5 ms·

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-dem

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.

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.