Question about Scientists and Politics

[PhDP]

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.

 

That's just fallacious, the sentence is out of context. I was defending the idea that scientists are liberal because of their personality (obviously, not ALL scientists are liberals). And if you read carefully, you'll see dogmatism (/lack of openness) is clearly an important personality trait that is correlated to conservatism, and the opposite of a trait (openness) that is considered important for scientists. So there's an incompatibility between a trait correlated to conservatives and a trait important for scientists. This is not just an anecdote. If you read [2] carefully, you'll see how dogmatism is important to understand conservatism.

 

So you have to explain to me; what is so complicated? Where is the prejudice? It's a prejudice now to use a source that will not please everyone?

 

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.

 

I surely never said "ALL". If each time I use a correlation you accuse me of attacking "ALL people"... it's going to be a little complicated. I never said conservatives were unable to participate or understand science, please, stop putting words in my mouth.

 

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:

 

So you don't think the republican party is more hostile to science than the democrats ? I'm sure the democrats would not get a A+ from the NAS, but still, they're not denying global warming, the anti-evolution mouvement is mostly made of conservatives, and I saw them claim very often that homosexuality was a "lifestyle".

 

And why would I criticise a crazy few liberals while I'm not criticising a crazy few conservatives ? What I just said about the republican party, it's shared by enough republicans to shape their policies.

 

So it seems pretty reasonable to conclude that you made an ideological statement (liberals = good, conservatives = bad).

 

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).

 

You crossed the line between arguing and lying, I never said "liberals are good, conservatives are bad".

 

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?

 

This has nothing to do with the subject and no, it would not outrage me. You probably missed the "blacks are less intelligent" debate, it wasn't about whether "blacks" had lower IQ or not, but about the cause; is it because they're black, or because of the environment.

 

To answer your question: They're politically correct because they attack a group that it is politically correct to attack.

 

Who cares? Again, this is a diversion, it doesn't change anything to the facts, it adds nothing to the discussion, and it’s just another way of playing the victim card.

[ParanoiA]

* Actually, IMHO, the facts run the other way, but IME, the opening lines of the gun control debate tend to be an emotional appeal by conservatives and a logical one from liberals.

 

Hmm..the opposite is true in my experience. Oddly enough, the gun control debate seems to be one of those issues where both sides are actually being somewhat logical in their views. I do get the liberal idea of 'no guns = no gun death', it's just that that's an unrealistic expectation by any stretch of the imagination. Whereas the conservatives tend to rely heavily on the 2nd ammendment and its implications, and then of course crime data in the cities with the most gun control law. I haven't looked at these in a long time, but last I checked DC had the highest murder rate and the most oppressive gun control legislation in the country.

 

And for the record, conservatives are traditionalists, but I think that fact has always overshadowed the fact that liberals are just as oppressive and conformative (not sure if that's even a word...) when it comes to their 'enlightened' views.

[Pangloss]

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".

[Pangloss]

Seriously, what is the problem with correlations?

 

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.

[Mokele]

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?

 

All statistics have a degree of uncertainty, and I do mean *all*. Any statistical test could be wrong, and the chances of that are actually explicitly given (usually the p value). In science, a p value of less than 0.05 is considered significant, which is to say that there is only a 1 in 20 chance than random effects yielded these results. That, in turn, means that if you get 40 significant results, chances are 2 of them are wrong (though if they're all in your experiment, you can correct for it by dividing the critcal p by the number of tests).

 

The point is, any and every statistical test can be wrong, including direct manipulative experiments, and, furthermore, I'd be flabbergasted if we *never* saw incorrect results. Anything can be wrong. Shit, Newton was wrong (admittedly only for very very small things, very very big things, and things moving very very fast, but still...)

 

Science does not deal in absolute certainty. Yes, it's possible for policy to be formed on science that turns out to be wrong, through nobody's fault. But

1) we know the chances that we are wrong (that's what the p-statistic is, and from it I can tell, for instance, that there's only a 0.01% chance I'm wrong about the effects of perch diameter on velocity of snake locomotion)

2) science-based conclusions are less likely to be wrong than, say, intuition, gut feelings, faith, guessing, etc.

