3 ms·
1) heritability of intelligence 2) Obamacare's coverage of quack therapies The Democrats aren't more pro-science in the abstract. Every politician is pro-scien
by poke111 11y ago
1) heritability of intelligence
2) Obamacare's coverage of quack therapies
The Democrats aren't more pro-science in the abstract. Every politician is pro-science when it supports their agenda. Every politician is magically skeptical of "settled science" when it goes against their agenda.
Edit: I meant that science strongly supports the notion that intelligence is largely heritable, which is opposed by Democrats.
- evgen 11y agoHeritability of intelligence is in no way a position espoused by anyone of any significance in the Democratic party. As far as quack therapies go, you have to get the bill through the legislature and all of the special interests there. When Obamacare was passed that meant pandering to Tom Harkin, a liberal's liberal, and Orrin Hatch, the conservative Mormon. Both were shills for altmed and other quackery but had enough markers that you did not cross them on the issue unless you had all your ducks in a row and really wanted that fight.
- setpatchaddress 11y agoI don't know what (1) refers to, and you're cherry-picking with (2), but the voting records of the Democrats show a largely pro-science bias, and the GOPs have the exact opposite. It's irrelevant that they're doing it for political reasons -- that's the nature of politics. There are counterexamples, of course. And I'm not happy with the Democrats, for many reasons. But, on science, the alternative is to go back to pre-enlightenment times with the GOPs. And leeches, as a medical cure-all, are probably more harmful than sugar pills.