8 ms·

Does following the scientific consensus on issues like anthropogenic global warming, evolution, and sex education make you a Democrat?

by derleth 14y ago

andrewljohnson 14y ago
It correlates! Global warming, 2/3 Republican deny it, more than 3/4 Democrats believe it: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-30/global-warming-links-democrats-independents-isolating-romney http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-30/global-warming-l... Creationism is 38% for Democrats, 60% for Republicans: http://www.cultureofscience.com/2011/08/19/republicans-and-democrats-differ-on-evolution/ http://www.cultureofscience.com/2011/08/19/republicans-and-d... I think Republicans are more likely not to want to mention or distribute condoms to teens in sex education, but I don't regard this as quite the same general disregard for science and math.
- derleth 14y ago
  > I think Republicans are more likely not to want to mention or distribute condoms to teens in sex education, but I don't regard this as quite the same general disregard for science and math. It's a fairly settled issue in social science, though, that abstinence-only sex ed doesn't work. Not a hard science, perhaps, but still a science in that it's data-driven and rejects hypotheses based on new data. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097%2FGCO.0b013e3282efdc0b http://dx.doi.org/10.1097%2FGCO.0b013e3282efdc0b http://journals.lww.com/co-obgyn/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2007&issue=10000&article=00008&type=abstract http://journals.lww.com/co-obgyn/pages/articleviewer.aspx?ye...
  - anamax 14y ago
    > It's a fairly settled issue in social science, though, that abstinence-only sex ed doesn't work. So? The alternative to abstinence-only sex ed isn't perfection, it's a bunch of stuff that doesn't work all that well either. Your links are all behind paywalls. That said, they're probably just like the other work on the subject. Their "measure of success" is curious at best. (No, reducing teen pregnancy isn't the only goal.) As to "telling teaching inaccuracies", no other teaching is held to that standard, so why is abstinence-only sex ed held to that standard? Note - I think that abstinence-only sex ed is a bad idea. My point is that the arguments are not "scientific" or fair. That said, they are doing a great job in discrediting science. If that's your goal....
    - rayiner 14y ago
      > As to "telling teaching inaccuracies", no other teaching is held to that standard, so why is abstinence-only sex ed held to that standard? Because kids going around with misconceptions about what really caused the American Revolution is less dangerous than kids going around with misconceptions about reproductive issues.
      - anamax 14y ago
        > Because kids going around with misconceptions about what really caused the American Revolution is less dangerous than kids going around with misconceptions about reproductive issues. Umm, if it doesn't matter whether it is true, why are we teaching it? And no, sex ed isn't the only dangerous thing that we mis-teach kids about. But, thanks for demonstrating your priorities. However, I'm still unclear on why I should be paying for them.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    If the Democrats are so good at math, why have so many of their state governments bankrupted themselves with insane pension commitments? Reality is much more nuanced than "blue versus red".
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  The greatest trick political parties ever pulled was making this kind of thing part of their images. With only two choices, people are roped into supporting all kinds of things that make no sense for them. But you get "My party believes in science!" and "My party believes in God!" and it becomes part of people's political identities. And then all sorts of other issues are piled on top of it and you find yourself wondering how we got here. It's ludicrous, really.
  - andrewljohnson 14y ago
    If it truly is science vs. religion, then the Republican party will die and be reborn as something new. Religion loses to science over the course of history.
    - mjcohenw 14y ago
      I wish that were true. Once religion, especially fundamentalist religion, gets control, science is in real trouble. Read Heinlein's "Revolt in 2100".
      - tokenadult 14y ago
        Read Heinlein's "Revolt in 2100". Is that intended as a recommendation of a scientific source about long-term trends cross-culturally? I got a big volume of the collected "future history" stories by Robert Heinlein out of the library a year ago, and I was disappointed by how poorly those stories have aged. I also figured out, by rereading Heinlein (a favorite author of mine when I was a kid) that he never informed any of his stories with much perspective from non-Western cultures (although I give him credit for being aware of that kind of issue). Since I spent three years in the 1980s and later another three years spanning the turn of the last century living in a non-Western country, I don't turn to Western science-fiction stories anymore for my social commentary. I like to read real science based on verifiable history to puzzle out social trends. I can recommend a source http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-Our-Nature/dp/0143122010/ http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-Our-Nature/dp/014312... and invite other readers here to recommend other sources. I'm not worried about fundamentalist religion "getting control" of science.
- tptacek 14y ago
  This is a little silly. Intelligent people could easily vote for the candidate of the party that is toughest on public-sector unions for one office and the candidate who is most supportive of a carbon tax for another office, believing both that public sector unions and their pension commitments are out of control and in anthropogenic global warming, and make those choices dependent on the impact those beliefs have on the role. The governor of Wisconsin is poorly situated to influence climate politics, while control of the Senate might not have much influence on whether employees get defined-benefit pensions. The political parties themselves would very much like you to believe that you're along with them for the ride on all their issues, and this no doubt accounts for much of the strongly held beliefs of both Democrats and Republicans. Push comes to shove, most people have not given much thought to the issues that politics have the most control over.
