4 ms·

I would claim that there are two factors that lead to the fact that most scientists are Democrats: the overall lean of universities, and the source of funding.

by evgen 16y ago

I would claim that there are two factors that lead to the fact that most scientists are Democrats: the overall lean of universities, and the source of funding. And the overwhelming anti-science bias within large segments of the Republican base has nothing to do with it? Yeah, it has just got to be all of those liberal universities and scientists living off the government teat... You can delude yourself all you want, but the fact is that most scientists did not just aimlessly gravitate to the Democratic party; they were chased there by pitchfork-wielding, bible-thumping, Republicans who sought to "refudiate" their work (aided in large parts by conservative think tanks that will tell any lie and spread as much FUD as possible if it helps the short-term objectives of their corporate backers.)

orangecat 16y ago
Mostly true, but conservatives hardly have a monopoly on willful ignorance. Ask the stereotypical liberal what he thinks of nuclear power or GMO crops, and you're not likely to get a response based on sound science.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  Not to mention anything related to economics, as I mentioned above. All that nonsense about "fair trade", the complaints about Chinese currency (see Chuck Schumer), and on and on, has absolutely no basis in the real science.
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    Isn't chinese currency idiocy bipartisan? I mean http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/republicans-rip-treasury-for-weakkneed-report-on-chinese-currency.html http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/republicans-... certainly suggests that powerful Republican leaders believe it wholeheartedly.
- sachinag 16y ago
  Nuclear power and GMO crops have the same issue for liberals like me: when they fail, they fail in catastrophic fashion. We've already had Cherynobol and Monsanto's "Terminator" seeds getting out into the wild. To paraphrase badly, liberals opposed to both are concerned about Black Swan events. Your assessment of the risk and that of those of us who are a bit more "reactionary" are just different, but it doesn't mean that we willfully misrepresent the science.
  - LargeWu 16y ago
    Chernobyl is ancient history when it comes to nuclear technology. Pretty much all of the problems with catastrophic failure of nuclear power plants have been solved, yet many on the left still oppose it, almost out of tradition, rather than because of any compelling scientific argument.
    - locopati 16y ago
      There's also a distrust of the companies that would run such operations, seeing as the Republican party is often anti-regulation/oversight. A bad combination when it comes to nuclear power, imho.
      - LargeWu 16y ago
        There are plenty of power plants presently operating quite safely under the current regulatory scheme. Can you point to any specific concerns you have, or is this just FUD?
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    ...fail in catastrophic fashion...Monsanto's "Terminator" seeds getting out into the wild. And the catastrophe was what, exactly? It was so minor that I must have missed it. Incidentally, I don't believe your fear of catastrophic failure is the real motivation. I believe it's a post-hoc rationalization. My reasoning? There has only been one serious nuclear accident ever, and it was caused by deliberate negligence [1]. Various socialist policies, when carried out by people being deliberately negligent or malicious, have failed far more catastrophically than Chernobyl. Yet most liberals don't tend to oppose them. [1] Go read about it. Seriously, they deliberately operated it way outside of the known to be safe parameters, and turned off all the safety systems (which would, if left active, have shut the reactor down safely). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
- hugh3 16y ago
  True, but on the other hand arguing against nuclear power or GMO crops isn't nearly as crazy as arguing against evolution. One is based on a misconstruing of risks (some of which remain a bit fuzzy anyway) while the other is based on being a complete fricking wacko. To put it another way, you can easily have two honest and sensible scientists arguing about whether nuclear power is a good idea; you can't have two honest and sensible scientists arguing about evolution.
  - orangecat 16y ago
    Agreed. Religion is the differentiator, not political ideology. You can also have rational disagreements about whether global warming is a serious threat.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      Indeed you can (despite the attempts of some folks who attempt to claim that you can't).
- zcid 16y ago
  I completely agree with you about nuclear power. I don't understand why people fail to realize the vast improvements in safety made over the last 20 or 30 years. I won't claim they're 100%, but I would live next to a reactor without any fear. The GMO crops issue is a little more complicated though. The human body is extraordinarily complex and small changes in our environment and diet can create totally unexpected and undetectable chain reactions with results appearing decades later. I put enough effort into my health and well-being that I try to avoid anything that could negatively affect my body. GMO crops might be worth the chances in 3rd world countries where starvation is an ever-present reality, but they will not be seen on my plate any time in the near future.
rubidium 16y ago
balony. Most scientists do work that's not at all related to what the public knows about and talk about their work in ways that no one else can understand. Your claim that scientists are being "chased" from the Republican party is ridiculous. Unless, of course, you have data that shows they are?
- jbooth 16y ago
