Oh, I get it. Because "science" has gotten too "Liberal"

[Truthmatters]

Because there are still racists like you tank

 

[percysunshine]

The scientists your side touts ....

There is no side to science.

You are a newbie to this debate.

 

[Tank]

Laboratory Equipment - S&E Workplace Becoming Increasingly Diverse

Looks like blacks and hispanics are more than double the number you pulled out your butt.

Actually, it's possible they are "double" the mere 6% of Republicans. Maybe that's why they have black and Hispanic and gay and women organizations of "science", but none I could find of Republicans. Maybe there aren't enough Republican scientists to start one? Oops!

This is the percent of how many scientist work for the federal government, these are affirmitive action scientists.

It's like bragging about how many blacks work at the post office.

 

[rdean]

Its the right who seek out the few scientists who are paid to talk crap about GW and claim they are right over the vast majority of the scientific community.

Its the right who USE science.

How funny you dont see that CG

Both sides USE science, you total moron. Science is beyond political views and should not be influenced by politics. It's the left with their use of GW to promote political agendas that I object to, not the science. Of course, one does need to have some political and scientific integrity to understand that. Since you - and rdean - lack both, I do not expect you to understand it.

I'm sure you want to take that statement back.

Science is NOT beyond politics and it should never be. Should scientists merge ape and human genes to make a "better worker"? Or a "better athlete"? Should science clone people to harvest their organs? Science has to be guided by human morals.

The problem is right wingers get their morals out of a book that teaches them to hate gays and put women in their place and supports slavery. They have no morals beyond what they read out of a book written by primitives thousands of years ago.

 

[rdean]

Its the right who seek out the few scientists who are paid to talk crap about GW and claim they are right over the vast majority of the scientific community.

Its the right who USE science.

How funny you dont see that CG

Both sides USE science, you total moron. Science is beyond political views and should not be influenced by politics. It's the left with their use of GW to promote political agendas that I object to, not the science. Of course, one does need to have some political and scientific integrity to understand that. Since you - and rdean - lack both, I do not expect you to understand it.

You are right to a point, the left uses real science to guide their decisions and the right uses fringe science to hang onto their failed ideas.

I dont mind using real science to make decisions, in fact that is the smart thing to do.

Using fringe science to battle REAL science for political purposses is what the right does.

Actually, my viewpoint is that science is a two way street. Knowledge from science should be used to make informed decisions, however, some science needs to be guided by ethics, and ethics are strictly human.

 

[rdean]

The scientists your side touts ....

There is no side to science.

You are a newbie to this debate.

Oh yes there is. Science can be the most dangerous thing on earth and requires serious human guidance.

I can't believe both right and left are missing this very important issue.

 

[percysunshine]

The scientists your side touts ....

There is no side to science.

You are a newbie to this debate.

Oh yes there is. Science can be the most dangerous thing on earth and requires serious human guidance.

I can't believe both right and left are missing this very important issue.

Learning about the human environment is a dangerous thing.

I think we should all be stupid.

 

[Truthmatters]

science is not dangerous but mans inability to use the knowledge for mutual good instead of personal gain is dangerous.

Which is why it so evil to play with science for political reasons.

Accept science instead of trying to drag it along to your political advantage.

 

[Samson]

Its the right who USE science.

And "the left" does not USE science

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which is odd since black people are the FIRST people.

Tools may offer clues to earlier migration from Africa

USATODAY.com

Hey genius.

Just because mankind originated in Africa that does not mean that they were black at the time.

And you guys call me a fool? Ha ha ha ha ho ho ho ha ha tee hee giggle giggle (small burp) - now wiping tears from eyes.

Thanks, I needed that.

I know that Wikipedia states that everyone had darker skins like it is an accepted fact, but that is not quite true. Paleontology tells us that our earliest ancestors were actually pretty hairy. I would also like to point out that Africa is full of people who are not black, and that some of them have been there since civilization began.

 

[Sadismyname]

There is so much liberal use of the word liberal these days it makes me wonder why the -ral is used in the spelling

 

[AllieBaba]

Dumbest. Thread. Ever.

 

[Intense]

science is not dangerous but mans inability to use the knowledge for mutual good instead of personal gain is dangerous.

Which is why it so evil to play with science for political reasons.

Accept science instead of trying to drag it along to your political advantage.

I think you have that confused with Good V.S. Evil Sparky.

 

[percysunshine]

Dumbest. Thread. Ever.

That is a very high hurdle. US foreign policy is dumber than this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Right wingers insist that it's not possible that only 6% of scientists are "Republican".

The reasons:

1. It can't be.

2. It's not possible.

3. Science has become too liberal.

4. Republican scientists are afraid to be "outed".

5. Republican scientists only work in "industry".

6. Republican scientists aren't "political".

When I point out that 97% of scientists believe in the Theory of Evolution, then that means only 3% of Republican scientists believe in "mystical creation".

With numbers this dismal, do Republicans think they can take a leadership position in education or science?

Which is why this is in the "humor" section. Because it's a "joke" to think there are more than 6%.

Did I upset you again? The US population is approximately 20% liberal and 40% conservative. Let me see if I can explain the math to you. It is statistically impossible to take any random sampling of that population and end up with only 6% conservatives. If you knew anything about math you would know that.

Uh huh, sure. Explain why that is.

You guys agree with PEW when it's something you "agree with". When it's not, you call it "statistically impossible" - which in Republican speak means, "I don't care what the evidence is, I refuse to believe it because I don't want to". In the mean time, don't you have an abortion to stop? School lunches for poor children to "phase out"? An oil company to apologize to?