  - Alex3917 14y ago
    The Republicans are the ones responsible for the ridiculous union pensions, because those were what they offered in concession during the 60s and 70s instead of paying the workers a fair wage at the time. So why the hell would you vote Republican if you were against the pensions?
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Is that a serious question? Scott Walker is a Republican, not a Democrat. Also, the GOP of 2012 bears little relationship to the GOP of 1965. Barry Goldwater was practically on the fringe of the 1960's GOP. What party would Nelson Rockefeller belong to in 2012? You can vote a specific interest, you can vote a straight party line, you can vote out of ignorance. But one thing that makes zero sense is to vote party-line in 2012 to punish a party for what it did 60 years ago. Doing that has literally the opposite impact as you'd ostensibly intend.
      - Alex3917 14y ago
        It's not about punishing one party for the past, it's about which party would be most likely to make future spending commitments without raising taxes now to pay for them. (Probably the one that's been doing it consistently for the past 50 years and is campaigning on a platform of doing it now.)
- wdr1 14y ago
  > It correlates! Not extremely well. You've cherry-picked your data to support your theory. Specifically, I notice you don't touch on those who reject vaccinations, practice homeopathy, or believe Feng shui goes beyond aesthetics. As someone living in a very large, liberal city and hailing from a rural, conservative town, I can tell you the Republicans of the world are not the ones debating if vaccinations cause autism. The ones I know think it's moronic & hideously irresponsible not to vaccinate your child.
anamax 14y ago
> Does following the scientific consensus on issues like anthropogenic global warming, evolution, and sex education make you a Democrat? The correlation is with misunderstanding all three and coming to bogus conclusions. Let's take evolution. There are lots of folks, typically Democrats, who insist that it is fundamental to all of science. (Hint - that's clearly false. Disagree? How does evolution matter outside biology? Too hard? Name three biology subfields that don't work without evolution? Too hard? Name three things in biology that were predicted using evolution?) Democrats like to think that they're scientific, but .... Let's take the suggestion that state of mind affects conception in humans. Clearly false when Akin said it, but what does everyone say to a couple trying to get pregnant? Yup - "you've got to maintain a positive mental attitude." (I don't know whether mental attitude matters - I'm just pointing out the double-standard.)
- MartinCron 14y ago
  There are lots of folks, typically Democrats, who insist that it is fundamental to all of science You can't, on the basis of zero real evidence, dismiss the theory that best fits the known facts, without causing harm to the understanding of the scientific method as a whole. So it is not that the one theory is so critical to all of science, but the act of throwing it out because it offends religious sensibilities is damaging.
- MaysonL 14y ago
  So why are only 6% of scientists Republicans, when in Eisenhower's time it was 40%?
- derleth 14y ago
  > Hint - that's clearly false. Disagree? How does evolution matter outside biology? Too hard? Name three biology subfields that don't work without evolution? Too hard? Name three things in biology that were predicted using evolution? Gish Galloping wins you no support. It's a dishonest tactic that attempts to flood the opposition with questions that require more time to answer than they do to ask. It's a Denial of Service attack, not an argument. > Clearly false when Akin said it, but what does everyone say to a couple trying to get pregnant? Yup - "you've got to maintain a positive mental attitude." (I don't know whether mental attitude matters - I'm just pointing out the double-standard.) Because Akin was minimizing rape. He was trying to de-legitimize the experiences of victims of a violent crime. Do you really not understand how people get upset over that?
joshuahedlund 14y ago
Yes, but only if you also ignore the scientific consensus on genetically modified food, vaccines, nuclear energy, and hydraulic fracking :)
- archgoon 14y ago
  Three of those are policy issues (how much testing should be done on GMO's, how risk adverse should we be on nuclear power plants given the potential for shoddy construction like in Fukushima, where should we build energy plants and refineries). On these issues, the democrats are being, ironically enough, conservative, as in risk adverse. They are not denying that you _can_ grow GMO's, that you _can_ split the atom, or that you _can_ perform hydraulic fracking (which Obama has supported, so I don't see how this is a democrat issue). This is in stark contrast to the previous issues where the mere existence of a phenomenon (evolution, global warming, and the big bang) is denied. With luck, global warming will move into the policy disagreement realm, and out denial box soon. Anti-vaccination is a fringe movement, and party independent (Michelle Bachmann got on the anti-vax wagon). The democrats aren't putting anti-vaxxers on the house science committee.
- derleth 14y ago
  I'd deny that anti-vaccine idiocy is part of the Democratic platform the same way anthropogenic global warming denialism is part of the Republican party platform. Do you have any evidence it is? I also don't know about anti-GMO idiocy, frankly.
  - wdr1 14y ago
    But frankly, there isn't anything in the GOP platform that is anthropogenic global warming denialism: http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_America/ http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_America/ Rather, many of those associated with the party do it, which is congruent with what he said about anti-GMO & anti-vaccine idiocy.

