8 ms·

>For now, 314 Action will only back Democratic candidates. Great. When you're being accused of being partisan, the best way to come back is to form an organiza

by hueving 10y ago

>For now, 314 Action will only back Democratic candidates. Great. When you're being accused of being partisan, the best way to come back is to form an organization backing potential political candidates of just one party. What a joke. This is a squandered opportunity to try to get scientific minded people into running for the republican seats, which is how you would get real change in the discourse. Anyone who thinks there aren't fiscally conservative scientists out there who want to shape the Republican party into something better is deluding themselves.

mkaziz 10y ago
Considering how anti-science republicans tend to be, I'm not surprised.
- mac01021 10y ago
  They may tend to be, but they are not universally so. And the appearance of partisan bias is much easier to avoid if you have at least one guy from each party.
- maverick_iceman 10y ago
  You forget that Bernie Sanders wants mandatory labeling of GMO foods. That's also anti-science scaremongering.
  - virmundi 10y ago
    Why is it scaremongering? Why should consumers not be informed what's in their food? We're told how many carbs something has. This allows keto followers to chose accordingly. We're told if it's kosher. This allows Jews and Muslims and people with taste to choose accordingly. We label the ingredients at a chemical level. This allows consumers to pick the types of fats or sweeteners. Why should we exclude stock/source information from the consumer?
    - Retra 10y ago
      It's scare-mongering because all food is GMO food. There's no reason to put "GMO" on it except to scare people who have an irrational fear of it.
    - knodi123 10y ago
      > Why is it scaremongering? Because, like it or not, a label that says "note, this product contains acids" would alarm many people who would immediately ask themselves "Wait, why do they need to tell me that? Better just play it safe." > Why should we exclude stock/source information from the consumer? It's not about hiding information, it's about the regrettable fact that mandatory labelling communicates a lot more than just the words on the label.
      - virmundi 10y ago
        I know the science of genetics (as well as a layman should). I read Super Pigs and Wonder Corn as child. I'm actually pro-genetic engineering. What I don't know, because I don't have source data, is what will spliced in gene based foods (that's what I mean by GMO, not the equivocation straw man people throw up in the Mendel sense) do to both the human GI tract and to the environment at a macro level. Until then, I'd like the option of "noping" out. Just the option. I might not even do it because as Stewie says, "They say star light gives your cancer, but what doesn't these days?" I just want the option. Scientists have come along and said, "Stupid layman, trust us. Of course we're just like those people who said use lead in paint, then in gas, and advocated for Asbestos". That' not scientific. I want to see the data. Until then, my default is skepticism, you know the rational default [1]. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_movement
        RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
        You last paragraph, but for a few words would be the exact same thing I expect to hear from a climate change "skeptic"
        10y ago
  - Pxtl 10y ago
    Bernie Sanders is hardly the mainstream democratic party. He barely considers himself part of it. Anti-scientific attitudes on global warming are mainstream among Republican leadership, while fringe among Democrats.
  - tzs 10y ago
    Wanting labeling is not anti-science. GMO is a tool. It is itself neither good nor bad, neither safe nor unsafe. Those who wish to do good can use GMO to do great good. It is more powerful than non-GMO methods, and so potentially can let them do greater good than they can with traditional methods such as selective breeding. The same holds for those who wish to do bad things. They can currently do bad things with selective breeding and other non-GMO methods. GMO gives them more power to more extreme bad things and do them faster. The question of whether such foods should be labeled comes down to whether or not there will be those who will GMO for bad things, and if so whether or not consumers who wish to avoid those bad things should be given the information to do so. Science is completely silent on how to answer this question. Looking at the foods that fill a typical American supermarket, I do not find myself confident that the major food companies have my long term best interests at the top of their priority list when they design a new food product.
- jonwachob91 10y ago
  Yes, b/c republican's aren't allowed to believe in climate change and scientist aren't allowed to believe in small government, power to the states, and that the constitution is not a living document...
  - justinlaster 10y ago
