7 ms·

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

by croon 10y ago

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.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  >The liberals It's highly unscientific to make such a sweeping generalization. There are plenty of liberals and leftists who will accept science and data that doesn't match their political agenda, just as there are still some conservatives who will. However the GOP has official policies opposing such nefarious plots as 'critical thinking.'
  - virmundi 10y ago
    Sure, it's a generalization. This, within the English language, means anything over 60% of the population in question. I've had multiple conversations with well over 120 self described liberals from multiple parts of the US. Most of their reason for hating guns fall on "they're scary". That's not scientific. The reason I bring this up is the scientists in question are backing the Democrats. This party, to use another generalization (an abstraction if you will), houses the majority of liberals in the country. Therefore, the Dems are not the paragons of rational thought. Many of the Democrats are as much sheep as the Republicans. I've had fewer conversations with them about food. I eat eggs. I eat a high fat diet. They all tell me I'm going to get high cholesterol and be in worse shape. I try to explain the science of diet. They point me to old research that says eggs are bad.
    - richmarr 10y ago
      > Most of their reason for hating guns fall on "they're scary". That's not scientific. Well, only if the fear was unfounded. Your analysis seems a little shallow there.
      - virmundi 10y ago
        There fear is unfounded. None of them have been attacked, accidentally shot or harmed by guns directly. Their fear goes so far as to them becoming hostile at the thought of them or myself carrying. They don't want anyone own this tool. Guns, like all other power tools, should be respected. I carry daily. I respect the responsibility I bring on myself in doing so. I respect what the tool can do. Many weekend I use 1-5 power cutting tools. I respect those too. As a child I feared both. I then because an adult and put away childish things. I respect and use the tools properly.
cderwin 10y ago
Even if you don't expect any scientists to want to be on a Republican ticket, why refuse to support prospective scientists who would do so? There might not be many conservative scientists, but I'm sure they exist. The only answer that seems feasible to me is that they're not really interested in getting scientists elected, instead they're more interested in scientists who are willing to abuse their authority to promote progressive causes.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  Maybe it's just based on a political calculation that a candidate who believes in climate change would have a vanishingly small chance of getting elected on the Republican party ticket given that they'd be in direct opposition to a core plank of their national platform.
- croon 10y ago
  I'm all for changing parties from within, but with: * Life starts at inception * Man-made climate change * Evolution (taught in school) * Not a single payer healthcare system when comparing to any industrialized country on earth * Anti-consumer ethics in FCC, compared to any other industrialized country on earth * Tax policies clearly aimed at keeping money flowing upwards, only very slightly veiled, yet again compared to any other industrialized country on earth all being partisan issues, can you rise in ranks and still be a republican while opposing those views? While anti-vaccination movements and GMO fears are more prevalent in liberals, they ARE spread across the spectrum, as well as not being party issues. I have read no attempt to legislate against vaccinations. If "progressive causes" == science backed causes, then go right ahead.
  - hueving 10y ago
    >If "progressive causes" == science backed causes, then go right ahead. No, "progressive causes" will be whatever is in vogue in the party. So anti-GMO with labeling campaigns and leverage the scientists to cast doubt on their safety would be very possible. Perhaps it will be to convince people that science has shown that people with more money are evil and should be jailed based on the UC Berkley study with the BMWs.
sampo 10y ago
> When science is a partisan issue, what else can you do? At least when it comes to GMO crops and food, there is a pretty strong anti-science movement in the Democratic Party, too [1]. When more than one third of all currently alive science and medicine Nobel laureates have signed a pro-GMO letter [2], it is pretty strongly anti-science to be anti-GMO. [1] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/opposition-stalls-gmo-food-labeling-bill-us-senate http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/opposition-stalls-gmo... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/29/more-than-100-nobel-laureates-take-on-greenpeace-over-gmo-stance/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2...
- vvanders 10y ago
  The arguments against GMOs are economic not scientific. I'm fine with consuming GMOs but I'm not okay with only a few large corporations controlling the entire market. I put Monsanto in the same category as Big Oil, they use their massive capital and weight to push smaller players out of the market and generally don't favor the consumer very much.