Does following the scientific consensus on issues like anthropogenic global warming, evolution, and sex education make you a Democrat?

by derleth 14y ago

Does following the scientific consensus on issues like anthropogenic global warming, evolution, and sex education make you a Democrat?

andrewljohnson 14y ago

It correlates! Global warming, 2/3 Republican deny it, more than 3/4 Democrats believe it: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-30/global-warming-links-democrats-independents-isolating-romney http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-30/global-warming-l... Creationism is 38% for Democrats, 60% for Republicans: http://www.cultureofscience.com/2011/08/19/republicans-and-democrats-differ-on-evolution/ http://www.cultureofscience.com/2011/08/19/republicans-and-d... I think Republicans are more likely not to want to mention or distribute condoms to teens in sex education, but I don't regard this as quite the same general disregard for science and math.

derleth 14y ago
> I think Republicans are more likely not to want to mention or distribute condoms to teens in sex education, but I don't regard this as quite the same general disregard for science and math. It's a fairly settled issue in social science, though, that abstinence-only sex ed doesn't work. Not a hard science, perhaps, but still a science in that it's data-driven and rejects hypotheses based on new data. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097%2FGCO.0b013e3282efdc0b http://dx.doi.org/10.1097%2FGCO.0b013e3282efdc0b http://journals.lww.com/co-obgyn/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2007&issue=10000&article=00008&type=abstract http://journals.lww.com/co-obgyn/pages/articleviewer.aspx?ye...
- anamax 14y ago
  > It's a fairly settled issue in social science, though, that abstinence-only sex ed doesn't work. So? The alternative to abstinence-only sex ed isn't perfection, it's a bunch of stuff that doesn't work all that well either. Your links are all behind paywalls. That said, they're probably just like the other work on the subject. Their "measure of success" is curious at best. (No, reducing teen pregnancy isn't the only goal.) As to "telling teaching inaccuracies", no other teaching is held to that standard, so why is abstinence-only sex ed held to that standard? Note - I think that abstinence-only sex ed is a bad idea. My point is that the arguments are not "scientific" or fair. That said, they are doing a great job in discrediting science. If that's your goal....
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > As to "telling teaching inaccuracies", no other teaching is held to that standard, so why is abstinence-only sex ed held to that standard? Because kids going around with misconceptions about what really caused the American Revolution is less dangerous than kids going around with misconceptions about reproductive issues.
    - anamax 14y ago
      > Because kids going around with misconceptions about what really caused the American Revolution is less dangerous than kids going around with misconceptions about reproductive issues. Umm, if it doesn't matter whether it is true, why are we teaching it? And no, sex ed isn't the only dangerous thing that we mis-teach kids about. But, thanks for demonstrating your priorities. However, I'm still unclear on why I should be paying for them.
- tptacek 14y ago
  If the Democrats are so good at math, why have so many of their state governments bankrupted themselves with insane pension commitments? Reality is much more nuanced than "blue versus red".
waterlesscloud 14y ago
The greatest trick political parties ever pulled was making this kind of thing part of their images. With only two choices, people are roped into supporting all kinds of things that make no sense for them. But you get "My party believes in science!" and "My party believes in God!" and it becomes part of people's political identities. And then all sorts of other issues are piled on top of it and you find yourself wondering how we got here. It's ludicrous, really.
- andrewljohnson 14y ago
  If it truly is science vs. religion, then the Republican party will die and be reborn as something new. Religion loses to science over the course of history.
  - mjcohenw 14y ago
    I wish that were true. Once religion, especially fundamentalist religion, gets control, science is in real trouble. Read Heinlein's "Revolt in 2100".
    - tokenadult 14y ago
      Read Heinlein's "Revolt in 2100". Is that intended as a recommendation of a scientific source about long-term trends cross-culturally? I got a big volume of the collected "future history" stories by Robert Heinlein out of the library a year ago, and I was disappointed by how poorly those stories have aged. I also figured out, by rereading Heinlein (a favorite author of mine when I was a kid) that he never informed any of his stories with much perspective from non-Western cultures (although I give him credit for being aware of that kind of issue). Since I spent three years in the 1980s and later another three years spanning the turn of the last century living in a non-Western country, I don't turn to Western science-fiction stories anymore for my social commentary. I like to read real science based on verifiable history to puzzle out social trends. I can recommend a source http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-Our-Nature/dp/0143122010/ http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-Our-Nature/dp/014312... and invite other readers here to recommend other sources. I'm not worried about fundamentalist religion "getting control" of science.
tptacek 14y ago
This is a little silly. Intelligent people could easily vote for the candidate of the party that is toughest on public-sector unions for one office and the candidate who is most supportive of a carbon tax for another office, believing both that public sector unions and their pension commitments are out of control and in anthropogenic global warming, and make those choices dependent on the impact those beliefs have on the role. The governor of Wisconsin is poorly situated to influence climate politics, while control of the Senate might not have much influence on whether employees get defined-benefit pensions. The political parties themselves would very much like you to believe that you're along with them for the ride on all their issues, and this no doubt accounts for much of the strongly held beliefs of both Democrats and Republicans. Push comes to shove, most people have not given much thought to the issues that politics have the most control over.
- Alex3917 14y ago
  The Republicans are the ones responsible for the ridiculous union pensions, because those were what they offered in concession during the 60s and 70s instead of paying the workers a fair wage at the time. So why the hell would you vote Republican if you were against the pensions?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Is that a serious question? Scott Walker is a Republican, not a Democrat. Also, the GOP of 2012 bears little relationship to the GOP of 1965. Barry Goldwater was practically on the fringe of the 1960's GOP. What party would Nelson Rockefeller belong to in 2012? You can vote a specific interest, you can vote a straight party line, you can vote out of ignorance. But one thing that makes zero sense is to vote party-line in 2012 to punish a party for what it did 60 years ago. Doing that has literally the opposite impact as you'd ostensibly intend.
    - Alex3917 14y ago
      It's not about punishing one party for the past, it's about which party would be most likely to make future spending commitments without raising taxes now to pay for them. (Probably the one that's been doing it consistently for the past 50 years and is campaigning on a platform of doing it now.)
wdr1 14y ago
> It correlates! Not extremely well. You've cherry-picked your data to support your theory. Specifically, I notice you don't touch on those who reject vaccinations, practice homeopathy, or believe Feng shui goes beyond aesthetics. As someone living in a very large, liberal city and hailing from a rural, conservative town, I can tell you the Republicans of the world are not the ones debating if vaccinations cause autism. The ones I know think it's moronic & hideously irresponsible not to vaccinate your child.