    No one said they weren't allowed. It's just exceedingly unlikely that as a scientist you would align yourself with a political party that has had a staunch anti-science platform for the past two decades.
    - ocschwar 10y ago
      Key words: past two decades. I remember the days before their descent to this insanity.
  - mkaziz 10y ago
    By Republicans, I didn't mean your average Joe who votes Republican, but people running for office who have to toe the party/big-donor line (regardless of what they believe) or else lose access to support/funding. I highly doubt all Republicans in Congress don't believe in climate change. But they say what they have to say in order to get the votes they need to stay in Congress, and while they keep saying that, it doesn't make sense for a pro-science group to support them or their ilk.
wnevets 10y ago
With facts now being banned by the current republican white house, is this really a surprise?
croon 10y ago
When science is a partisan issue, what else can you do?
- tomjen3 10y ago
  Right, but then why would you back a party that hates GMOs and vaccines?
  - knodi123 10y ago
    because you're not a single-issue voter, and you agree with the majority of their policies and are actually trying to pull them in a less-extreme direction? Seriously, your argument is just the party-level version of "why would you run for office in america, a country that elected someone who denies climate change and says vaccines cause autism?" Easy - to lead them in a positive direction!
  - Pxtl 10y ago
    iirc a study found that the majority of anti-vax folks avoid them for religious reasons and the naturalistic fallacy conspiracy theory anti-vaxxers are actually the minority.
- mjolk 10y ago
  This is delivered a bit to dry for me to know if I should laugh.
  - croon 10y ago
    Depends, are you into gallows humor or not?
- virmundi 10y ago
  First, realize that science is not just a partisan issue. The liberals in the United States hate science just as much when it's not on their side. They don't reason things through. I can't find it but there was an NPR story about a teach whose black students performed worse than the white students. The school's response, "Racist test!" The teacher reviewed the test, found nothing racist and looked further. The school was a bit peevish, but couldn't stop him since he was doing it on his own dime. The end result? The black students were all lead poisoned from their homes. The teacher worked with local clinics for free treatment and local rehabs to mitigate the lead in the houses. At the end of the year, the black students dramatically improved. That is science. Test a hypothesis with data. You need to look for people in ALL parties that will listen to you. I could be such a person in the Republican party. I haven't been an official member since I ran a campaign for Coroner in South Bend at 18. I agree with them far more the Democrats. I also think that the party has left its core tenant of "Do what you want, but not on my lawn or public." Publicly attacking half of the voting populace by explicitly excluding them from any consideration is a) impolite and b) un-fucking-scientific.
maxxxxx 10y ago
If anything they should be happy to get scientifically minded people from any party. This seems stupid from the start.
jackmott 10y ago
The republican party is simply unacceptable on many levels for any intelligent, honest person. I realize that you, like many people, simply do not see it that way, and imagine that there is some kind of equivalence or near equivalence in how corrupt and crazy both parties are, but most of us don't. What we are seeing is horrific, a party that is against reason and goodness and civility at almost every step. They picked a rapist trust fund baby autocrat as their leader. He is now our president. So yes, we are going to be partisan. We wouldn't be allowed to run as a republican if we were 'fiscally conservative' but felt that gays should be treated as people, refugees with compassion, women with respect, the environment with car, and that religion was crazy. Furthermore anyone with a scientific bent would look at the empirical evidence provided by other nations with good standards of living and economic freedom and NOT BE fiscally conservative in the way the republican party is. It has no evidence supporting its efficacy!
- philh 10y ago
  > The republican party is simply unacceptable on many levels for any intelligent, honest person. > I realize that you, like many people, simply do not see it that way, Are you saying that hueving is not an intelligent, honest person?
  - seszett 10y ago
    I don't actually see any support for the Republican party in hueving's post.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  What you are advocating sounds like fundamentalism. That's a bad starting point for objectivity.
  - Retra 10y ago
    What part of that sounds like fundamentalism?
- Arizhel 10y ago
MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
