Pangloss

That's easy, Phil: Down in one. Want another? AND you cheered Lucapsa's nonsense on top of all that, stating for the record that you agreed with his position. And that's ignoring your use of the word "incompatible", to which you objected. I think you're splitting hairs because of a personal bias and not being objective. But THAT's fine, you have a right to your opinion. What I object to was your use of science to pretend like it's an objective, factual truth rather than a personal preference and opinion. But you've retracted that position, saying that you were taken out of context, and I accept your retraction. You stand corrected. But you were corrected, and so I mentioned it again above for context wrt lucapsa. I don't have a problem with your use of science to indicate why some scientists might lean to the left. I think your point there was legitimate.

Please pardon the slight topic drift, but since we're on the subject, has there been any further development of that idea to have mass transit running between Denver and the Front Range ski resorts?

Obviously I'm way behind in this thread, having been away for a couple of days. Sorry about that. Mokele, your post #55 was great -- we're very much in accord at that point. But did you see this post (#57)? Not "some conservatives". Not "some insane people". "CONSERVATISM." Lucapsa just said that SCIENCE PROVES CONSERVATISM IS FLAWED... ...and you let it pass, saying nothing! Phil was putting up the same kind of nonsense in this thread. Why are you arguing with me instead of these guys? You come back with all this stuff about "well yeah both sides are flawed", so how come you stomp on the ones that say "liberals are flawed" and let the ones who say "conservatives are flawed" fly by without a word?

There's nothing wrong with statistical correlations so long as you recognize the inherent danger in trusting them when making policy. How'd that work out for silicon breast implants, Mokele? How many drugs have been yanked from the market only to find out later there was nothing wrong? More to the point, these "studies" that get released to the media are all about political correctness. The policitally-correct ones catch on and form policy. The politically-incorrect ones become the subjects of demonization. I realize that's not "science", but I say that in answer to (I think) your question earlier (what makes it PC). As for the subject at hand, the study Phil mentioned is fine so far as it goes, which is not very far at all. It may show, as you say, that "traits like traditionalism and intolerance of ambiguity are associated with conservatism", but it doesn't even remotely show that conservatism is an inherently flawed or incorrect philosophy in any way. It simply does not address that issue. At best it confirms the well-known fact that some people are closed-minded fools. What a shocker. And I'll bet you any amount of money you could construct a "study" that would show some equally stupid flaw in people who trend liberal.

That's all well and good, Phil, and I'm glad to hear it, but it still seems to me that you used a scientific justification to prove a point of personal bias. I think my comments above were reasonable and fair. It's not wrong to point out Republican attacks on science. It's wrong to not recognize the same level of danger from equally ignorant Democrats -- liberal reporters who couldn't pass 8th grade science, Democrats spooked over 9/11 and/or wanting to run for president, etc etc etc. But I don't think most scientists lean liberal because of pessimism. Scientists aren't journalists, and they tend to focus on "the possible" rather than "the blame".

So you believe that it would be okay to publish a study that did control the other variables and drew the conclusion that blacks are less intelligent would be valid, solely based on statistical correlations? I think you're wrong, and I think that study would wake a lot of people up to the inherent problem in the global warming debate. To answer your question: They're politically correct because they attack a group that it is politically correct to attack. Note that in saying so I'm not attacking the accuracy of the science, I'm questioning the value of it, vis-a-vis using it to draw the conclusion that liberals are good and conservatives are bad (which is what Phil was doing).

Answer my question (in the quote), and I'll answer yours.

I don't think the anti-gun control arguments can be dismissed that easily. Yes, some people use that reasoning, but there are plenty of more logical arguments on that side of the issue. Closer analysis of crime statistics, for example. You may not agree with their conclusions, but those arguments are certainly more logical and reasoned than your "Rambo" quote.

Those studies do not prove this quote from you, Phil, which is the one I responded to (for a reason): You said "incompatible" Phil. Not "less likely", not "less commonly" -- INcompatible. Or at least I'm assuming that's the word you meant to use -- I'm not one to pick on spelling errors but of course if I'm misinterpreting your shorthand/typo please feel free to correct me. It also seems to me that you went on to claim that all conservatives share these personality traits, and therefore all conservatives are incapable of participating in or even understanding science. If I'm reading too much into your words, then please correct me, but if that's how you feel then why wouldn't you view that as a prejudice? It certainly isn't supported by your study! You insist that we cannot criticize all liberals for the actions of a crazy few, but you insist that we must demonize all conservatives, lumping every single one of them in the same boat: Your studies seem unusually quiet on this point, but perhaps it is only because I have not read them fully enough? Hmm? So it seems pretty reasonable to conclude that you made an ideological statement (liberals = good, conservatives = bad). I could wonder whether this means that liberals have trouble admitting their bias, but I'm afraid I don't have any studies handy. ;-) BTW, your "studies" strike me as rather blatantly PC. If they drew statistical correlations between SAT scores and African Americans and someone had the gall to suggest that they might be less intelligent, the world would not know the bounds of your outrage (and rightfully so). But I guess it's okay to draw a conclusion like that based on statistical correlations when it comes to bashing conservatives, huh?

Sure, but that's just semantics. If you prefer a more on-point disputation, see Sisyphus's response above (interesting that you didn't respond to that one). Phil's ideological point (about conservatives) doesn't hold water on a logical/scientific level, and therefore has been thoroughly refuted. However, I agree that there may be a valid argument as to the correlation between scientists and liberalism on a point-by-point basis relating to the predominence of current events. Not that that does anybody good when a liberal reporter who barely squeeked by in high school screams at us about the scientific logic of whatever politically correct topic happens to be on the agenda this week. But that's hardly the fault of scientists who happen to be liberal. Also, I think you made an interesting point here: I agree that that cause has that effect, and may contribute to the predominence of scientists who tend towards the left. Thus proving that scientists can be just as narrow-minded (and single- or limited-issue driven) as anybody else, especially in these busy modern times. (Who has time for politics these days?) I'm not sure I entirely agree with this point. Well, it's implication anyway. I agree that one's personal education and life experiences "inform" their opinions on issues. But that doesn't make those opinion correct or incorrect. It may even increase the likelyhood of a correct response, but it doesn't guarantee it. I definitely agree with this point. The question should be raised whether it's valid to wonder if scientists ARE predominently liberal. I've always questioned that kind of labelling anyway, because I agree with Chris Rock: Most people are conservative about some things and liberal about others. There's no particular reason to think that scientists are any different in this regard. Not all scientists are parents, for example -- that fact alone eliminates the possibility of complete political accord!

Ah ok, thanks for the clarification. Instead y'all can just point at me and laugh.

So... is the general consensus that this thread was made in error under the mistaken belief that there would be a World Cup Soccer tournament this year? Not to try to embarass the OP or anything, but I'm wondering if maybe we should strip out the poll and rename the thread just to avoid embarassment. (You know, other forums might point and laugh!) ;-)

By the way, I think another way of putting the above would be to say that: 1) We should be okay with the fact that more scientists are "liberal" than "conservative", since scientists tend to put science ahead of faith-based reasoning, and value the questioning of preconceptions 2) We should not view the predominence of liberal scientists over conservatives as a statement about the value of liberalism over conservatism in all matters; it may be a reflection on the current times and the predominence of certain current issues, but it isn't a statement about good and evil

I must agree you've expressed it far better than I did above. Well put. Perhaps. In thinking this over issue-by-issue I had a hard time working out a justification for the opposite (pro-conservative) conclusion, which means I'm either not intelligent enough to find it, or it isn't there to be found. (chuckle) My main hope on the subject is that most scientists are open-minded enough to recognize preconceptions and biases when they see them, thereby rendering the whole subject more or less moot. Everyone has ideological bias. The differences are in the way and the degree to which people allow them to guide their behavior.

Actually that's not correct. A run may be scored via error or walk, preserving the "no hitter". 27 batters up and down is called a "perfect game". There've only been a handful of those, whereas you see no-hitters once or twice a season (though sometimes less).