anamax 14y ago

> Does following the scientific consensus on issues like anthropogenic global warming, evolution, and sex education make you a Democrat? The correlation is with misunderstanding all three and coming to bogus conclusions. Let's take evolution. There are lots of folks, typically Democrats, who insist that it is fundamental to all of science. (Hint - that's clearly false. Disagree? How does evolution matter outside biology? Too hard? Name three biology subfields that don't work without evolution? Too hard? Name three things in biology that were predicted using evolution?) Democrats like to think that they're scientific, but .... Let's take the suggestion that state of mind affects conception in humans. Clearly false when Akin said it, but what does everyone say to a couple trying to get pregnant? Yup - "you've got to maintain a positive mental attitude." (I don't know whether mental attitude matters - I'm just pointing out the double-standard.)

MartinCron 14y ago
There are lots of folks, typically Democrats, who insist that it is fundamental to all of science You can't, on the basis of zero real evidence, dismiss the theory that best fits the known facts, without causing harm to the understanding of the scientific method as a whole. So it is not that the one theory is so critical to all of science, but the act of throwing it out because it offends religious sensibilities is damaging.
MaysonL 14y ago
So why are only 6% of scientists Republicans, when in Eisenhower's time it was 40%?
derleth 14y ago
> Hint - that's clearly false. Disagree? How does evolution matter outside biology? Too hard? Name three biology subfields that don't work without evolution? Too hard? Name three things in biology that were predicted using evolution? Gish Galloping wins you no support. It's a dishonest tactic that attempts to flood the opposition with questions that require more time to answer than they do to ask. It's a Denial of Service attack, not an argument. > Clearly false when Akin said it, but what does everyone say to a couple trying to get pregnant? Yup - "you've got to maintain a positive mental attitude." (I don't know whether mental attitude matters - I'm just pointing out the double-standard.) Because Akin was minimizing rape. He was trying to de-legitimize the experiences of victims of a violent crime. Do you really not understand how people get upset over that?

joshuahedlund 14y ago

Yes, but only if you also ignore the scientific consensus on genetically modified food, vaccines, nuclear energy, and hydraulic fracking :)

archgoon 14y ago
Three of those are policy issues (how much testing should be done on GMO's, how risk adverse should we be on nuclear power plants given the potential for shoddy construction like in Fukushima, where should we build energy plants and refineries). On these issues, the democrats are being, ironically enough, conservative, as in risk adverse. They are not denying that you _can_ grow GMO's, that you _can_ split the atom, or that you _can_ perform hydraulic fracking (which Obama has supported, so I don't see how this is a democrat issue). This is in stark contrast to the previous issues where the mere existence of a phenomenon (evolution, global warming, and the big bang) is denied. With luck, global warming will move into the policy disagreement realm, and out denial box soon. Anti-vaccination is a fringe movement, and party independent (Michelle Bachmann got on the anti-vax wagon). The democrats aren't putting anti-vaxxers on the house science committee.
derleth 14y ago
I'd deny that anti-vaccine idiocy is part of the Democratic platform the same way anthropogenic global warming denialism is part of the Republican party platform. Do you have any evidence it is? I also don't know about anti-GMO idiocy, frankly.
- wdr1 14y ago
  But frankly, there isn't anything in the GOP platform that is anthropogenic global warming denialism: http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_America/ http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_America/ Rather, many of those associated with the party do it, which is congruent with what he said about anti-GMO & anti-vaccine idiocy.