But if the official party platform includes climate change denial and other explicitly anti-science positions, wouldn't it just be a waste of time and money to try to put up candidates who the party would refuse? Sure, it worked for Trump, but I think he's an exception - good luck finding conservative scientists with his particular mix of personality traits and pre-existing celebrity status (and perceived business acumen). More broadly I think the "changing the party from the inside" tack is a dead end, especially for the Republican party whose power actors seem to only ever double down on their positions and tactics.
cryoshon 10y ago
scientists are liberals, almost exclusively. there are a few oddballs who aren't financially liberal, and a few oddballs who aren't socially liberal-- but we're talking like 1/100 for each of those cases. realistically, most of the scientists i've ever met would fall into the green party best, but hold their nose and vote democratic party because it's the closest they'll get to actually liberal policies. >to get scientific minded people into running for the republican seats the republican electorate is largely anti-intellectual and distrustful of scientists, so that won't work. i don't mean to be dismissive here... but it just isn't going to work because of the culture. no way, no how-- those people are not accessible by the eggheads. i guess if you got a climate denier or creation scientist or some other quack out there, it might work... but that would defeat the point. i do agree that the only way we'll survive is by driving a wedge within the republican party so that they don't vote as a unified bloc consistently. i'm really not sure what demographic to go after in order to make that happen, though.
- Arizhel 10y ago
  There isn't one. A scientist (a non-quack one at least) running on the Republican ticket would be wasting his time. The Republican voters do not care for science (esp. anything that contradicts their worldview), and insist on anyone they vote for being highly and openly religious. That's not going to work too well for scientists, even if they were fiscally conservative.
nkoren 10y ago
Agreed. By most metrics I am very liberal (although am orthogonal to the left/right axis by some metrics), and I would love to see Republican primaries jammed up with intellectually honest science-believing fiscal conservatives. And should any of them make it through the primaries, I would be double plus thrilled to see a contest between two people who weren't batshit insane. We really, really need this. Having one party be the designated party of batshit insanity, and the other party be the party of... well, not much, aside from non-batshit-insanity... is very bad for society. It does nothing to promote good civic dialog, and holds the second party to an incredibly low standard. Don't get me wrong: on average I want is for Democrats to win, but I'd say that America really needs is more sanity amongst Republicans.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  Agreed. What happens if we get rid of the Republican party? Those same groups will coalesce as factions within the Democratic party and politics will just be more obscured. The single-party South didn't do anyone favors. I think people are of the mindset that the Democratic party doesn't share a lot of the same issues. The Clinton coalition worked because it was full of conservative Democrats. As an example, how's this for mixing religion and politics? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5NsrSPMGnc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5NsrSPMGnc
  - nkoren 10y ago
    Parties become problematic when their tents gets too big: the central organising principle become personality-driven factions. The Democratic party may already have this problem. When push came to shove, the DNC's core concept of itself was as a machine for getting Clinton elected -- even during the primaries, when that absolutely shouldn't have been its mission. On a philosophical level, that's a pretty shitty organizing principle. No, there are some things that should not be claimed by any one party, because they are foundational to civilization. Science and rationality, for example. There are other things that should be staked out as party territory, so that the parties are based on differentiated principles rather than personalities. Personally, I'd love an America where rationality was considered foundational and in-your-face religiosity was a differentiating factor, rather than the other way around. Because honestly, that video made my skin crawl.
Practicality 10y ago
For what it's worth 314 Action is more about supporting 4 issues: http://www.314action.org/issues/ http://www.314action.org/issues/ The headline is a little misleading, but this isn't actually a "support scientists, in general, running for office," but rather "support specific scientists running for office who support the issues 314 wants to address."
mjmsmith 10y ago
You know how whenever there's a terrorist attack, Republicans are the first ones complaining that "good Muslims" aren't out there speaking out and condemning it? Why aren't all the "conservative scientists out there who want to shape the Republican party into something better" speaking out and condemning their party's continual assault on science?

