. You can say that men are more likely to commit crimes, but you can't suggest anything that there might be some kind of sexual difference that might predispose men to be more interested in a topic.

Stossel: Google fired engineer James Damore merely because he wrote a memo suggesting that sex differences might explain why more men work in tech.

Tierney: Damore just pointed out very basic scientific research about differences between the sexes. The experts in this, as soon as he published that memo, said, "Yes, he basically got the science right.

Stossel: But that didn’t matter.” The Left’s “War on Science”





Getting it right just doesn’t matter to the Left…..

Only winning does.

 

[alang1216]

In actuality, it is the Left that uses pretend-science, with the political aim of using it against the Constitution.

Sounds like an anti-science statement to me.

Antiscience proponents often attack science through:

• Attempts to discredit the scientists themselves. Examples include claims that Galileo was a heretic and that Charles Darwin was a racist.
• Attempts to discredit scientific objectivity by claiming that the motivation to research a subject is biased. Examples include claims that evolution is a religion[12] and that global warming research is motivated by a desire for more government regulation.
• Attempts to discredit scientific results because it's imagined they they have bad consequences. Examples include claims that the theory of relativity will lead to moral relativism[13] and that Darwinism led to Social Darwinism and Hitler.
• Attempts to use flawed arguments, such as argumentum ad populum, to "prove" a position correct or incorrect regardless of its scientific basis or lack therof.[14] Examples include the Oregon Petition and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.
• Attempts to replace science backed by evidence (a.k.a. "science") with pseudoscience. Examples include creation science and Lysenkoism.
• Attempts to label scientific ideas as conspiracy theories. An example is the idea that global warming is a conspiracy theory.
• Attempts to couch antiscience positions in reassuring code words in order to appear less distortive of science. Examples include "intelligent design" or "alternative medicine".
• Attempts to cut funding to science agencies so they lack resources to fight against the antiscience proponents.
• Outright denial — because if you can't disprove something, just deny that it exists. Examples include germ theory denialism, HIV denial, or discounting transitional forms.
• And the all-time favorite, attempts to obfuscate observed facts.

 

[Markymark11]

Actually evidence of science being disproved happens all the time. Especially in the fields of archaeology, physics and history. Just recently with Steven Hawking, he kept saying that no light escapes blacks holes and that was proven wrong. Or global warming, we still dont have anything that links humans being the cause, especially when you take in consideration that all of our planets in the solar system have also had proportional temperature fluctuations. The problem we have now is that our experts have failed us time and time again. People need to think for themselves and gather data from multiple sources, compare and analyze data.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The war against the Bill of Rights, against free speech, by the Democrats extends to science, and not just political expression.



4. “Tierney: To even mention that there are these differences in the sexes was just taboo. You can't say that there are more men interested in sitting all day doing computer coding than women are.


Stossel: It’s not that women aren’t doing well in life says Tierney, women get most college degrees, and graduate degrees.


Tierney: Women dominate virtually every extracurricular activity, but all the focus has been, why aren't there more women physicists and mathematicians, and of course in the sports area too. And so there's this idea that they're being discriminated against there, when in fact the evidence really shows the reverse.

There have been just enormous studies of who gets grants, who gets tenure, who gets interviews for jobs, and women get preference, if anything.


Stossel: The women would say, "You men run most of society. You head the corporations. You make more money. It must be discrimination."


Tierney: Men are more aggressive. They're more risk-taking. The status matters more to them. Making money matters more to them. Women aren't as interested in that.”
The Left’s “War on Science”



Single women….one of the few groups, beside illegal aliens, whose vote Democrats can count on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As Dennis Prager has noted, the longer one remains in college in the social sciences, the less wise that individual is.

Here’s why:



“5. Stossel: …today’s universities are dominated by leftists.


Tierney: In the social sciences, Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least eight to one. In some fields, like sociology it's 44 to one. Students are more likely to be taught in sociology by a Marxist than by a Republican. It's gotten worse and worse. Once an academic department gets a majority of people who are on the left, they start hiring people like themselves, and pretty soon the whole department is that way. And they start to think that their opinions and that their interests are not only the norm, but the truth.


Stossel: So they publish articles like this one saying, conservatives have lower IQ and are more likely to be prejudiced. Science shows conservatives are more close-minded.