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

by 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.

wavefunction 10y ago
>The liberals It's highly unscientific to make such a sweeping generalization. There are plenty of liberals and leftists who will accept science and data that doesn't match their political agenda, just as there are still some conservatives who will. However the GOP has official policies opposing such nefarious plots as 'critical thinking.'
- virmundi 10y ago
  Sure, it's a generalization. This, within the English language, means anything over 60% of the population in question. I've had multiple conversations with well over 120 self described liberals from multiple parts of the US. Most of their reason for hating guns fall on "they're scary". That's not scientific. The reason I bring this up is the scientists in question are backing the Democrats. This party, to use another generalization (an abstraction if you will), houses the majority of liberals in the country. Therefore, the Dems are not the paragons of rational thought. Many of the Democrats are as much sheep as the Republicans. I've had fewer conversations with them about food. I eat eggs. I eat a high fat diet. They all tell me I'm going to get high cholesterol and be in worse shape. I try to explain the science of diet. They point me to old research that says eggs are bad.
  - richmarr 10y ago
    > Most of their reason for hating guns fall on "they're scary". That's not scientific. Well, only if the fear was unfounded. Your analysis seems a little shallow there.
    - virmundi 10y ago
      There fear is unfounded. None of them have been attacked, accidentally shot or harmed by guns directly. Their fear goes so far as to them becoming hostile at the thought of them or myself carrying. They don't want anyone own this tool. Guns, like all other power tools, should be respected. I carry daily. I respect the responsibility I bring on myself in doing so. I respect what the tool can do. Many weekend I use 1-5 power cutting tools. I respect those too. As a child I feared both. I then because an adult and put away childish things. I respect and use the tools properly.

cderwin 10y ago

Even if you don't expect any scientists to want to be on a Republican ticket, why refuse to support prospective scientists who would do so? There might not be many conservative scientists, but I'm sure they exist. The only answer that seems feasible to me is that they're not really interested in getting scientists elected, instead they're more interested in scientists who are willing to abuse their authority to promote progressive causes.

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
Maybe it's just based on a political calculation that a candidate who believes in climate change would have a vanishingly small chance of getting elected on the Republican party ticket given that they'd be in direct opposition to a core plank of their national platform.
croon 10y ago
I'm all for changing parties from within, but with: * Life starts at inception * Man-made climate change * Evolution (taught in school) * Not a single payer healthcare system when comparing to any industrialized country on earth * Anti-consumer ethics in FCC, compared to any other industrialized country on earth * Tax policies clearly aimed at keeping money flowing upwards, only very slightly veiled, yet again compared to any other industrialized country on earth all being partisan issues, can you rise in ranks and still be a republican while opposing those views? While anti-vaccination movements and GMO fears are more prevalent in liberals, they ARE spread across the spectrum, as well as not being party issues. I have read no attempt to legislate against vaccinations. If "progressive causes" == science backed causes, then go right ahead.
- hueving 10y ago
  >If "progressive causes" == science backed causes, then go right ahead. No, "progressive causes" will be whatever is in vogue in the party. So anti-GMO with labeling campaigns and leverage the scientists to cast doubt on their safety would be very possible. Perhaps it will be to convince people that science has shown that people with more money are evil and should be jailed based on the UC Berkley study with the BMWs.

sampo 10y ago

> When science is a partisan issue, what else can you do? At least when it comes to GMO crops and food, there is a pretty strong anti-science movement in the Democratic Party, too [1]. When more than one third of all currently alive science and medicine Nobel laureates have signed a pro-GMO letter [2], it is pretty strongly anti-science to be anti-GMO. [1] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/opposition-stalls-gmo-food-labeling-bill-us-senate http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/opposition-stalls-gmo... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/29/more-than-100-nobel-laureates-take-on-greenpeace-over-gmo-stance/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2...

vvanders 10y ago
The arguments against GMOs are economic not scientific. I'm fine with consuming GMOs but I'm not okay with only a few large corporations controlling the entire market. I put Monsanto in the same category as Big Oil, they use their massive capital and weight to push smaller players out of the market and generally don't favor the consumer very much.