 

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).

 

So, if I'm reading you right, what makes it PC isn't the science itself, but the media and public's reactions to it? If that's the case, then whether it's PC or not is an irrelevant objection, since the PC-ness has nothing to do with the quality of the research and thus whether the conclusions should be accepted or not.

 

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.

 

Your last sentence is dead on: it doesn't address whether conservatism is "right" or "wrong". That's not what it's about, it's about the eitiology of political party affiliations: given a person with traits X Y and Z, which party are they most likely to join. That the media ****ed up the interpretation is, frankly, par for the course. You should see me when the media has an article out about paleontology; I'm amazed they don't say things like 'dinosaurs were giant lizards' given their abysmal accuracy.

 

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.

 

Nobody's arguing that either side is perfect, only pointing out that each side tends to attract people with certain traits, and that it's not beyond reason to expect scientists to trend disproportionately towards one party.

 

I'll bet in a study in the UK, we'd see the same thing: certain traits associated with the Torries, Labor, and Lib-Dems, and scientists trending disproportionately towards one. Personally, I predict that without the Religious Right's major influence on one party, the spread of scientists across UK parties will be less skewed.

 

Mokele

[lucaspa]

The reason why this seems odd to me is because while I realize there are dozens and dozens of science categories, it seems all understand the basics of survival of the fittest. Most scientists seem to understand this concept on a deeper level than the rest of us, irregardless of their specialty. So, the people who understand nature's capitalism better than most of us, reject that concept in governing humans. Why is that?

 

Because "survival of the fittest" does NOT mean out and out competition between individuals! The "struggle for existence" is metaphorical and not a face-off between 2 individuals! Darwin was very clear on this, but it appears conservatives and capitalists don't read Darwin:

 

"The Term, Struggle for Existence, Used in a Large Sense

 

I should premise that I use this term in a large and metaphorical sense including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny. TWo canine animals, in a time of dearth, may be truly said to struggle witheach other which shall get food and live. But a plant on the edge of a desert is said to struggle for life against the drought, though more properly it should be said to be dependent on the moisture. A plant which annually produces a thousand seeds, of which only one of an average comes to maturity, may be more truly said to struggle with the ground. The mistletoe is dependent on the apple and a few other trees, but can only in a fr-fetched sense be said to struggle with these trees, for, if too many of these parasites grow on the same tree, it languishes and dies. But several seedling mistletoes, growing close together on the same branch, may more truly be said to struggle with each other. As the mistletoe is disseminated by birds, its existence depends on them; and it may methodically be said to struggle with other fruit-bearing plants, in tempting the birds to devour and thus disseminate its seeds. In these several senses, which pass into each other, I use for convenience' sake the general term of Struggle for Existence."

 

Not only that, but for every example of cut-throat direct competition in nature, you can find 2 examples where survival depends on cooperation between individuals.

 

So, why do the majority of scientists seem to dislike unhindered capitalism, when it's basically the model they are specialists in and is proven to work?

 

Unhindered capitalism, by historical example, leads to benefits for a few but destruction of the society -- including scientists!

 

Also look at it this way -- who pays the research money? Government. Why? Because capitalism can't look forward beyond the next quarterly report to invest in research. Especially research for knowledge's sake.

[lucaspa]

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?

 

It worked for the silicon implants. Later studies did show direct deterimental effects of silicon on the immune system.

 

And, how many drugs have been yanked from the market only to find out later there was nothing wrong? Please give us a list!

 

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.

 

Yes, the study did indirectly indicate that conservatism may be inherently flawed. For one, it results in traits -- such as intolerance -- that are contradictory to one of the major ethical bases of conservatism; in this case Christianity.

 

The problem you have is that philosophy is outside science. ALL science can do is show the results of a given philosophy. It is up to people, from beliefs outside of science, to decide whether those results are "bad" or "good".

[lucaspa]

And the global warming religion is an example of a belief growing bigger than the facts to support it. That's conformity at work.

 

No, it's accepting data that is too obvious to deny. That conservatives do deny the data is an example of their being emotionally driven.

 

I tend to lean more to the latter. I like to say 'Today I believe in global warming, but I'd rather be convinced'. Being a layman, that's all I can really do. Logically, I must follow the majority of what science seems to be saying.

 

No, as a layman what you say is "Today I accept global warming 1) as being caused by human activity and 2) will cause major climactic change." To do this you should have looked at some of the papers in Science and Nature and at least read the summaries on the various large studies on the climate.

 

You do not "believe" in scientific theories. You accept them because the data leaves you no choice. And if you say "I'd like to be convinced", then that means you took the effort to educate yourself in the subject so that you were familiar with the data. To sit in ignorance and make no effort but say "I'm not convinced" is simply letting your emotions decide for you -- against the idea.

 

If you are going to "hear the critics out", then you have to make yourself aware of what the data IS. Otherwise all you are doing is letting the critics appeal to your emotions and self-interest.

[lucaspa]

More to the point, these "studies" that get released to the media are all about political correctness.

 

Are they? Was global warming "politically correct" when first proposed? NO! Was the idea that smoking was harmful to human health "politically correct" when the first studies came out? NO! Most people smoked and wanted to be told that smoking was OK.

 

The ones that "catch on" are usually the ones with data behind them. Look at Star Wars. It was "politically correct" because Reagan said it was. But the science was flawed. So it didn't "catch on".

 

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).

 

Let me guess, you label policies that you don't like as being "politically correct". Saying a policy is "politically correct" isa "form of demonization", isn't it? Because you are saying, when you use the term "politically correct" that the idea is wrong but accepted anyway.

 

Clever grasp of rhetoric, you have there. And yes, the conservative movement is very good at rhetoric.

[PhDP]

At least on this topic, lucaspa, we're mostly on the same side

[ParanoiA]

Because "survival of the fittest" does NOT mean out and out competition between individuals! The "struggle for existence" is metaphorical and not a face-off between 2 individuals! Darwin was very clear on this, but it appears conservatives and capitalists don't read Darwin:

 

I'm not sure what your intent is in that last sentence. I'll just say don't punish conservatives for something that I asked about. Not sure if that's relevant, but I'm not coming at this from a conservative challenging you scientists...this really is genuine inquiry.

 

Also look at it this way -- who pays the research money? Government. Why? Because capitalism can't look forward beyond the next quarterly report to invest in research. Especially research for knowledge's sake.

 

Yeah, I'd have to take issue with that. Greed is a great motivator. Capitalism is full of R&D. You seriously believe that only the government invests in research? The government didn't pay for ipod research. The government didn't cover the research on cell phone technology.

I'd be willing to bet capitalism invests more in R&D than the government. Not because they're noble citizens, but because of the pay out. Now, research for knowledge's sake, I'm sure is going to fall on government or private money that doesn't seek profit - no doubt about that.

 

Yes, the study did indirectly indicate that conservatism may be inherently flawed. For one, it results in traits -- such as intolerance -- that are contradictory to one of the major ethical bases of conservatism; in this case Christianity.

 

Well, I guess I'd have to challenge the validity of the study since intolerance is a major characteristic of liberalism. They are intolerant of individuality and civil liberties. They are intolerant of anything associated with god, but have no issues with other fairy tales. Intolerance is just as ingrained in liberalism as it ever has been with conservatism. So, I think the study is either biased, or poorly executed.

 

No, it's accepting data that is too obvious to deny. That conservatives do deny the data is an example of their being emotionally driven.

 

I agree that reason why conservatives deny the data is an emotional "contrarian" response. But the data is not too obvious to deny. Or else, why are scientists denying it? I don't want to derail this into a GW debate, because I don't doubt the possibility. I doubt, or at least, question the conclusion of this data. Yes you can measure the ice caps melting, and take stock of temperatures over the globe and conclude it's getting warmer - but you can't therefore conclude it's not a cycle and won't reverse as such.

 

That's just an example of some things I've read. The point is, it's not too obvious to deny. It's quite ambiguous enough to deny.

 

You do not "believe" in scientific theories. You accept them because the data leaves you no choice. And if you say "I'd like to be convinced", then that means you took the effort to educate yourself in the subject so that you were familiar with the data. To sit in ignorance and make no effort but say "I'm not convinced" is simply letting your emotions decide for you -- against the idea.

 

Right. And the GW scientific theory as pimped presently leaves me two choices: It's true...or it's BS. Let me know when all of your buddies finally agree. I don't mean 51%. I mean like over 90%. This isn't politics, it's science. I don't think half the scientists are out of agreement on whether the earth is round or not.

 

And to sit in ignorance? I have no choice but to listen to one side AND the other. I realize that might be difficult for the religiously inclined environmentalist, but contrary to what you may believe, other people do have opinions worth listening to. I choose to listen to all of you scientists since I have no way of discerning which of you is correct.

 

Remember, this isn't an emotional appeal but a logical one. It's logical to agree with GW for the interum (due to the minor majority), and quite irresponsible for me to draw conclusions on GW, due to the minor majority.

 

What you're demanding is a decision today - right now. If I do not declare my unending allegiance to the GW catastrophe today, when the experts of said issue are split today, then I'm sitting in ignorance? Please. That is an emotional response similar to what we get from christianity. You are demanding a conclusion without the facts to empirically prove that conclusion. That's religion.

[Mokele]

Capitalism is full of R&D. You seriously believe that only the government invests in research? The government didn't pay for ipod research. The government didn't cover the research on cell phone technology.

I'd be willing to bet capitalism invests more in R&D than the government. Not because they're noble citizens, but because of the pay out. Now, research for knowledge's sake, I'm sure is going to fall on government or private money that doesn't seek profit - no doubt about that.

 

Even directly applicable research isn't always funded in capitalism. My father was forced into 'early retirement' when the chemical company he worked for was bought by one that never had an R&D department (now he gets twice as much for consulting, though, so it's all good).

 

Consider the iPod. Did Sony spend any money on it? Not a dime. They waited for Apple to invent it, then immediately bought one, pried it apart, and made their own version different enough to avoid copyright.

 

And also, in the end, it's basic research that truly matters. gizmos are neat, but where would we be if nobody had gotten grants to study the electron?

 

Well, I guess I'd have to challenge the validity of the study since intolerance is a major characteristic of liberalism. They are intolerant of individuality and civil liberties. They are intolerant of anything associated with god, but have no issues with other fairy tales. Intolerance is just as ingrained in liberalism as it ever has been with conservatism.

 

I have to strongly disagree. Conservatives certianly aren't tolerant of civil liberties: which party was trying to write hatred into the constitution? Which we campaigning to have the ability to evict me from my home simply because they don't like who I sleep with?

 

Intolerance is a tool, nothing more, and has been wielded by both current parties, many past ones, and numerous foreign ones. Republicans currently associate with the hate-filled bigots of the Christian Right, but a generation ago, the southern democrats were opposing integration and civil rights. We've had 'Alien and Sedition Acts' from just about every party that's even existed in the US.

 

Intolerance is nothing but a tool to whip up support from the party core. Watch this election: both sides will say the most outlandish, intolerant things in the primaries to win the support of the party base, but will rapidly drift to the middle when the campaign for the general election starts.

 

Let me know when all of your buddies finally agree. I don't mean 51%. I mean like over 90%.

 

That would be about 10-15 years ago. Seriously, among *real* climatologists, the consensus is very, very strong, more than 90%.

 

----------------------

 

 

Ok, I'm not trying to be an ass, but I'm going to start editing out GW parts of posts from here on out, or start splitting them to a new thread. This is a serious OT drift, one that's overwhelming the real topic. ParanoiA and lucapsa, both of your responses spent more time on GW than the actual subject of the thread.

