BluePhantom
Educator (of liberals)
I am going to post this twice. The first will be short and sweet including only main headings and brief statements of the overall argument or sub-argument for those who wish to simply look at the main points. Next I will post the same thing but expanded to include examples, supporting links, and commentary for those who have the inclination (and patience) to read through the whole thing.
This represents my personal point of view. I do not claim to speak for every Republican everywhere.
It’s one of the most basic liberal ploys to influence the weak minded to reject the Republican Party: “Republicans are anti-science. They are deniers of scientific fact relying instead on religious dogma to advance a theological agenda”. The second part of that (after “relying on….” is thrown in there for good measure just to scare people shitless. But the reality is quite different. Republicans love science. What we hate is ”junk science”. What is “junk science”? Essentially, it’s politics masquerading as science (which is why I am posting this thread in the “Politics” section instead of the “Science and Technology” section), and we see it all the time although we rarely pay enough attention to realize it. From AGW to second hand smoke, we are hammered by political agendas propped up as “science” when in reality there is little, if any, legitimate scientific fact behind it at all. So how does one know when it’s “junk science” instead of real science? Consider the following red flags:
1) Causation: Scientific studies show the degree of correlation, not causation. Correlation does not prove causation. Media reports or people in general who say “this study proves/shows/demonstrates conclusively that A causes B” are engaging in politics not science.
2) Statistical Deception: Studies which use statistical deception (i.e. lowering the Confidence Interval) should be another big red flag that it’s not science, but “junk science” created for political purposes.
3) Aversion to Skepticism: When a “scientist” releases results and attempts to block other scientists from questioning their results….Houston, we have a BIG problem.
4) Suppression of Data: When scientists are hiding their research…trust me….there’s a reason why they are doing it and it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics. This segues beautifully into point #5.
5) Follow the Money: Studies funded by organizations with a financial stake in the results should be approached with incredible skepticism.
6) Beware the Body Count “MSU” Statistic: “We have created one million jobs with our policies.” Bullshit! There’s no reliable way to track how many jobs were created by a given policy that wouldn’t have been created anyhow. It sounds good in a speech but it’s a load of garbage. I refer to these as “MSU” statistics (“made shit up”.
7) The False Connection and the Hype: This usually follows some logical linear argument. “A causes (see point #1) B, B causes C, and C causes D; therefore A causes D.” The problem is it doesn’t quite work that way.
8) Ignoring the Confounding Variables: With any experiment or study there is always the danger that something the scientist has not accounted for exists or is introduced that will give a false measurement. When the confounding variables are ignored the results are not to be trusted.
I could go on and on with this but you get the point. There is reliable scientific study and then there’s a bunch of bullshit intended to advance a political agenda. Sometimes it’s not that the scientists themselves are at fault or guilty of some evil plot...sometimes it’s just an honest mistake.
Unfortunately, sometimes, there actually is deceptive intent, and in reality it’s not all that hard to figure out when it’s “science” and when it’s “junk science”. All it takes is the willingness to dig a little deeper than the headlines and verify that what is being reported isn’t being manipulated. So it’s not that Republicans have a problem with “science”, it’s that we have a problem with “bullshit”. So when someone from the left throw one of these “scientific facts” at us and we look a little closer and find out: “uh….this research has some serious flaws in it” we tend to look at said liberal and say: “who the fuck are you trying to kid?”
This represents my personal point of view. I do not claim to speak for every Republican everywhere.
It’s one of the most basic liberal ploys to influence the weak minded to reject the Republican Party: “Republicans are anti-science. They are deniers of scientific fact relying instead on religious dogma to advance a theological agenda”. The second part of that (after “relying on….” is thrown in there for good measure just to scare people shitless. But the reality is quite different. Republicans love science. What we hate is ”junk science”. What is “junk science”? Essentially, it’s politics masquerading as science (which is why I am posting this thread in the “Politics” section instead of the “Science and Technology” section), and we see it all the time although we rarely pay enough attention to realize it. From AGW to second hand smoke, we are hammered by political agendas propped up as “science” when in reality there is little, if any, legitimate scientific fact behind it at all. So how does one know when it’s “junk science” instead of real science? Consider the following red flags:
1) Causation: Scientific studies show the degree of correlation, not causation. Correlation does not prove causation. Media reports or people in general who say “this study proves/shows/demonstrates conclusively that A causes B” are engaging in politics not science.
2) Statistical Deception: Studies which use statistical deception (i.e. lowering the Confidence Interval) should be another big red flag that it’s not science, but “junk science” created for political purposes.
3) Aversion to Skepticism: When a “scientist” releases results and attempts to block other scientists from questioning their results….Houston, we have a BIG problem.
4) Suppression of Data: When scientists are hiding their research…trust me….there’s a reason why they are doing it and it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics. This segues beautifully into point #5.
5) Follow the Money: Studies funded by organizations with a financial stake in the results should be approached with incredible skepticism.
6) Beware the Body Count “MSU” Statistic: “We have created one million jobs with our policies.” Bullshit! There’s no reliable way to track how many jobs were created by a given policy that wouldn’t have been created anyhow. It sounds good in a speech but it’s a load of garbage. I refer to these as “MSU” statistics (“made shit up”.
7) The False Connection and the Hype: This usually follows some logical linear argument. “A causes (see point #1) B, B causes C, and C causes D; therefore A causes D.” The problem is it doesn’t quite work that way.
8) Ignoring the Confounding Variables: With any experiment or study there is always the danger that something the scientist has not accounted for exists or is introduced that will give a false measurement. When the confounding variables are ignored the results are not to be trusted.
I could go on and on with this but you get the point. There is reliable scientific study and then there’s a bunch of bullshit intended to advance a political agenda. Sometimes it’s not that the scientists themselves are at fault or guilty of some evil plot...sometimes it’s just an honest mistake.
Unfortunately, sometimes, there actually is deceptive intent, and in reality it’s not all that hard to figure out when it’s “science” and when it’s “junk science”. All it takes is the willingness to dig a little deeper than the headlines and verify that what is being reported isn’t being manipulated. So it’s not that Republicans have a problem with “science”, it’s that we have a problem with “bullshit”. So when someone from the left throw one of these “scientific facts” at us and we look a little closer and find out: “uh….this research has some serious flaws in it” we tend to look at said liberal and say: “who the fuck are you trying to kid?”
Last edited: