Pew Poll: 6% of Scientists are Republicans

[auditor0007]

I think Romeny will have a good shot. I supported him this past election and will so again in 2012 if he runs. I do think though, that Jeb Bush still could become a viable candidate if Obama really tanks, but it would have to be tanking of epic proportions for most people to vote for another Bush. If Jeb didn't have his brother's last name though, he would be the front runner right now.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zydAs5bRW1U]YouTube - The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again - Live 8[/ame]

Jeb is not George, not even close. But again, he has that name.

 

[elvis]

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".

there is no politics in science, so for example, when, in the 1890s it was proven in the United states, that the anglo-saxon race was superior to all others based on the sizes of their craniums, that wasn't political at all.

 

[Modbert]

You gotta be nuts!!

How are you defining "far right"???

Those who believe we should go back to teaching the bible in school. Those who want anything that is anti-Christian to be changed by any means. Those who feel that the bible should be used more in our law-making. Those who believe there should be no gun control at all. Those who feel Atheism should be banned. There are of course other ways to define far right. It of course revolves around obsession to religion and some right wing views.

 

[Modbert]

LOL
the size of the population would not effect the percentages
LOL

I was referring if a poll was taken about approval today, what would be the result.

 

[Modbert]

there is no politics in science, so for example, when, in the 1890s it was proven in the United states, that the anglo-saxon race was superior to all others based on the sizes of their craniums, that wasn't political at all.

Go read The Great Influenza by John B. Morris. Science in the US was a joke back in the 1890s and highly inferior to Europe. Any person who wanted to be a legitimate doctor or scientist went to learn in Europe and came back here.

 

[elvis]

50,000 Americans killed under Truman vs 4000 killed under bush,
truman's approval rating could be in the single digits.

 

[Oddball]

there is no politics in science, so for example, when, in the 1890s it was proven in the United states, that the anglo-saxon race was superior to all others based on the sizes of their craniums, that wasn't political at all.

That's not the kind of politics I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is the politics of telling academic "peers" what they "know" in order to get their stamps of approval.

 

[elvis]

there is no politics in science, so for example, when, in the 1890s it was proven in the United states, that the anglo-saxon race was superior to all others based on the sizes of their craniums, that wasn't political at all.

Go read The Great Influenza by John B. Morris. Science in the US was a joke back in the 1890s and highly inferior to Europe. Any person who wanted to be a legitimate doctor or scientist went to learn in Europe and came back here.

It was proven in Europe as well. For example, the German scientists had believed such things long before Hitler. when Nazi Germany came into being, the racial scientists were not forces to do the research.

 

[elvis]

there is no politics in science, so for example, when, in the 1890s it was proven in the United states, that the anglo-saxon race was superior to all others based on the sizes of their craniums, that wasn't political at all.

That's not the kind of politics I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is the politics of telling academic "peers" what they "know" in order to get their stamps of approval.

I was being facetious.

 

[Modbert]

Jeb is not George, not even close. But again, he has that name.

Whether it's true or not (I believe it's obvious true) Jeb helped his brother win Florida to some extent back in 2000. That wouldn't sit well with voters. Besides, I would hope by now that Americans are sick of Bushes/Clintons in office.

If Jeb wins in 2012 for example.

From Early 1989 to Early 2016, we would of had 27 years or so. 23 of those with Bushes/Clintons.

 

[Modbert]

It was proven in Europe as well. For example, the German scientists had believed such things long before Hitler. when Nazi Germany came into being, the racial scientists were not forces to do the research.

That's certain scientists for sure. I know you're being facetious but still. It's unfair to those scientists who have been doing legitimate science during those years to judge them by the racists.

 

[Oddball]

Those who believe we should go back to teaching the bible in school. Those who want anything that is anti-Christian to be changed by any means. Those who feel that the bible should be used more in our law-making. Those who believe there should be no gun control at all. Those who feel Atheism should be banned. There are of course other ways to define far right. It of course revolves around obsession to religion and some right wing views.

Absent the gun control issue, what's "far right" about using the tools of big government aggression to impose one's will upon everyone else??.....That's more the tactic of the fervent secularist far left.

And I've been around enough republican types to know that those fundies are nowhere near the majority of the party.

 

[elvis]

It was proven in Europe as well. For example, the German scientists had believed such things long before Hitler. when Nazi Germany came into being, the racial scientists were not forces to do the research.

That's certain scientists for sure. I know you're being facetious but still. It's unfair to those scientists who have been doing legitimate science during those years to judge them by the racists.

What I'm saying is politics has always been present in science. in the 1890's, it led to "White Man's Burden,"

 

[Modbert]

50,000 Americans killed under Truman vs 4000 killed under bush,
truman's approval rating could be in the single digits.

Luckily it wasn't higher under Bush. It thanks to the advancements in technology, and medical science that all these lives were saved. It's sad though that many of these wounded soldiers will never be able to walk again, and we really have no solution to fix that problem yet.

 

[Oddball]

there is no politics in science, so for example, when, in the 1890s it was proven in the United states, that the anglo-saxon race was superior to all others based on the sizes of their craniums, that wasn't political at all.

That's not the kind of politics I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is the politics of telling academic "peers" what they "know" in order to get their stamps of approval.

I was being facetious.

I thought so, but the medium doesn't lend itself to certain indicative cues, so I figgered I'd spell it out for everyone else.

 

[Oddball]

It was proven in Europe as well. For example, the German scientists had believed such things long before Hitler. when Nazi Germany came into being, the racial scientists were not forces to do the research.

That's certain scientists for sure. I know you're being facetious but still. It's unfair to those scientists who have been doing legitimate science during those years to judge them by the racists.

The racists are only an example of what a political echo chamber "science" can be.

Just ask Galileo.

 

[Modbert]

Absent the gun control issue, what's "far right" about using the tools of big government aggression to impose one's will upon everyone else??.....That's more the tactic of the fervent secularist far left.

And I've been around enough republican types to know that those fundies are nowhere near the majority of the party.

I'm not saying they are a majority of the party or nowhere near. However, even the not so far right are a good chunk of the base.

I mean back in 1992 (the numbers would probably be much more higher now), Pat Robertson got over 1 million votes. There really has been no candidate to determine how much of the Republican party is FAR right since then. IF Palin were to run in 2012, she'd probably be the best indicator since than.

 

[Modbert]

The racists are only an example of what a political echo chamber "science" can be.

Just ask Galileo.

Wasn't that more religious than political however? I mean the Church did run things at the time, and all but still.

 

[Oddball]

Absent the gun control issue, what's "far right" about using the tools of big government aggression to impose one's will upon everyone else??.....That's more the tactic of the fervent secularist far left.

And I've been around enough republican types to know that those fundies are nowhere near the majority of the party.

I'm not saying they are a majority of the party or nowhere near. However, even the not so far right are a good chunk of the base.

I mean back in 1992 (the numbers would probably be much more higher now), Pat Robertson got over 1 million votes. There really has been no candidate to determine how much of the Republican party is FAR right since then.

Once again, you're defining "far right" as people who use classic coercion tactics of the left.

The context is irrelevant to the employment of the proactive use of aggression.

 

[Modbert]

Once again, you're defining "far right" as people who use classic coercion tactics of the left.

The context is irrelevant to the employment of the proactive use of aggression.

You're being partisan by saying these are classic tactics by the left and the left alone. These are classic tactics by extremes of any group/belief/party. I also feel you're being unfair to Liberals such as myself because I'm not classifying the actions of those in the extreme Right wing as simply the "right".