Tierney: The problem with this is that it's been done by all these liberal social scientists. They would ask people about left-wing groups like communists, and conservatives were more prejudiced. Finally someone went out, and started asking different kinds of questions. When he asked liberals about things that mattered to them, like environmentalism or like Barack Obama, turned out they were just as irrational and dogmatic as conservatives were.”
The Left’s “War on Science”


One can see the results here, on the board.....Leftists parrot the lies they have been 'taught.'
They can't compete with conservatives in any argument.

 

[alang1216]

Leftists parrot the lies they have been 'taught.'

Is 'parrot' a synonym for 'cut & paste'?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Marginalizing, ridiculing, silencing the opposition…..these are the methods of the Left.

Why?

Because, in the marketplace of ideas…..the Left can’t compete with the Right.




6. “Stossel: One survey question asked, "Do you believe in the long run, hard work usually brings a better life?"


Tierney: I mean, that seems obvious to anyone, right? But that was classified as a rationalization of inequality.


Stossel: Another study asks if you agree that the earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them.


Tierney: That is conventional wisdom among people who study economics, but that was classified in that study as a denial of environmental realities.


Stossel: So think about that next time you hear about that conservative war on science.


Tierney: When it comes to science I mean, if anything, conservatives are more scientifically literate than liberals are.”
The Left’s “War on Science”





Again?

“…conservatives are more scientifically literate than liberals are.”


Yeah, boy!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

7.“…conservatives are more scientifically literate than liberals are.”


Here’s the interview with John Tierney. For 25 years, John Tierney has written about science for the New York Times, who ”recently argued that the real war on science comes from the left.

 

[kiwiman127]

PC, have you ever in your life, thought for yourself?
Your heavy reliance on cut & paste, indicates that you rely mostly on other individual's thoughts.
Now, go back to being,,,,an echo chamber of other people's thoughts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, have you ever in your life, thought for yourself?
Your heavy reliance on cut & paste, indicates that you rely mostly on other individual's thoughts.
Now, go back to being,,,,an echo chamber of other people's thoughts.

The humor in your post is that, what irks your sort the most, is that I do think for myself....and use that ability to construct irrefutable posts, such as these.



Soooo.....rather than attempt to refute, or confront, the posts that enrage you mind-numbed drones, posts that shred Leftist orthodoxy, you complain about how I offer the material.

Leftist bovines.....you.....simply plagiarize Obama, MSNBC, the NYTimes, the DNC.....all of the talking points never giving credit to the source of the propaganda.
Clearly, you can't compete.




So, then, your post essentially proves exactly what I sought to prove.

OK...you've served your purpose....you're dismissed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8.Let’s take a look at who is ‘anti-science’: 93 % of scientists acknowledge the necessity of animal research, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 48% of Democrats.
Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues

1. Nuclear power plants? 70 % of scientists favor, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 45% of Democrats Ibid.
2. The National Academy of Sciences found that genetically engineered food is safe. So say more Republicans (48%) than Democrats (42%) Who’s More Anti-Science: Republicans or Democrats?

9.“Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are”…with respect to belief in astrology, the need for control groups, probability, antibiotics, exposure to radioactivity….Check out the list at http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2011/03/republicans-are-more-scientifically.html




10.Science….individual freedom….and social equality? Exactly which part of the scientific method validates social justice? It seems that if one disagrees with their politics, one must be anti-science. QED.

Doesn’t is seem that applying to social justice involves morality? Science has nothing to do with morality.

Science tells us what we can do….not what we should do.

And which ideology is more aligned with morality, religion, the Bible…..conservatism or Liberalism?


a. “ Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles,military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?”
Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”
That would be science, wouldn’t it?

 

[bodecea]

Leftists parrot the lies they have been 'taught.'

Is 'parrot' a synonym for 'cut & paste'?

Bingo!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Leftists parrot the lies they have been 'taught.'

Is 'parrot' a synonym for 'cut & paste'?

Bingo!

'cut and paste' is the anti-intellectual description of documentation.

Folks like you....dolts....use it as a dodge when you are angered by the content of the post, but unable to deny it's accuracy.

That's true, isn't it.

 

[alang1216]

a. “ Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles,military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?”
Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”
That would be science, wouldn’t it?

Berlinski is an an anti-science conservative. Seems to contradict your OP. Shocking!

 

[alang1216]

Leftists parrot the lies they have been 'taught.'