  Here's a small sample size: http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_relativity http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_relativity This guy free-associated the theory of relativity with "moral relativism" (ideological bingo word!) and apparently concluded that that means relativity is wrong. Article full of cites follows. If it's cited, must be true, right? He also liberally (heh!) re-uses the bogus arguments from below about how relativity research is funded by the government, therefore the researchers must be marxists, therefore they're wrong about relativity. For further reading, I'd suggest polls on the public's view of creationism, age of the earth, evolution, global warming, etc by political party.
  - potatolicious 16y ago
    I'm a liberal, but even I can see that conservapedia represents the overall conservative/Republican base about as well as Mao represents all Chinese.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Well, fine, that one was mostly for yucks. But the pattern holds - check out the AEI on climate change, or the Texas Board of Education on evolution. These aren't fringe institutions.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      As far as I can tell, Conservapedia is written by two actual conservatives of the nutty variety and about fifty left-wing trolls.
- evgen 16y ago
  Most scientists do work that's not at all related to what the public knows about and talk about their work in ways that no one else can understand. Yeah, because no field has jargon and standard methods that require a small amount of prior knowledge to understand... We use a ton of confusing and sometimes overlapping jargon in the computer industry, simplify complex systems using metaphors that are not really correct (e.g. the internet is a series of tubes...), and will often give vague answers to people who are not in the industry. It is not because we have anything to hide, but because we do not have the time or energy to give someone an introductory course on how computers work just to answer a simple question. If you had the time to learn and the necessary educational background you could in fact learn when they are working on and understand what they are saying without too much effort. Most of the public is too busy, too lazy, or too stupid to do this. As far as scientists being "chased" from the republican party, start with The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney, move on to Unscientific America by the same author, The Great Derangement by Matt Tiabbi, or Idiot America by Charles Pierce. Skim through Merchants of Doubt or Doubt is their Product to see some of the links to various corporate think tanks. The evidence is clear, maybe you should check some of it out.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
And the overwhelming anti-science bias within large segments of the Republican base has nothing to do with it? So how come people who oppose evolutionary/genetic theories on slightly different religious grounds haven't chased scientists away from the Dems? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Differences_between_the_sexes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Differences_be... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson#Comments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson#Comments Both parties are quite strongly anti-science when it suits their purposes. Consider this program - any guesses as to the party affiliation of people who oppose this experiment? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/nyregion/09placebo.html?ref=nyregion&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/nyregion/09placebo.html?re...
- hugh3 16y ago
  You have good points. On the other hand, there's a big gap between the folks who shout down Lawrence Summers (who, incidentally, remains a favoured Democratic insider) and the folks who actually deny evolution. As one of these supposedly-mythical Republican scientists, I do find that the Bobby Jindals and Mike Huckabees of the party are a constant source of embarrassment.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Angry anti-science leftists are indeed a problem, but you don't really see them outside the academic left. The academic left is to the far left of the far left; to put it bluntly, these are the people Noam Chomsky criticizes for being too leftist. Once you get out of academia and don't have to deal with these people anymore, they're a non-issue. Unfortunately, that's not the case for, e.g. creationists.
Jun8 16y ago
In order to understand any situation, we should go beyond simplistic stereotypes like "pitchfork-wielding, bible-thumping." This is no different than Fox TV anchors who view liberals as latte-drinking, gun-banning, gay marriage-backing wimps.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Well, I dunno about your analogy; "gun-banning" and "gay-marriage-backing" are pretty accurate descriptions of mainstream "liberal" policies, and "latte-drinking" is pretty much an accurate description of 90% of the population.
  - vannevar 16y ago
    I second that as a latte-drinking, gay-marriage-backing, gun-banning liberal. Regarding the gun-banning, I would note that many gun owners overestimate the utility of firearms for protection in exactly the same way many liberals overestimate the risks of a modern nuclear power plant. Perhaps we all have a common interest in encouraging our fellow citizens to rely on enlightened reason rather than blind fear in making public policy, regardless of the question at hand.
jberryman 16y ago
I'm reminded of the '08 republican primary debates and "Raise your hand if you believe in evolution". I don't see many scientists happily getting behind a party made up of people who need to be asked that.
- hugh3 16y ago
  I'm a Republican(-supporting) scientist, but I cringe every time I think of that moment. And ever since that moment I cringe every time I hear Mike Huckabee mentioned as a serious candidate.

