'Anti-Science?'...Who...Me???

[PoliticalChic]

1. We political addicts live on the battlefront. There is a progressive army whose weapons are seductive, but fallacious, seemingly logical arguments. Round after round they fire, and, having the media support, convince the uninformed due to the overwhelming numbers who are repeating the same comments, over and over. Perhaps it helps to recognize the different battalions: sensationalizing-media, climate-hawk bloggers, anti-religion fanatics, political think-tankers.





2. Progressives regularly claim that it is their beliefs that are based on science, and that conservatives are anti-science….even claiming that progressivism and science are one and the same, or they may conflate technological progress with political progressivism.

a. Far-Leftists at the Center for American Progress have a website called Science Progress They claim: “Through this work we are building piece by piece the progressive narrative of science and technology policy.”

b. “The phrase “science progress” is, arguably, a bit awkward. … It reminds us that we are the inheritors of the Enlightenment’s confidence in the possibility of improving the human condition—a possibility predicated on values of individual freedom, social equality, and democratic solidarity,…”
Time for Science to Reclaim Its Progressive Roots

c. 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.

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

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?





4. 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 | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

a. Nuclear power plants? 70 % of scientists favor, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 45% of Democrats Ibid.

b. 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? - Reason.com

5. “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: The Audacious Epigone: Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are

a. Razib Khan reanalyzed the data and found that conservatives and liberals are roughly equal in their knowledge of science, but that both are more knowledgeable than moderates.
Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p. 212.



So….Republicans/conservatives less science literate or knowledgeable? Hardly. But do Democrats/liberals win the decibel battle…..seems likely.

 

[newpolitics]

It's insane that you can come on here and claim that progressives have fallacious arguments, when you admitted just yesterday on your anti-speciesist thread that you have no rational justification for your speciesism, other than appealing to an undemonstrated deity. Hence, you employ fallacy. The insane paradox is that you are employing a proof by assertion in saying this, which, itself is a fallacy. As usual, the rest of your highly slanted, nonsensical post is not worth considering seriously when you open up with such poor logic. It must suck to be you. I don't think you understand the idea of sound and valid logic. Rhetoric is not an alternative to logic, but usually something used to try and conceal bad logic. Once one learns to see the logic flaws behind ones argument, all the fancy rhetoric in the world becomes meaningless. Hint: this pertains to you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's insane that you can come on here and claim that progressives have fallacious arguments, when you admitted just yesterday on your anti-speciesist thread that you have no rational justification for your speciesism, other than appealing to an undemonstrated deity. Hence, you employ fallacy. The insane paradox is that you are employing a proof by assertion in saying this, which, itself is a fallacy. As usual, the rest of your highly slanted, nonsensical post is not worth considering seriously when you open up with such poor logic. It must suck to be you. I don't think you understand the idea of sound and valid logic. Rhetoric is not an alternative to logic, but usually something used to try and conceal bad logic. Once one learns to see the logic flaws behind ones argument, all the fancy rhetoric in the world becomes meaningless. Hint: this pertains to you.

"...when you admitted just yesterday on your anti-speciesist thread that you have no rational justification for your speciesism,...

If you cannot provide documentation of this slander....and you cannot....you will be self-identified as the liar that you are.

 

[newpolitics]

It's insane that you can come on here and claim that progressives have fallacious arguments, when you admitted just yesterday on your anti-speciesist thread that you have no rational justification for your speciesism, other than appealing to an undemonstrated deity. Hence, you employ fallacy. The insane paradox is that you are employing a proof by assertion in saying this, which, itself is a fallacy. As usual, the rest of your highly slanted, nonsensical post is not worth considering seriously when you open up with such poor logic. It must suck to be you. I don't think you understand the idea of sound and valid logic. Rhetoric is not an alternative to logic, but usually something used to try and conceal bad logic. Once one learns to see the logic flaws behind ones argument, all the fancy rhetoric in the world becomes meaningless. Hint: this pertains to you.

"...when you admitted just yesterday on your anti-speciesist thread that you have no rational justification for your speciesism,...

If you cannot provide documentation of this slander....and you cannot....you will be self-identified as the liar that you are.

Yes, i can, you loon. I said this yesterday, you made no comment. I asked you to rationally justify your position. You resorted to insult. This I'd an admission that you could not rationally justify your position. In other words, you were unable to logically defend yourself.

 

[newpolitics]

Let me spell this out for you. You make claims and defend positions that you can not rationally justify. You are therefore irrational am appeal to emotion to make your arguments seem valid, when in fact, they are not.