I never just agree with surveys, I just see them as data points. You are the one that picks and chooses what to believe and what to reject, hence your outright rejection of the Pew Research Center survey that shows that Democrats are more likely to believe Jesus will return by 2050 than Republicans.

As for explaining the math. Let us say that you have a drawer full of 100 unmatched socks, and half of them are white, and the other half are black. How many socks would you have to pull out to be sure you had a single pair of socks that matched if you had no light at all?

The correct answer to that is 3, which is obvious if you think about it. There would be no way to pull out 3 socks without having at least 2 of them match. Now we get a little trickier. Suppose you want to have a pair of white socks, how many socks would you have to pull out to be statistically sure that you had a pair of white socks?

Think about this for a bit. If I wanted to be absolutely certain that I had a single pair of white socks I would have to pull out 52 socks, because it is theoretically possible that I could actually reach into that drawer and randomly select 50 black socks. However, if I wanted to actually pull out 50 black socks in the dark I would have to pull out all of the socks, because it would be statistically impossible to pull out 50 black socks.

Personally, I would pull out 6 socks, and be confident that at least two of them were white. If I was having a run of especially bad luck I might go for 10, but it approaches statistical zero that I could pull out that many and not get a single pair of the color I want.

The same thing works with people and sampling them. Approximately 35.4% of the US population identifies themselves as Republican, 35% identify themselves as Democratic, and the remaining group is made of up decline to state, independent, or something else.

That Pew poll you like so much shows a much different political distribution. Instead of being roughly evenly divided among the three groups, scientists are overwhelmingly Democratic. Even if you want to argue that republicans are inherently anti science, you still have to explain the fact that they outnumber independents/other by such a large margin. In fact, independents are almost exactly where they would be in a normal sampling of the population, but Democrats are occur at twice the statistical rate, and Republicans occur at a 6th of the normal rate.

This is statistically impossible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Its the right who seek out the few scientists who are paid to talk crap about GW and claim they are right over the vast majority of the scientific community.

Its the right who USE science.

How funny you dont see that CG

So, when the left ignored common sense and science to attack Toyota, that was not them using science. When the left ignores common sense and science to argue that power lines cause cancer that is not them using science. When Al Gore says the Artic Ice Sheet will melt by 2035, ignoring both common sense and science, he is not using science.

Politics and science do not mix, period. You continually ignore the fact that both sides use politics, and science, for their own ends.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rdean's problem is that he cannot comprehend really basic stuff like.... science is apolitical. No scientist should be so ingrained in any political view that he allows those opinions (because that's what politics is... opinion) to influence the results of any scientific study.

By the evidence provided by rdean, research suggests that he is a partisan hack who is absolutely clueless about science.

Actually, the reason scientists even bother with cross country peer review is to limit the influence of culture on their research.

With right wingers, they already have all the answers they need. That's why they don't need such things as "data, research, study or even education".

I hate to break it to you, but the only science that has to worry about culture influencing its findings is so adamantly liberal that it is way to late for them to worry about it.

Don't worry about it though,m the situation will correct itself eventually.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Its the right who seek out the few scientists who are paid to talk crap about GW and claim they are right over the vast majority of the scientific community.

Its the right who USE science.

How funny you dont see that CG

Both sides USE science, you total moron. Science is beyond political views and should not be influenced by politics. It's the left with their use of GW to promote political agendas that I object to, not the science. Of course, one does need to have some political and scientific integrity to understand that. Since you - and rdean - lack both, I do not expect you to understand it.

I'm sure you want to take that statement back.

Science is NOT beyond politics and it should never be. Should scientists merge ape and human genes to make a "better worker"? Or a "better athlete"? Should science clone people to harvest their organs? Science has to be guided by human morals.

The problem is right wingers get their morals out of a book that teaches them to hate gays and put women in their place and supports slavery. They have no morals beyond what they read out of a book written by primitives thousands of years ago.

There is your problem rdean. There is a significant difference between politics and ethics. or morality. What you are talking about is ethics, not politics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Both sides USE science, you total moron. Science is beyond political views and should not be influenced by politics. It's the left with their use of GW to promote political agendas that I object to, not the science. Of course, one does need to have some political and scientific integrity to understand that. Since you - and rdean - lack both, I do not expect you to understand it.

You are right to a point, the left uses real science to guide their decisions and the right uses fringe science to hang onto their failed ideas.

I dont mind using real science to make decisions, in fact that is the smart thing to do.

Using fringe science to battle REAL science for political purposses is what the right does.

Actually, my viewpoint is that science is a two way street. Knowledge from science should be used to make informed decisions, however, some science needs to be guided by ethics, and ethics are strictly human.

Are you saying that the book was written by something that was not human?

 

[rdean]

Both sides USE science, you total moron. Science is beyond political views and should not be influenced by politics. It's the left with their use of GW to promote political agendas that I object to, not the science. Of course, one does need to have some political and scientific integrity to understand that. Since you - and rdean - lack both, I do not expect you to understand it.

I'm sure you want to take that statement back.

Science is NOT beyond politics and it should never be. Should scientists merge ape and human genes to make a "better worker"? Or a "better athlete"? Should science clone people to harvest their organs? Science has to be guided by human morals.

The problem is right wingers get their morals out of a book that teaches them to hate gays and put women in their place and supports slavery. They have no morals beyond what they read out of a book written by primitives thousands of years ago.

There is your problem rdean. There is a significant difference between politics and ethics. or morality. What you are talking about is ethics, not politics.

Morality and ethics are not the same thing. Republicans consider themselves very moral yet have zero ethics. It's why they can vote for a Speaker of the House who passes out bribes or apologize to BP or make a women give birth but suggest starving the child is "OK".