by evgen 16y ago

orangecat 16y ago

Mostly true, but conservatives hardly have a monopoly on willful ignorance. Ask the stereotypical liberal what he thinks of nuclear power or GMO crops, and you're not likely to get a response based on sound science.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
Not to mention anything related to economics, as I mentioned above. All that nonsense about "fair trade", the complaints about Chinese currency (see Chuck Schumer), and on and on, has absolutely no basis in the real science.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  Isn't chinese currency idiocy bipartisan? I mean http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/republicans-rip-treasury-for-weakkneed-report-on-chinese-currency.html http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/republicans-... certainly suggests that powerful Republican leaders believe it wholeheartedly.
sachinag 16y ago
Nuclear power and GMO crops have the same issue for liberals like me: when they fail, they fail in catastrophic fashion. We've already had Cherynobol and Monsanto's "Terminator" seeds getting out into the wild. To paraphrase badly, liberals opposed to both are concerned about Black Swan events. Your assessment of the risk and that of those of us who are a bit more "reactionary" are just different, but it doesn't mean that we willfully misrepresent the science.
- LargeWu 16y ago
  Chernobyl is ancient history when it comes to nuclear technology. Pretty much all of the problems with catastrophic failure of nuclear power plants have been solved, yet many on the left still oppose it, almost out of tradition, rather than because of any compelling scientific argument.
  - locopati 16y ago
    There's also a distrust of the companies that would run such operations, seeing as the Republican party is often anti-regulation/oversight. A bad combination when it comes to nuclear power, imho.
    - LargeWu 16y ago
      There are plenty of power plants presently operating quite safely under the current regulatory scheme. Can you point to any specific concerns you have, or is this just FUD?
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  ...fail in catastrophic fashion...Monsanto's "Terminator" seeds getting out into the wild. And the catastrophe was what, exactly? It was so minor that I must have missed it. Incidentally, I don't believe your fear of catastrophic failure is the real motivation. I believe it's a post-hoc rationalization. My reasoning? There has only been one serious nuclear accident ever, and it was caused by deliberate negligence [1]. Various socialist policies, when carried out by people being deliberately negligent or malicious, have failed far more catastrophically than Chernobyl. Yet most liberals don't tend to oppose them. [1] Go read about it. Seriously, they deliberately operated it way outside of the known to be safe parameters, and turned off all the safety systems (which would, if left active, have shut the reactor down safely). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
hugh3 16y ago
True, but on the other hand arguing against nuclear power or GMO crops isn't nearly as crazy as arguing against evolution. One is based on a misconstruing of risks (some of which remain a bit fuzzy anyway) while the other is based on being a complete fricking wacko. To put it another way, you can easily have two honest and sensible scientists arguing about whether nuclear power is a good idea; you can't have two honest and sensible scientists arguing about evolution.
- orangecat 16y ago
  Agreed. Religion is the differentiator, not political ideology. You can also have rational disagreements about whether global warming is a serious threat.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Indeed you can (despite the attempts of some folks who attempt to claim that you can't).
zcid 16y ago
I completely agree with you about nuclear power. I don't understand why people fail to realize the vast improvements in safety made over the last 20 or 30 years. I won't claim they're 100%, but I would live next to a reactor without any fear. The GMO crops issue is a little more complicated though. The human body is extraordinarily complex and small changes in our environment and diet can create totally unexpected and undetectable chain reactions with results appearing decades later. I put enough effort into my health and well-being that I try to avoid anything that could negatively affect my body. GMO crops might be worth the chances in 3rd world countries where starvation is an ever-present reality, but they will not be seen on my plate any time in the near future.

rubidium 16y ago

balony. Most scientists do work that's not at all related to what the public knows about and talk about their work in ways that no one else can understand. Your claim that scientists are being "chased" from the Republican party is ridiculous. Unless, of course, you have data that shows they are?