 

[newpolitics]

Have you conveniently forgotten what took place just yesterday?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's insane that you can come on here and claim that progressives have fallacious arguments, when you admitted just yesterday on your anti-speciesist thread that you have no rational justification for your speciesism, other than appealing to an undemonstrated deity. Hence, you employ fallacy. The insane paradox is that you are employing a proof by assertion in saying this, which, itself is a fallacy. As usual, the rest of your highly slanted, nonsensical post is not worth considering seriously when you open up with such poor logic. It must suck to be you. I don't think you understand the idea of sound and valid logic. Rhetoric is not an alternative to logic, but usually something used to try and conceal bad logic. Once one learns to see the logic flaws behind ones argument, all the fancy rhetoric in the world becomes meaningless. Hint: this pertains to you.

"...when you admitted just yesterday on your anti-speciesist thread that you have no rational justification for your speciesism,...

If you cannot provide documentation of this slander....and you cannot....you will be self-identified as the liar that you are.

Yes, i can, you loon. I said this yesterday, you made no comment. I asked you to rationally justify your position. You resorted to insult. This I'd an admission that you could not rationally justify your position. In other words, you were unable to logically defend yourself.

1. "..."...when you admitted just yesterday on your anti-speciesist thread that you have no rational justification for your speciesism,..."


2. " I said this yesterday, you made no comment. "


3. Admit: to concede as true or valid <admitted making a mistake>
Admit - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


So....You've backtracked, confessing that I did no such thing.

And, by doing so, claimed the title of "lying piece of bottom-feeding slime."


Did you say "in other words"?

Well, then....in other words, you should be known as the USMB's very own Morbus gallicus.


In other words? Syphilis.

 

[newpolitics]

Syphilis? You are so corny. You really are just an insecure bully.

You obviously know nothing about debate, which is kind of hilarious considering your on a debate forum. If someone makes a point, and you fail to refute it, it stands. One of the surest ways of losing a debate is to not refute what what an opponent asserts. This is known as the burden of refutation. Therefore, given that I asserted you have no rational justification for your speciesism, and asked you to try upon which you failed to do so, this is an IMPLICIT admission of defeat, by the standards of debate. Should I obnoxiously define "implicit" for you like you did for admission? Ill let you sweat it out at dictionary.com

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. We political addicts live on the battlefront. There is a progressive army whose weapons are seductive, but fallacious, seemingly logical arguments. Round after round they fire, and, having the media support, convince the uninformed due to the overwhelming numbers who are repeating the same comments, over and over. Perhaps it helps to recognize the different battalions: sensationalizing-media, climate-hawk bloggers, anti-religion fanatics, political think-tankers.





2. Progressives regularly claim that it is their beliefs that are based on science, and that conservatives are anti-science….even claiming that progressivism and science are one and the same, or they may conflate technological progress with political progressivism.

a. Far-Leftists at the Center for American Progress have a website called Science Progress They claim: “Through this work we are building piece by piece the progressive narrative of science and technology policy.”

b. “The phrase “science progress” is, arguably, a bit awkward. … It reminds us that we are the inheritors of the Enlightenment’s confidence in the possibility of improving the human condition—a possibility predicated on values of individual freedom, social equality, and democratic solidarity,…”
Time for Science to Reclaim Its Progressive Roots

c. 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.

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

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-scienti&#64257;c justi&#64257;cations 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?





4. 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 | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

a. Nuclear power plants? 70 % of scientists favor, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 45% of Democrats Ibid.

b. 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? - Reason.com

5. “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: The Audacious Epigone: Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are

a. Razib Khan reanalyzed the data and found that conservatives and liberals are roughly equal in their knowledge of science, but that both are more knowledgeable than moderates.
Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p. 212.



So….Republicans/conservatives less science literate or knowledgeable? Hardly. But do Democrats/liberals win the decibel battle…..seems likely.

41% of Democrats are young Earth Creationists, what do you expect?

 

[TheOldSchool]

This is a gallup poll from a year ago. I found it on Huffington Post, which is unfortunate. It's sad to see how many Americans still buy into creationism.

Link - 46% Americans Believe In Creationism According To Latest Gallup Poll

 

[newpolitics]

1. We political addicts live on the battlefront. There is a progressive army whose weapons are seductive, but fallacious, seemingly logical arguments. Round after round they fire, and, having the media support, convince the uninformed due to the overwhelming numbers who are repeating the same comments, over and over. Perhaps it helps to recognize the different battalions: sensationalizing-media, climate-hawk bloggers, anti-religion fanatics, political think-tankers.





