Political Lean of Scientists

[iNow]

28 minutes ago, Art Man said:

Scientists generally don't touch politics

Yeah, especially political scientists. 

[swansont]

56 minutes ago, Art Man said:

I have no idea. Since the DoD has a revolving door in the leader positions the scientists they employ probably stay apolitical and just do their work. So I would say Independent. If a scientist at such a high level with a lifetime contract or a long term contract had a very strong political opinion their employ would be a bumpy ride because every 5 years you got a new boss whose political affiliation is different than the one before him.

You were right. You have no idea.

A lot of DoD scientists are government employees, i.e. career. Some are contractors. The specific research is not generally coupled to leadership.  

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Art Man said:

A. Why are scientists found to be overwhelmingly Democrat or Independent?

Because by and large most scientists are resonable men and women, who are often concerned with the truth as best they can.

But two questions

Do you place your most reasonable men as linebackers in (american) football ?

Are politicians noted for being truthful folks ?

[Art Man]

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It's fairly simple. We tend to serve our self interest as individuals. If not regulated this can lead to very bad outcomes, not always just for the group but sometimes for each and every participant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

In the cases that an evil autocrat takes control their reign is usually short. (Hitler, Caligula, Julius Caesar)

[Strange]

5 hours ago, Art Man said:

1. They control what most people think about through what content the media presents, but obviously cant control what everyone is concerned with.

Who are "they" and how do they control the media?

5 hours ago, Art Man said:

The only scientists the public hears from are mostly government funded.

Do you have any evidence for that? (Supporting one unevidenced claim by inventing another one is not very convincing.)

5 hours ago, Art Man said:

Reports from large privately owned corporations are largely internal and the government usually has to audit them for information. What reports they do release freely get buried and dont receive much media attention.

What!?

5 hours ago, Art Man said:

Republicans arw a lot more reclusive than Democrats.

Pfft. Really? Like that recluse Donald Trump?

 

[Art Man]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Because by and large most scientists are resonable men and women, who are often concerned with the truth as best they can.

But two questions

Do you place your most reasonable men as linebackers in (american) football ?

Are politicians noted for being truthful folks ?

1. I don't follow football so I don't get the analogy.

2. 100% of the time.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Who are "they" and how do they control the media?

Do you have any evidence for that? (Supporting one unevidenced claim by inventing another one is not very convincing.)

What!?

Pfft. Really? Like that recluse Donald Trump?

 

1. The people that own the media companies choose the content and the overall message. It isn't a "free press". Most news agencies are privately owned.

2. Nearly every science article that I read is a report or derivative of a University journal or a government program. The only sources that I noticed thusfar to regularly report science news that isn't governmental in nature is CNN and C-SPAN.

3. Exactly what I wrote.

4. Politicians don't count because its their purpose to get public attention. Look below the politicians and note who spends more time out in public when money isn't changing hands. And remember, before "The Apprentice" Donald Trump rarely did media interviews or made huge public appearances, he always worked hard at his company and spent his time off privately.

Now that I've spent all day defending my intelligence does anyone want to discuss the topic I brought to attention?

And remember just because there isn't published source to quote from doesn't mean it isn't true.

Edited September 1, 2019 by Art Man

[iNow]

29 minutes ago, Art Man said:

just because there isn't published source to quote from doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

22 hours ago, iNow said:

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. 

 

[Art Man]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

 

 

Fair enough. Obviously this topic means something to many of the posters here but there isnt a whole lot of research done about the political nature of scientists. I will do another more extensive search for web articles on the matter and share whatever might be of value on this thread.

[iNow]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-scientists-donate-to-politicians-its-usually-to-democrats/

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, Art Man said:

Fair enough. Obviously this topic means something to many of the posters here but there isnt a whole lot of research done about the political nature of scientists. I will do another more extensive search for web articles on the matter and share whatever might be of value on this thread.

First of all, you need to define what you mean by “political nature” Is that party affiliation (how one votes) or level of activity and involvement?

The divide for scientists has to be interpreted within the context that educated people in the US tend to vote democrat more than republican. The divide gets larger when they have advanced degrees. So part of this is simply being educated.

[Curious layman]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

The divide for scientists has to be interpreted within the context that educated people in the US tend to vote democrat more than republican. The divide gets larger when they have advanced degrees.

 really? Never knew this. Would of thought that with the support from the big corporations it would be about 50/50.

Fascinating and slightly worrisome at the same time.

[Art Man]

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

First of all, you need to define what you mean by “political nature” Is that party affiliation (how one votes) or level of activity and involvement?

The divide for scientists has to be interpreted within the context that educated people in the US tend to vote democrat more than republican. The divide gets larger when they have advanced degrees. So part of this is simply being educated.

Because Republicans are more apt to be born wealthy and buy their degrees instead of earn them.

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, Art Man said:

Because Republicans are more apt to be born wealthy and buy their degrees instead of earn them.