jbooth 16y ago
Here's a small sample size: http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_relativity http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_relativity This guy free-associated the theory of relativity with "moral relativism" (ideological bingo word!) and apparently concluded that that means relativity is wrong. Article full of cites follows. If it's cited, must be true, right? He also liberally (heh!) re-uses the bogus arguments from below about how relativity research is funded by the government, therefore the researchers must be marxists, therefore they're wrong about relativity. For further reading, I'd suggest polls on the public's view of creationism, age of the earth, evolution, global warming, etc by political party.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  I'm a liberal, but even I can see that conservapedia represents the overall conservative/Republican base about as well as Mao represents all Chinese.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Well, fine, that one was mostly for yucks. But the pattern holds - check out the AEI on climate change, or the Texas Board of Education on evolution. These aren't fringe institutions.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    As far as I can tell, Conservapedia is written by two actual conservatives of the nutty variety and about fifty left-wing trolls.
evgen 16y ago
Most scientists do work that's not at all related to what the public knows about and talk about their work in ways that no one else can understand. Yeah, because no field has jargon and standard methods that require a small amount of prior knowledge to understand... We use a ton of confusing and sometimes overlapping jargon in the computer industry, simplify complex systems using metaphors that are not really correct (e.g. the internet is a series of tubes...), and will often give vague answers to people who are not in the industry. It is not because we have anything to hide, but because we do not have the time or energy to give someone an introductory course on how computers work just to answer a simple question. If you had the time to learn and the necessary educational background you could in fact learn when they are working on and understand what they are saying without too much effort. Most of the public is too busy, too lazy, or too stupid to do this. As far as scientists being "chased" from the republican party, start with The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney, move on to Unscientific America by the same author, The Great Derangement by Matt Tiabbi, or Idiot America by Charles Pierce. Skim through Merchants of Doubt or Doubt is their Product to see some of the links to various corporate think tanks. The evidence is clear, maybe you should check some of it out.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

And the overwhelming anti-science bias within large segments of the Republican base has nothing to do with it? So how come people who oppose evolutionary/genetic theories on slightly different religious grounds haven't chased scientists away from the Dems? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Differences_between_the_sexes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Differences_be... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson#Comments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson#Comments Both parties are quite strongly anti-science when it suits their purposes. Consider this program - any guesses as to the party affiliation of people who oppose this experiment? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/nyregion/09placebo.html?ref=nyregion&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/nyregion/09placebo.html?re...

hugh3 16y ago
You have good points. On the other hand, there's a big gap between the folks who shout down Lawrence Summers (who, incidentally, remains a favoured Democratic insider) and the folks who actually deny evolution. As one of these supposedly-mythical Republican scientists, I do find that the Bobby Jindals and Mike Huckabees of the party are a constant source of embarrassment.
philwelch 16y ago
Angry anti-science leftists are indeed a problem, but you don't really see them outside the academic left. The academic left is to the far left of the far left; to put it bluntly, these are the people Noam Chomsky criticizes for being too leftist. Once you get out of academia and don't have to deal with these people anymore, they're a non-issue. Unfortunately, that's not the case for, e.g. creationists.

Jun8 16y ago

In order to understand any situation, we should go beyond simplistic stereotypes like "pitchfork-wielding, bible-thumping." This is no different than Fox TV anchors who view liberals as latte-drinking, gun-banning, gay marriage-backing wimps.

hugh3 16y ago
Well, I dunno about your analogy; "gun-banning" and "gay-marriage-backing" are pretty accurate descriptions of mainstream "liberal" policies, and "latte-drinking" is pretty much an accurate description of 90% of the population.
- vannevar 16y ago
  I second that as a latte-drinking, gay-marriage-backing, gun-banning liberal. Regarding the gun-banning, I would note that many gun owners overestimate the utility of firearms for protection in exactly the same way many liberals overestimate the risks of a modern nuclear power plant. Perhaps we all have a common interest in encouraging our fellow citizens to rely on enlightened reason rather than blind fear in making public policy, regardless of the question at hand.

jberryman 16y ago

I'm reminded of the '08 republican primary debates and "Raise your hand if you believe in evolution". I don't see many scientists happily getting behind a party made up of people who need to be asked that.

hugh3 16y ago
I'm a Republican(-supporting) scientist, but I cringe every time I think of that moment. And ever since that moment I cringe every time I hear Mike Huckabee mentioned as a serious candidate.