 

I'm not trying to be harsh (believe me, you *know* when I'm harsh), but it's derailing the thread. Start a new thread for it, if you want, but it's too distracting here.

 

Mokele

[ParanoiA]

Consider the iPod. Did Sony spend any money on it? Not a dime. They waited for Apple to invent it, then immediately bought one, pried it apart, and made their own version different enough to avoid copyright.

 

And also, in the end, it's basic research that truly matters. gizmos are neat, but where would we be if nobody had gotten grants to study the electron?

 

Oh, I completely agree. I'm just pointing out that government isn't alone in spending money on research. That's it.

 

Although, I would point out that the private sector also invests research money in truely important stuff like medicine and so forth. Hospitals are full of equipment that was researched with private dollars. Probably none of it without the goal of profit in mind either.

 

I have to strongly disagree. Liberals certianly aren't intolerant of civil liberties: which party was trying to write hatred into the constitution?

 

Hatred? Not sure what you're talking about here...

 

Anyway, which party promotes banning smoking in public? Which party got trans-fats banned in New York restaraunts? Which party burns like garlic on a vampire about anything to do with "god" on money, in school, any public property? Do I really need to go on? Liberals are just as intolerant as conservatives - and I'd add, in a more selfish manner.

 

That would be about 10-15 years ago. Seriously, among *real* climatologists, the consensus is very, very strong, more than 90%.

 

Ok, you're qualifying "real" then. I'm going to look into this again and may start a thread if it sounds interesting.

[Mokele]

Although, I would point out that the private sector also invests research money in truely important stuff like medicine and so forth. Hospitals are full of equipment that was researched with private dollars. Probably none of it without the goal of profit in mind either.

 

True, but everything comes back to basic research. There's a ****ton of money going into building better MRIs, but the original technology goes all the way back to basic research on magnetic fields and Helmholtz coils. Similarly, biotech is a huge boon, but entirely based on government funded work like Watson & Crick.

 

Industry is good at R&D for profit, and has started taking a longer view, but still isn't very keen on funding the sort of basic research that, while it may massively advance our knowledge, will take 50+ years to show any payoff. Not that I blame them; such funding, grand as it may be in purpose and motive, doesn't make good business sense. There's a place for both government-funded research and privately-funded research.

 

Hatred? Not sure what you're talking about here...

 

The Defense of Marriage amendment, aka the Blatant Hatred Cloaked In Faith amendment.

 

Anyway, which party promotes banning smoking in public? Which party got trans-fats banned in New York restaraunts? Which party burns like garlic on a vampire about anything to do with "god" on money, in school, any public property? Do I really need to go on? Liberals are just as intolerant as conservatives - and I'd add, in a more selfish manner.

 

I strongly disagree. Those are annoying, yes, but frankly, are trivial compared to taking control of your body or determining that you can lose your home and job just because someone doesn't like you. Smoking and trans-fats are meaningless minutiae in comparison to shipping an asylum-seeker back to the country where he'll be jailed indefinitely, beaten, raped, and probably killed because of his sexuality.

 

Honestly, Bush Sr. once said that atheists should not be considered citizens. How can that compare to banning trans fats?

 

Maybe it's because I'm in a minority group who actually have something to fear from them, but I see the Christian Right as more inimical to liberty than any other modern political movement. I see them flat-out state they want theocracy, and still retain political power. I see them state that 'their[my] kind' shouldn't be allowed here, see them excuse murder based on 'they asked for it'. Honestly, I see them as about 4 short steps away from the Nazis, and truly believe that, if they gained truly unassailable power, they would behave in the same manner. Maybe that sounds extreme, but when was the last time you say a paid political ad say directly that you're immoral scum not worthy of basic rights. When you're on the receiving end, it's pretty obvious who the real agents of intolerance are in this culture.

 

Mokele

 

Mokele

[Sisyphus]

Hatred? Not sure what you're talking about here...