2. Progressives regularly claim that it is their beliefs that are based on science, and that conservatives are anti-science….even claiming that progressivism and science are one and the same, or they may conflate technological progress with political progressivism.

a. Far-Leftists at the Center for American Progress have a website called Science Progress They claim: “Through this work we are building piece by piece the progressive narrative of science and technology policy.”

b. “The phrase “science progress” is, arguably, a bit awkward. … It reminds us that we are the inheritors of the Enlightenment’s confidence in the possibility of improving the human condition—a possibility predicated on values of individual freedom, social equality, and democratic solidarity,…”
Time for Science to Reclaim Its Progressive Roots

c. 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.

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

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-scienti&#64257;c justi&#64257;cations 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?





4. 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 | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

a. Nuclear power plants? 70 % of scientists favor, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 45% of Democrats Ibid.

b. 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? - Reason.com

5. “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: The Audacious Epigone: Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are

a. Razib Khan reanalyzed the data and found that conservatives and liberals are roughly equal in their knowledge of science, but that both are more knowledgeable than moderates.
Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p. 212.



So….Republicans/conservatives less science literate or knowledgeable? Hardly. But do Democrats/liberals win the decibel battle…..seems likely.

41% of Democrats are young Earth Creationists, what do you expect?

The right is far more Christian than the left, hence, The Christian Right, a repository for Christian fundamentalists, who are also usually creationists. Has the existence if this political sect slipped your mind? Christianity tends to breed anti-science views. Therefore, the right contains more people with anti-science views than the left, falsifying the OP.

I don't have a source to back up my premises, but if they are true, the conclusion follows. I'm on my iPhone and at work. Will do the legwork later and provide evidence for my premises, putting a nail on the coffin of yet another idiotic thread by PC.

 

[Ernie S.]

Most telling of the OP is this bit.

[5]a. Razib Khan reanalyzed the data and found that conservatives and liberals are roughly equal in their knowledge of science, but that both are more knowledgeable than moderates.

Hey Jake Starkey! What do you think?

 

[Koios]

'Anti-Science?'...Who...Me???

Yes; unequivocally. The fact you have to even ask, should be telling.

 

[newpolitics]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/republicans-democrats-differ-creationism.aspx

"Republicans, Democrats Differ on Creationism
Republicans much more likely than Democrats to believe humans created as-is 10,000 years ago
by Frank Newport


PRINCETON, NJ -- There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats."

There you have it. Republicans are far more creationist than Democrats.

 

[Ernie S.]

1. We political addicts live on the battlefront. There is a progressive army whose weapons are seductive, but fallacious, seemingly logical arguments. Round after round they fire, and, having the media support, convince the uninformed due to the overwhelming numbers who are repeating the same comments, over and over. Perhaps it helps to recognize the different battalions: sensationalizing-media, climate-hawk bloggers, anti-religion fanatics, political think-tankers.





2. Progressives regularly claim that it is their beliefs that are based on science, and that conservatives are anti-science….even claiming that progressivism and science are one and the same, or they may conflate technological progress with political progressivism.

a. Far-Leftists at the Center for American Progress have a website called Science Progress They claim: “Through this work we are building piece by piece the progressive narrative of science and technology policy.”

b. “The phrase “science progress” is, arguably, a bit awkward. … It reminds us that we are the inheritors of the Enlightenment’s confidence in the possibility of improving the human condition—a possibility predicated on values of individual freedom, social equality, and democratic solidarity,…”
Time for Science to Reclaim Its Progressive Roots

c. 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.

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

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-scienti&#64257;c justi&#64257;cations 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?





4. 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 | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

a. Nuclear power plants? 70 % of scientists favor, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 45% of Democrats Ibid.

b. 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? - Reason.com

5. “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: The Audacious Epigone: Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are

a. Razib Khan reanalyzed the data and found that conservatives and liberals are roughly equal in their knowledge of science, but that both are more knowledgeable than moderates.
Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p. 212.



So….Republicans/conservatives less science literate or knowledgeable? Hardly. But do Democrats/liberals win the decibel battle…..seems likely.

41% of Democrats are young Earth Creationists, what do you expect?

The right is far more Christian than the left, hence, The Christian Right, a repository for Christian fundamentalists, who are also usually creationists. Has the existence if this political sect slipped your mind? Christianity tends to breed anti-science views. Therefore, the right contains more people with anti-science views than the left, falsifying the OP.