by hueving 10y ago

mkaziz 10y ago

Considering how anti-science republicans tend to be, I'm not surprised.

mac01021 10y ago
They may tend to be, but they are not universally so. And the appearance of partisan bias is much easier to avoid if you have at least one guy from each party.
maverick_iceman 10y ago
You forget that Bernie Sanders wants mandatory labeling of GMO foods. That's also anti-science scaremongering.
- virmundi 10y ago
  Why is it scaremongering? Why should consumers not be informed what's in their food? We're told how many carbs something has. This allows keto followers to chose accordingly. We're told if it's kosher. This allows Jews and Muslims and people with taste to choose accordingly. We label the ingredients at a chemical level. This allows consumers to pick the types of fats or sweeteners. Why should we exclude stock/source information from the consumer?
  - Retra 10y ago
    It's scare-mongering because all food is GMO food. There's no reason to put "GMO" on it except to scare people who have an irrational fear of it.
  - knodi123 10y ago
    > Why is it scaremongering? Because, like it or not, a label that says "note, this product contains acids" would alarm many people who would immediately ask themselves "Wait, why do they need to tell me that? Better just play it safe." > Why should we exclude stock/source information from the consumer? It's not about hiding information, it's about the regrettable fact that mandatory labelling communicates a lot more than just the words on the label.
    - virmundi 10y ago
      I know the science of genetics (as well as a layman should). I read Super Pigs and Wonder Corn as child. I'm actually pro-genetic engineering. What I don't know, because I don't have source data, is what will spliced in gene based foods (that's what I mean by GMO, not the equivocation straw man people throw up in the Mendel sense) do to both the human GI tract and to the environment at a macro level. Until then, I'd like the option of "noping" out. Just the option. I might not even do it because as Stewie says, "They say star light gives your cancer, but what doesn't these days?" I just want the option. Scientists have come along and said, "Stupid layman, trust us. Of course we're just like those people who said use lead in paint, then in gas, and advocated for Asbestos". That' not scientific. I want to see the data. Until then, my default is skepticism, you know the rational default [1]. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_movement
      - RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
        You last paragraph, but for a few words would be the exact same thing I expect to hear from a climate change "skeptic"
        10y ago
- Pxtl 10y ago
  Bernie Sanders is hardly the mainstream democratic party. He barely considers himself part of it. Anti-scientific attitudes on global warming are mainstream among Republican leadership, while fringe among Democrats.
- tzs 10y ago
  Wanting labeling is not anti-science. GMO is a tool. It is itself neither good nor bad, neither safe nor unsafe. Those who wish to do good can use GMO to do great good. It is more powerful than non-GMO methods, and so potentially can let them do greater good than they can with traditional methods such as selective breeding. The same holds for those who wish to do bad things. They can currently do bad things with selective breeding and other non-GMO methods. GMO gives them more power to more extreme bad things and do them faster. The question of whether such foods should be labeled comes down to whether or not there will be those who will GMO for bad things, and if so whether or not consumers who wish to avoid those bad things should be given the information to do so. Science is completely silent on how to answer this question. Looking at the foods that fill a typical American supermarket, I do not find myself confident that the major food companies have my long term best interests at the top of their priority list when they design a new food product.
jonwachob91 10y ago
Yes, b/c republican's aren't allowed to believe in climate change and scientist aren't allowed to believe in small government, power to the states, and that the constitution is not a living document...
- justinlaster 10y ago
  No one said they weren't allowed. It's just exceedingly unlikely that as a scientist you would align yourself with a political party that has had a staunch anti-science platform for the past two decades.
  - ocschwar 10y ago
    Key words: past two decades. I remember the days before their descent to this insanity.
- mkaziz 10y ago
  By Republicans, I didn't mean your average Joe who votes Republican, but people running for office who have to toe the party/big-donor line (regardless of what they believe) or else lose access to support/funding. I highly doubt all Republicans in Congress don't believe in climate change. But they say what they have to say in order to get the votes they need to stay in Congress, and while they keep saying that, it doesn't make sense for a pro-science group to support them or their ilk.

wnevets 10y ago

With facts now being banned by the current republican white house, is this really a surprise?

croon 10y ago

When science is a partisan issue, what else can you do?

tomjen3 10y ago
Right, but then why would you back a party that hates GMOs and vaccines?
- knodi123 10y ago
  because you're not a single-issue voter, and you agree with the majority of their policies and are actually trying to pull them in a less-extreme direction? Seriously, your argument is just the party-level version of "why would you run for office in america, a country that elected someone who denies climate change and says vaccines cause autism?" Easy - to lead them in a positive direction!
- Pxtl 10y ago
  iirc a study found that the majority of anti-vax folks avoid them for religious reasons and the naturalistic fallacy conspiracy theory anti-vaxxers are actually the minority.
mjolk 10y ago
This is delivered a bit to dry for me to know if I should laugh.
- croon 10y ago
  Depends, are you into gallows humor or not?
virmundi 10y ago
First, realize that science is not just a partisan issue. The liberals in the United States hate science just as much when it's not on their side. They don't reason things through. I can't find it but there was an NPR story about a teach whose black students performed worse than the white students. The school's response, "Racist test!" The teacher reviewed the test, found nothing racist and looked further. The school was a bit peevish, but couldn't stop him since he was doing it on his own dime. The end result? The black students were all lead poisoned from their homes. The teacher worked with local clinics for free treatment and local rehabs to mitigate the lead in the houses. At the end of the year, the black students dramatically improved. That is science. Test a hypothesis with data. You need to look for people in ALL parties that will listen to you. I could be such a person in the Republican party. I haven't been an official member since I ran a campaign for Coroner in South Bend at 18. I agree with them far more the Democrats. I also think that the party has left its core tenant of "Do what you want, but not on my lawn or public." Publicly attacking half of the voting populace by explicitly excluding them from any consideration is a) impolite and b) un-fucking-scientific.

maxxxxx 10y ago

If anything they should be happy to get scientifically minded people from any party. This seems stupid from the start.

jackmott 10y ago

The republican party is simply unacceptable on many levels for any intelligent, honest person. I realize that you, like many people, simply do not see it that way, and imagine that there is some kind of equivalence or near equivalence in how corrupt and crazy both parties are, but most of us don't. What we are seeing is horrific, a party that is against reason and goodness and civility at almost every step. They picked a rapist trust fund baby autocrat as their leader. He is now our president. So yes, we are going to be partisan. We wouldn't be allowed to run as a republican if we were 'fiscally conservative' but felt that gays should be treated as people, refugees with compassion, women with respect, the environment with car, and that religion was crazy. Furthermore anyone with a scientific bent would look at the empirical evidence provided by other nations with good standards of living and economic freedom and NOT BE fiscally conservative in the way the republican party is. It has no evidence supporting its efficacy!

