4 ms·

The Democratic party has exhibited a ``pro-stupidity'' attitude on the same order of magnitude, just in more subtle ways. Instead of damning stem cell research,

The Democratic party has exhibited a ``pro-stupidity'' attitude on the same order of magnitude, just in more subtle ways. Instead of damning stem cell research, the Dems champion Keynesian economics, seek to implement entitlement programs, and push protectionism (``buy local''). Which is more harmful?

sandipc 16y ago
"Which is more harmful?" As a scientist, the damning of stem cell research.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Under other circumstances, democrats tend to be just as opposed to performing experiments which they feel are immoral. An example: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/nyregion/09placebo.html?ref=nyregion http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/nyregion/09placebo.html?re... (I'm speculating that the opposition are democrats, but in NYC it's a good guess.) Or, to take a bipartisan example, people of pretty much any party would be opposed to repeating the Tuskegee experiment (or many others). It's not anti-scientific to oppose a particular experiment because you believe conducting it involves immoral acts. You might disagree with the morality involved, but that's not the same thing.
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    Oddly enough, I think most scientist are opposed to immoral experiments as well. The question is whether or not one is using rational criteria to determine what's moral.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      Most opponents of stem cell research are being rational. If you take as an axiom "fertilized eggs are people too", it's not hard to conclude that stem cell experiments are immoral. In much the same way, given the axiom "blacks are people too", the rational conclusion is that Tuskegee was immoral.
      - joe_the_user 16y ago
        If that is the premise of opponents of stem cell research, they may be drawing rational, moral conclusions from it. However the premise itself, "stem cells are people" is most certainly definitely drawn from religious faith. The premise that black people are rather similar to white people, on the other hand, seems to draw on scientific knowledge. Obviously, there's still the step of drawing a rational, moral conclusion from that also.
        yummyfajitas 16y ago
        Scientific statement: "Black people are biologically similar (for some definition of similar) to white people." Moral statement: "Creatures with X degree of similarity to white people deserve the same rights as white people." The latter statement is simply unprovable via the scientific method. Forget even about the racism - the statement "you shouldn't rape/torture/murder people" also can't be proved via the scientific method.
      - subsection1h 16y ago
        Most opponents of stem cell research are being rational. If you take as an axiom "fertilized eggs are people too", it's not hard to conclude that stem cell experiments are immoral. Fertilized eggs can divide. Is it rational to believe that a person can divide? Is each twin 50% of a person?
        yummyfajitas 16y ago
        If your definition of people includes fertilized eggs, then it is clearly rational to believe a person can divide.
joe_the_user 16y ago
We can debate whether Keynesianism is actually stupid elsewhere. Maybe it's the worst possible policy. But stupid or smart Keynesianism is not certainly "pro-stupidity" economics in the sense that's obvious aiming to be smart. It's endorsed by lots of apparently smart economists, it uses coherent mathematical models etc. You might argue that the positions of Glen Beck or George Bush would be smarter to adopt than those of Lawrence Summers. Whatever. You could hardly argue that these folks took a "pro-science" approach in defending their positions.
- jobeirne 16y ago
  Perhaps we've touched on a fundamental difficulty here: maybe good economic policy isn't rooted in consequence or empirical datum, but instead morality. For example, the proposition of a single-payer healthcare system essentially reduces to the question, ``should my neighbor be able to walk up to my house and demand a percentage of my income at gunpoint to pay for his healthcare expenses?'' Maybe the adoption of such a policy will deliver positive, scientifically-observable results for society-at-large, but (as far as I'm concerned) such a policy isn't moral in the first place and therefore shouldn't be adopted. Maybe targeting only scientific validity in politics is a very misleading oversimplification.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    Let's not go into healthcare itself. But I think you've touched on another important matter that I tried to introduce elsewhere, but hasn't been caught up yet. I think that we must be careful to keep science and policy separated. Even if we are to grant that a certain point of science is correct, it does not necessarily lead to acceptance of a point of policy. For example, it is well known that at the margin, minimum wage laws increase unemployment amongst the least skilled workers. But it doesn't automatically follow that such a policy should not be followed; perhaps with a proper safety net, those bottom-rung folks can be motivated into improving themselves. Likewise (and even more controversially), even if climate change is as serious as some claim, it does not necessarily follow that all efforts must be pursued: it may be that the cost of fixing it exceeds the cost of the expected damage. It's just too easy to say "we have this problem, thus we must do something". The values that drive our actions are different from the science that allows us to understand the world.

sandipc 16y ago

"Which is more harmful?" As a scientist, the damning of stem cell research.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Under other circumstances, democrats tend to be just as opposed to performing experiments which they feel are immoral. An example: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/nyregion/09placebo.html?ref=nyregion http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/nyregion/09placebo.html?re... (I'm speculating that the opposition are democrats, but in NYC it's a good guess.) Or, to take a bipartisan example, people of pretty much any party would be opposed to repeating the Tuskegee experiment (or many others). It's not anti-scientific to oppose a particular experiment because you believe conducting it involves immoral acts. You might disagree with the morality involved, but that's not the same thing.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  Oddly enough, I think most scientist are opposed to immoral experiments as well. The question is whether or not one is using rational criteria to determine what's moral.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Most opponents of stem cell research are being rational. If you take as an axiom "fertilized eggs are people too", it's not hard to conclude that stem cell experiments are immoral. In much the same way, given the axiom "blacks are people too", the rational conclusion is that Tuskegee was immoral.
    - joe_the_user 16y ago
      If that is the premise of opponents of stem cell research, they may be drawing rational, moral conclusions from it. However the premise itself, "stem cells are people" is most certainly definitely drawn from religious faith. The premise that black people are rather similar to white people, on the other hand, seems to draw on scientific knowledge. Obviously, there's still the step of drawing a rational, moral conclusion from that also.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        Scientific statement: "Black people are biologically similar (for some definition of similar) to white people." Moral statement: "Creatures with X degree of similarity to white people deserve the same rights as white people." The latter statement is simply unprovable via the scientific method. Forget even about the racism - the statement "you shouldn't rape/torture/murder people" also can't be proved via the scientific method.
    - subsection1h 16y ago
      Most opponents of stem cell research are being rational. If you take as an axiom "fertilized eggs are people too", it's not hard to conclude that stem cell experiments are immoral. Fertilized eggs can divide. Is it rational to believe that a person can divide? Is each twin 50% of a person?
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        If your definition of people includes fertilized eggs, then it is clearly rational to believe a person can divide.

joe_the_user 16y ago

We can debate whether Keynesianism is actually stupid elsewhere. Maybe it's the worst possible policy. But stupid or smart Keynesianism is not certainly "pro-stupidity" economics in the sense that's obvious aiming to be smart. It's endorsed by lots of apparently smart economists, it uses coherent mathematical models etc. You might argue that the positions of Glen Beck or George Bush would be smarter to adopt than those of Lawrence Summers. Whatever. You could hardly argue that these folks took a "pro-science" approach in defending their positions.

jobeirne 16y ago
Perhaps we've touched on a fundamental difficulty here: maybe good economic policy isn't rooted in consequence or empirical datum, but instead morality. For example, the proposition of a single-payer healthcare system essentially reduces to the question, ``should my neighbor be able to walk up to my house and demand a percentage of my income at gunpoint to pay for his healthcare expenses?'' Maybe the adoption of such a policy will deliver positive, scientifically-observable results for society-at-large, but (as far as I'm concerned) such a policy isn't moral in the first place and therefore shouldn't be adopted. Maybe targeting only scientific validity in politics is a very misleading oversimplification.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  Let's not go into healthcare itself. But I think you've touched on another important matter that I tried to introduce elsewhere, but hasn't been caught up yet. I think that we must be careful to keep science and policy separated. Even if we are to grant that a certain point of science is correct, it does not necessarily lead to acceptance of a point of policy. For example, it is well known that at the margin, minimum wage laws increase unemployment amongst the least skilled workers. But it doesn't automatically follow that such a policy should not be followed; perhaps with a proper safety net, those bottom-rung folks can be motivated into improving themselves. Likewise (and even more controversially), even if climate change is as serious as some claim, it does not necessarily follow that all efforts must be pursued: it may be that the cost of fixing it exceeds the cost of the expected damage. It's just too easy to say "we have this problem, thus we must do something". The values that drive our actions are different from the science that allows us to understand the world.