Is 'parrot' a synonym for 'cut & paste'?

Bingo!

'cut and paste' is the anti-intellectual description of documentation.

Folks like you....dolts....use it as a dodge when you are angered by the content of the post, but unable to deny it's accuracy.

That's true, isn't it.

So what exactly is the difference between 'parrot' and 'cut & paste'? Feel free to use your own words.

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. “ Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles,military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?”
Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”
That would be science, wouldn’t it?

Berlinski is an an anti-science conservative. Seems to contradict your OP. Shocking!

"Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University,[3] and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France.
Berlinski has written works on systems analysis, the history of differential topology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics. Berlinski has authored books for the general public on mathematics and the history of mathematics. "
David Berlinski - Wikipedia

How many times must those with an intellect be abused by your sort of post, that of the ignorant eyes-shut-tight government school grad?

 

[alang1216]

a. “ Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles,military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?”
Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”
That would be science, wouldn’t it?

Berlinski is an an anti-science conservative. Seems to contradict your OP. Shocking!

"Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University,[3] and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France.
Berlinski has written works on systems analysis, the history of differential topology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics. Berlinski has authored books for the general public on mathematics and the history of mathematics. "
David Berlinski - Wikipedia

How many times must those with an intellect be abused by your sort of post, that of the ignorant eyes-shut-tight government school grad?

You neglected to include these:

• A critic of the theory of evolution, Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think tank that is a hub of the intelligent design movement.
• he told interviewer Ben Stein that "Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for a phenomenon like Nazism but I think it's certainly a necessary one."[10]
• In his 1996 article, The Deniable Darwin, published in Commentary, Berlinski says he is skeptical of evolution for a number of reasons, claiming an appearance "at once" of an astonishing number of novel biological structures in the Cambrian explosion, a lack of major transitional fossils, a lack of recent significant evolution in sharks, the evolution of the eye, and a failure of evolutionary biology to explain various phenomena ranging from the sexual cannibalism of redback spiders to why women are not born with a tail.[11] The article was described by historian of science Ronald L. Numbers as "a version of ID theory."
• He claims to be a secular Jew and agnostic, and denies that he is an advocate of intelligent design but rather claims to be a skeptic on the matter of evolution. However, his articles and books are filled with religiously-based creationist arguments.[3] Although he officially refuses to speculate about the origins of life, critics argue that he is pretty obviously a shill for intelligent design.[4] Berlinski is a signatory to A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a petition publicized in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a creationist "think" tank, which attempts to push creationism, in the guise of Intelligent design, into public schools in the United States.

 

[Markymark11]

a. “ Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles,military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?”
Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”
That would be science, wouldn’t it?

Berlinski is an an anti-science conservative. Seems to contradict your OP. Shocking!

"Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University,[3] and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France.
Berlinski has written works on systems analysis, the history of differential topology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics. Berlinski has authored books for the general public on mathematics and the history of mathematics. "
David Berlinski - Wikipedia

How many times must those with an intellect be abused by your sort of post, that of the ignorant eyes-shut-tight government school grad?

You neglected to include these:

• A critic of the theory of evolution, Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think tank that is a hub of the intelligent design movement.
• he told interviewer Ben Stein that "Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for a phenomenon like Nazism but I think it's certainly a necessary one."[10]
• In his 1996 article, The Deniable Darwin, published in Commentary, Berlinski says he is skeptical of evolution for a number of reasons, claiming an appearance "at once" of an astonishing number of novel biological structures in the Cambrian explosion, a lack of major transitional fossils, a lack of recent significant evolution in sharks, the evolution of the eye, and a failure of evolutionary biology to explain various phenomena ranging from the sexual cannibalism of redback spiders to why women are not born with a tail.[11] The article was described by historian of science Ronald L. Numbers as "a version of ID theory."
• He claims to be a secular Jew and agnostic, and denies that he is an advocate of intelligent design but rather claims to be a skeptic on the matter of evolution. However, his articles and books are filled with religiously-based creationist arguments.[3] Although he officially refuses to speculate about the origins of life, critics argue that he is pretty obviously a shill for intelligent design.[4] Berlinski is a signatory to A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a petition publicized in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a creationist "think" tank, which attempts to push creationism, in the guise of Intelligent design, into public schools in the United States.

Darwinism theory is so old, give me a freaking break LMAO