Why are so many scientists dems and not republican

My savior, Jesus Christ, spoke in parables quite often. I expect that his dad did the same. The more you learn about science, the more you realize what a miracle it is.
 
I used to trust scientists, but then I also used to trust mainstream media.

The cancer that is liberalism is eating up our most valued institutions at an alarming pace. It is beyond sickening.
 
I think it's a matter of scientists being seekers of knowlege. Engineers apply knowledge and like some certainty. By contrast I think of scientists as folks who are on the cutting edge, asking hard questions, doubting conventional responses and not able to be certain about everything. Seems like when I deal with the hard core party faithful, Republicans are certain about everything, even stuff they don't understand or know anything about. Who would feel more comfortable expressing their beliefs at a tea party function, a creationists who believes the world is 6,000 years old or a scientist who believes in man-made global warming?
 
This isn't necessarily a problem, any moreso than having a disproportionate number of military leadership lean Republican.

Just as we are not fighting wars in pursuit of flat taxes, or whatever, science is not compromised because more scientists identify as Democrats.
 
______________________________________________________________
Damn, I guess scientists can't be journalists or politicians.
______________________________________________________________________

Scientists could be decent journalist, but unless they reach celebrity status, science pays a lot better. But you don't necessarily want a leader who is uncertain. We expect our politicians to have answers -- even if they are canned and insincere -- and to hold to them. When you see a politiician campaigning on a platform, "I can't wait to get to Washington and work for greater knowledge and understanding so we can find intelligent solutions to problems" I'll show you somebody who is going to lose big time to somebody who says "All we need to do to get the economy rolling is cut taxes and repeal Obamacare." Sadly enough, I'd have more trust in the loser, in this case, which is why I do politics on internet message boards rather than volunteering in campaigns or running for office myself.
 
And no one exemplifies racism and stupidity more than the Jesse Jacksons and the Al Sharptons. One needn't be white to be a stupid racist.
 
I used to trust scientists...

There is a difference between "science" and "scientists".

The poll I was referencing spoke of trusting science, not scientists.

I guess one can more or less equate the two, which is more easily done with some topics than others, like global warming, and less easily done with, say, evolution.
 
I would trust the independent scientists far more than the democrat or republican scientists! The independent scientists are more intelligent, more honest and resist agendas. Their choice of politics means they're on to something.
 
Maybe most scientists don't want to be part of a right wing evangelical religious cult devoted to inserting religion into government at all levels. Just a theory.
 
The use of the phrase "merely a theory" shows a profound ignorance of what a theory is in science.

Don't you just love it when the same ignorant mistake/misuse of language (theory, here) gets made over and over and over again?

I'm actually starting to think the creationists/anti-science crowd don't know what they are talking about.
wink.gif


Here's a good way to look at it. There are certain data elements within science. You can call them facts, or facts as we currently know them. That does not mean the facts are inviolable. Now, the theory is the framework or structure upon which the facts reside, where the facts/data are construed for the best possible explanatory power. That doesn't mean the current theory is inviolable.

Most of the anti-science/creationist crowd seem to think a theory is merely a guess, or somewhat better than a guess but not much.
 
In short, theory = well-tested explanation for natural phenomona (as opposed to supernatural)

"In the context of science, a theory is a well-established explanation for scientific data. Theories typically cannot be proven, but they can become established if they are tested by several different scientific investigators. A theory can be disproven by a single contrary result."
The Link

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes."
The Link
 
Almost all academics are libs. Since most scientists are associated with academia to some degree, it's not surprising that most are dems. Their peers are, so they are. I don't think that it implies anything more meaningful than that.
 
Almost all academics are libs. Since most scientists are associated with academia to some degree, it's not surprising that most are dems. Their peers are, so they are. I don't think that it implies anything more meaningful than that.

That's some bad, bad logic there. Not to mention using some iffy facts. Please link a credible site which says that most scientists are associated with academia, and please specify "to some degree".

Here are some logically defensible reasons:

1. Republicans have taken a lot of anti-science positions lately (climate, evolution, etc) and scientists are just responding to that.

and

I think being a scientist opens one to the idea that certitude is a bad position. Yet certitude is the heart of conservatism. It could be a simple as that.
 
Coming from you, that's laughable.

You seem not to know the difference between ignorant certitude and an appreciation for the scientific method, which has an assurance in the method but not in the outcomes. The data drives the outcomes.

I can't remember if you're on the anti-global warming/pro-creationist portion of the spectrum, but I'll go ahead and make that guess. Do you equate religion with science? Where your certainty in your "revealed" truth is on par with confidence in scientific theories? Therefore, "certainty" in science somehow becomes the same as certainty in one's religious beliefs. That seems to be where you're headed. Your certainty in creationism is merely the flip side of my certainty in evolution; we just arrive at that certainty via different vehicles. Nevermind that the question is inherently a scientific one.

But if you have a substantive point to make, please do so.
 
Are you saying that prod is not a creationist/global warming denier? I admit that I am making a conclusion. You are assuming that my conclusion is an incorrect one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top