I don't have a source to back up my premises, but if they are true, the conclusion follows. I'm on my iPhone and at work. Will do the legwork later and provide evidence for my premises, putting a nail on the coffin of yet another idiotic thread by PC.

First, I really don't think the right is substantially more religious than the left. Sure, there are Christian fundamentalists on the right. There are thousands of black congregations, especially in the South that could be considered fundamentalists.
Creationists? I believe I've read that they are pretty much evenly spread between parties.
So your premise that "the right contains more people with anti-science views than the left." is bullshit.

Of course, I don't have a source to back up my premises, but if they are true, the conclusion follows.

 

[newpolitics]

You'd be wrong, on both accounts. The right is both more Christian, and more creationist.

"Republicans Remain Disproportionately White and Religious
Democrats are more racially and ethnically diverse, and less religious
by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- About 9 out of 10 Republicans are non-Hispanic whites, and more than half of these are highly religious. That compares with 62% of the Democratic rank-and-file that is white and largely less religious, with blacks and Hispanics making up a much more substantial part of that party's base."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142826/republicans-remain-disproportionately-white-religious.aspx

 

[Ernie S.]

You'd be wrong, on both accounts. The right is both more Christian, and more creationist.

"Republicans Remain Disproportionately White and Religious
Democrats are more racially and ethnically diverse, and less religious
by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- About 9 out of 10 Republicans are non-Hispanic whites, and more than half of these are highly religious. That compares with 62% of the Democratic rank-and-file that is white and largely less religious, with blacks and Hispanics making up a much more substantial part of that party's base."

Republicans Remain Disproportionately White and Religious

Firstly the 38% of the Democrat party that is not white is considerably more religious than the average white Republican. I'm thinking it would be a wash as to which party is more religious, then that isn't what the thread is about, is it. Go back to the OP and reread points 4 and 5. Refute if you can.

 

[newpolitics]

You'd be wrong, on both accounts. The right is both more Christian, and more creationist.

"Republicans Remain Disproportionately White and Religious
Democrats are more racially and ethnically diverse, and less religious
by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- About 9 out of 10 Republicans are non-Hispanic whites, and more than half of these are highly religious. That compares with 62% of the Democratic rank-and-file that is white and largely less religious, with blacks and Hispanics making up a much more substantial part of that party's base."

Republicans Remain Disproportionately White and Religious

Firstly the 38% of the Democrat party that is not white is considerably more religious than the average white Republican. I'm thinking it would be a wash as to which party is more religious, then that isn't what the thread is about, is it. Go back to the OP and reread points 4 and 5. Refute if you can.

What does that mean, "more religious"? That is meaningless. Be more specific and provide some sources. It is not a wash as to which party is more religious, as I just demonstrated with two sources, yet you just ignore this and reassert your position. It's ridiculous. I will deal with the 4 and 5 next.

 

[newpolitics]

The OP was about scientific literacy. It wouldn't be hard to argue, based in the statistics I just posted, that republicans are less scientifically literate because they more are religious, which tends to breed anti-science views. Measuring this directly is a tough thing to do, but measuring religiosity is not an has been done and shown here. More religious populations tend to reject the sciences involved with evolutionary biology and Big Bang cosmology, cherry-picking the science that suits them.

 

[Ernie S.]

You'd be wrong, on both accounts. The right is both more Christian, and more creationist.

"Republicans Remain Disproportionately White and Religious
Democrats are more racially and ethnically diverse, and less religious
by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- About 9 out of 10 Republicans are non-Hispanic whites, and more than half of these are highly religious. That compares with 62% of the Democratic rank-and-file that is white and largely less religious, with blacks and Hispanics making up a much more substantial part of that party's base."

Republicans Remain Disproportionately White and Religious

Firstly the 38% of the Democrat party that is not white is considerably more religious than the average white Republican. I'm thinking it would be a wash as to which party is more religious, then that isn't what the thread is about, is it. Go back to the OP and reread points 4 and 5. Refute if you can.

What does that mean, "more religious"? That is meaningless. Be more specific and provide some sources. It is not a wash as to which party is more religious, as I just demonstrated with two sources, yet you just ignore this and reassert your position. It's ridiculous. I will deal with the 4 and 5 next.

Blacks and Hispanics are, as a rule more apt to attend Church regularly and call themselves devout than your average white Republican.

If you really want, I will hunt down sources, but it is rather common knowledge.