philh 10y ago
> The republican party is simply unacceptable on many levels for any intelligent, honest person. > I realize that you, like many people, simply do not see it that way, Are you saying that hueving is not an intelligent, honest person?
- seszett 10y ago
  I don't actually see any support for the Republican party in hueving's post.
aaron-lebo 10y ago
What you are advocating sounds like fundamentalism. That's a bad starting point for objectivity.
- Retra 10y ago
  What part of that sounds like fundamentalism?
Arizhel 10y ago

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago

But if the official party platform includes climate change denial and other explicitly anti-science positions, wouldn't it just be a waste of time and money to try to put up candidates who the party would refuse? Sure, it worked for Trump, but I think he's an exception - good luck finding conservative scientists with his particular mix of personality traits and pre-existing celebrity status (and perceived business acumen). More broadly I think the "changing the party from the inside" tack is a dead end, especially for the Republican party whose power actors seem to only ever double down on their positions and tactics.

cryoshon 10y ago

scientists are liberals, almost exclusively. there are a few oddballs who aren't financially liberal, and a few oddballs who aren't socially liberal-- but we're talking like 1/100 for each of those cases. realistically, most of the scientists i've ever met would fall into the green party best, but hold their nose and vote democratic party because it's the closest they'll get to actually liberal policies. >to get scientific minded people into running for the republican seats the republican electorate is largely anti-intellectual and distrustful of scientists, so that won't work. i don't mean to be dismissive here... but it just isn't going to work because of the culture. no way, no how-- those people are not accessible by the eggheads. i guess if you got a climate denier or creation scientist or some other quack out there, it might work... but that would defeat the point. i do agree that the only way we'll survive is by driving a wedge within the republican party so that they don't vote as a unified bloc consistently. i'm really not sure what demographic to go after in order to make that happen, though.

Arizhel 10y ago
There isn't one. A scientist (a non-quack one at least) running on the Republican ticket would be wasting his time. The Republican voters do not care for science (esp. anything that contradicts their worldview), and insist on anyone they vote for being highly and openly religious. That's not going to work too well for scientists, even if they were fiscally conservative.

nkoren 10y ago

Agreed. By most metrics I am very liberal (although am orthogonal to the left/right axis by some metrics), and I would love to see Republican primaries jammed up with intellectually honest science-believing fiscal conservatives. And should any of them make it through the primaries, I would be double plus thrilled to see a contest between two people who weren't batshit insane. We really, really need this. Having one party be the designated party of batshit insanity, and the other party be the party of... well, not much, aside from non-batshit-insanity... is very bad for society. It does nothing to promote good civic dialog, and holds the second party to an incredibly low standard. Don't get me wrong: on average I want is for Democrats to win, but I'd say that America really needs is more sanity amongst Republicans.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
Agreed. What happens if we get rid of the Republican party? Those same groups will coalesce as factions within the Democratic party and politics will just be more obscured. The single-party South didn't do anyone favors. I think people are of the mindset that the Democratic party doesn't share a lot of the same issues. The Clinton coalition worked because it was full of conservative Democrats. As an example, how's this for mixing religion and politics? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5NsrSPMGnc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5NsrSPMGnc
- nkoren 10y ago
  Parties become problematic when their tents gets too big: the central organising principle become personality-driven factions. The Democratic party may already have this problem. When push came to shove, the DNC's core concept of itself was as a machine for getting Clinton elected -- even during the primaries, when that absolutely shouldn't have been its mission. On a philosophical level, that's a pretty shitty organizing principle. No, there are some things that should not be claimed by any one party, because they are foundational to civilization. Science and rationality, for example. There are other things that should be staked out as party territory, so that the parties are based on differentiated principles rather than personalities. Personally, I'd love an America where rationality was considered foundational and in-your-face religiosity was a differentiating factor, rather than the other way around. Because honestly, that video made my skin crawl.

Practicality 10y ago

For what it's worth 314 Action is more about supporting 4 issues: http://www.314action.org/issues/ http://www.314action.org/issues/ The headline is a little misleading, but this isn't actually a "support scientists, in general, running for office," but rather "support specific scientists running for office who support the issues 314 wants to address."

mjmsmith 10y ago

You know how whenever there's a terrorist attack, Republicans are the first ones complaining that "good Muslims" aren't out there speaking out and condemning it? Why aren't all the "conservative scientists out there who want to shape the Republican party into something better" speaking out and condemning their party's continual assault on science?