Yet another claim extracted from your anus. At least your bullshit is consistent

[CharonY]

I would also like to add that a part of the discussion (though not all of it) is somwhat US-centric. While there are quite a number of reason why higher education is more commonly associated with progressive viewpoint, it has to be noted that the Republican party has for decades run a platform of anti-intellectualism and anti-science, which have impacted many disciplines. Rather obviously, when you start gaining knowledge in an area and someone just tells you to ignore what you learned and experienced, it makes it harder (though not impossible) to support them.

[Curious layman]

1 hour ago, Art Man said:

Because Republicans are more apt to be born wealthy and buy their degrees instead of earn them.

Even if is it true, it's not like there letting it hold them back are they? After all, their back in the White House again. Must be all those prayers.

[Art Man]

16 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

Even if is it true, it's not like there letting it hold them back are they? After all, their back in the White House again. Must be all those prayers.

The point of this thread was missed. I didn't learn much about what the other posters thoughts are as everyone just wants cited documents and really, there isn't much to provide.

[MigL]

Most scientists are not idiots.
Quite a few Republicans are.

See where I'm going with this...

[Strange]

5 hours ago, Art Man said:

The point of this thread was missed. I didn't learn much about what the other posters thoughts are as everyone just wants cited documents and really, there isn't much to provide.

Maybe you shouldn’t t state your beliefs as facts, then. 

Prefixing statements with “perhaps”, “I wonder if”, “is it possible that”  might reduce the demand for evidence. 

(And some of your ideas sound like bizarre conspiracy theories, which doesn’t help)

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Most scientists are not idiots.
Quite a few Republicans are.

See where I'm going with this...

A “guess the fallacy” competition?

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Art Man said:

Because Republicans are more apt to be born wealthy and buy their degrees instead of earn them.

I call bull. Show me the support for this claim.

10 hours ago, Curious layman said:

 really? Never knew this. Would of thought that with the support from the big corporations it would be about 50/50.

Fascinating and slightly worrisome at the same time.

?

How does education depend on the support from big corporations? Do republicans get sponsorships or something?

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I never made that claim. In fact I implied otherwise.

I think we're talking past each other, my point is, it's the same people, who tend to be selfish, that do the regulating. 

Even Jesus and Mohamed and etc... had to be fed and watered before dispensing there regulations...

And let's not forget Buddha was a fat lil' bugger...  

[Strange]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

How does education depend on the support from big corporations?

Who said it does?

47 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I think we're talking past each other, my point is, it's the same people, who tend to be selfish, that do the regulating. 

I thought your initial comment was a bit odd; this makes a bit more sense of it. But I think you have missed the point of the Tragedy of the Commons. 

It doesn’t need to be different people who make the regulations. In fact, it is probably better if it is the same people (they are more likely to accept them - which is kind of the point of democracy). 

However, uncontrolled access to limited resources leads to disaster. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

53 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I think we're talking past each other, my point is, it's the same people, who tend to be selfish, that do the regulating. 

Even Jesus and Mohamed and etc... had to be fed and watered before dispensing there regulations...

And let's not forget Buddha was a fat lil' bugger...  

We all tend to be selfish. That's why we often need regulating, and need to be cautious about who does it.

[Strange]

13 hours ago, Art Man said:

1. The people that own the media companies choose the content and the overall message. It isn't a "free press". Most news agencies are privately owned.

I thought that was pretty much the definition of “free press”. 

13 hours ago, Art Man said:

2. Nearly every science article that I read is a report or derivative of a University journal or a government program.

That is two different things. No doubt government programs are government funded. But not all university research is. 

13 hours ago, Art Man said:

3. Exactly what I wrote.

You think the government controls private companies research? What country is that true in?

13 hours ago, Art Man said:

Now that I've spent all day defending my intelligence

Your intelligence is not being questioned. But your bizarre “facts” are. 

13 hours ago, Art Man said:

And remember just because there isn't published source to quote from doesn't mean it isn't true.

Hmmm. Maybe the lack of evidence just shows how powerful the conspiracy is

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

It doesn’t need to be different people who make the regulations. In fact, it is probably better if it is the same people (they are more likely to accept them - which is kind of the point of democracy). 

And it's weakness, unless we have someone different, to look up to, because we all know how selfish we can be, even if we don't acknowledge it. I think that's the tragedy of the commons.

 https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotes/the-worst-form-of-government/

Has no-one tried a benign dictatorship?

Seemed to work well 2,000 years ago, for some...

[Curious layman]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

How does education depend on the support from big corporations? Do republicans get sponsorships or something?

Ive always associated the Republicans with business, and the wealthy. So I'd assumed a lot of their supporters would be from these kind of backgrounds- private schools, Ivy League college, things like that. So I'm surprised that the more educated you become, the less likely you are to be a Republican. And I've always associated the Democrats with the working classes- Factory workers, street cleaners, waitresses, low income families etc..