This is exactly the sort of prejudice I was hoping to expose in this thread. Kudos for being open about your predispositions. Don't mistake this as a personal attack -- I applaud your willingness to state your beliefs openly. But are there are no "personality traits" associated with the left that are incompatible with science and scientific reasoning? Such as, oh I don't know..... - Animals have sentience and emotion and therefore should have the same rights as human beings (all scientific evidence aside) - Parents can't be trusted with properly explaining matters of reproduction, therefore we need to strap their eight-year-old to the nearest chair and scream it into their faces whether they're ready for it or not - Morality should never be legislated; except of course if it's liberal morality - Anybody who believes in god is automatically conservative; Oh, except Blacks, they get a free pass, being just a little socially behind the rest of us - Everyone should be allowed to say what they want, except Conservatives, who should not be allowed to speak - Corporations are inherently evil - Anybody who questions any accepted science is a "denier" My point is not that any of the above positions are accurate (or even mine). I'm just saying that they're no more valid than the "reason" that you stated for scientists to be liberal. In essence the above is exactly the same thing that you said, just a bit more blantantly and in a bit more detail (and of course on the opposite side). I believe that in fact ideological beliefs have nothing to do with scientific/logical reasoning. They're about bias and preconception. ALL ideological beliefs are that way, all the time. In this country, in the current time frame, that means you pick one of the following stereotypes: 1) All conservatives are gun-toting pro-life half-breeds with red necks and big corporate paychecks. 2) All liberals are tree-hugging pro-choice weed-smokers with hyrbids sporting big anti-Bush bumper stickers. ... you determine that that stereotype is "evil", and you associate yourself with the opposing "camp", not recognizing that you're just playing into the opposite stereotype. There's an actual mental disconnect that takes place there that people automatically discard as mistaken, in spite of the fact that they just accepted the opposite stereotype as valid! Then they proceed accordingly, as if all logic and reason have been faithfully adhered to! It's just what people do.

I'd be just fine... until the electricity went. Then I'd be a helpless basket case. Which is pretty much already true every time we have a hurricane around here. My wife, on the other hand, would easily cope. She's one of those quiet, reserved types that look completely innocent and helpless but in fact are burstingly resourceful. The kind that always come completely out of left field for the win in any kind of strategy game. You do NOT want to come between her and her goals! So basically my post-apoc survival tactic would be to unleash the wife and hang on for the ride. (grin)

Most music is made available in stereo, which only provides a left and right channel, so any kind of filtering would be very inexact, since the "digital" information is really just snapshot-sampling of standing wave forms at specific moments in time. It's really quite sad how far behind the times the music industry is. And quite amazing how much better most music sounds when embedded in a Dolby Digital or DTS movie soundtrack on DVD. I keep hoping the music industry wakes up, but then I notice all the people running around with iPod earbuds jammed in their ears and am forced to remind myself that most people simply don't care.

Oof, skirting the line on advertising, but I'll let it stand if we can turn this into an interesting thread. I'm dealing with this issue myself and would love to hear other people's PhD mentoring stories (good and bad).

Classic! (BTW Heretic, the fact that it's not technically true is beside the point. Baseball punditry is a deliberately inexact science, and a whole, unique area of American comedy.)

I know many programmers who got their start with Excel VBA. I used to teach loops and IF statements to crowds of accountants with Excel experience, a certain percentage of which always found it intriguing and went on to learn more about programming. It's interesting how people come to programming from different directions.

McCain himself hasn't changed a whit, but now that McCain is actually running, his liberal support that we've been hearing about for all these years (the "if there were one Republican I could vote for, it would have to be McCain....") will begin to evaporate, much like the candidates' need for the extremes after the primaries. That's politics. In fairness, though, part of the reason for that is because people will learn more about him than they might have known before he was as prominent in the news. And of course many of the "I'd vote for him" statements made previously were due to single-issue topics. That's politics too.

Um.... what?

Well we need more females in computing so that's probably a good thing. We need more warm bodies period. (grin)

All well and good, but what does any of that have to do with Folding?