 

I assume he's referring to all the recent "marriage amendment" nonsense, which EVERYONE IN AMERICA knows is just about sticking it to homosexuals.

 

Anyway, which party promotes banning smoking in public? Which party got trans-fats banned in New York restaraunts? Which party burns like garlic on a vampire about anything to do with "god" on money, in school, any public property? Do I really need to go on? Liberals are just as intolerant as conservatives - and I'd add, in a more selfish manner.

 

I don't really buy the "selfish" bit. Care to explain? Also, not that liberals don't have their own anti-civil liberty causes, but I don't agree that all your examples qualify:

 

Public smoking bans can and are legitimately defended on the grounds that smoking in public spaces forces other people to breate in your tobacco smoke, which goes considerably beyond the "your rights end where mine begin" slogan of libertarians. You ARE infringing on their rights, and so your rights have to be weighed against theirs. I'm undecided, but liberals tend to see it as "your right to kill yourself in public is less important than my right not to be killed by you."

 

And the separation of church and state? I mean, seriously? That's ABOUT civil liberty, about not giving an inch towards a government religion. It's about defending principle even when the particulars seem irrelevant or even negative, analogous to the ACLU standing up for the KKK's right to demonstrate. I don't see how you could possibly say it's an effort to restrict liberty. Of course, you might mean "intolerant" in the sense of specifically attacking Christianity (which is not true at all), or trying to marginalize religion. Except that any idiot knows that combining government and religion corrupts them both. But then, any group that thinks being told that they can't impose their religion on everyone else consitutes THEM being persecuted is probably mostly composed of idiots, anyway.

 

But yeah, the trans fat thing was stupid. I believe there IS an argument to be made, it's just (IMO) a much weaker one, and I'm too tired to be devil's advocate...

[ParanoiA]

The Defense of Marriage amendment, aka the Blatant Hatred Cloaked In Faith amendment.

 

Oh, ok. Yes, I have a big problem with that. It is intolerant and traditionalist - emotional appeal using the bible (which is not based on logic).

 

Maybe it's because I'm in a minority group who actually have something to fear from them, but I see the Christian Right as more inimical to liberty than any other modern political movement.

 

May I ask what minority group you're in? Just curious, certainly not necessary. And yes, I would agree, when you're in the crosshairs it changes the intensity of your views.

 

Just keep in mind, the republicans / conservatives don't represent the personality of the rich and religious any more than democrats / liberals represent the personality of the poor and secular. Many people lump the rich with republicans and conservatives and assume they're evil, oppressive entities out to control and take everything from humanity. That's poetry, not reality. No one said this, but I'm "feeling" it in your arguments.

 

I do share a distaste for religion - of any kind. Christian, environmentalism, Islam, you name it. I see religion in these things when the believers depend on faith for one, and are unmoved by contrary facts for two. I know you'd take issue with my short list, but that's not the point.

 

Public smoking bans can and are legitimately defended on the grounds that smoking in public spaces forces other people to breate in your tobacco smoke, which goes considerably beyond the "your rights end where mine begin" slogan of libertarians.

 

Well, I don't agree. Surprise! I'll just say public smoking bans aren't legitimately defended since the property is private - not public. You have no "right" to be on my property. But if I'm going to be a successful business, I had better grant you that privilege. And if people demand freedom from smoke on my property, they are overstepping their authority. Again though, if I'm going to thrive as a business, I had better listen or my customers will go away.

 

Keep in mind, in my mind, we have strayed so far away and have mangled our rights to the point that some people are flabergasted at the idea of not having a right to force behavior on another.

 

I had a discussion a couple of months ago with a co-worker who was just dumbfounded and disgusted with me at the idea that as "employees" of a corporation, we don't have a right to force management to listen to our ideas. This was in reference to a PMEI process, introduced by the union to force the company to hear our ideas about how the work should be done.

 

He thinks I'm a nazi, corporate whore because I stand on that principle. If the company is smart - they'll listen to us. If they're not, they won't. Either way, I have no right to force them to listen to me about a damn thing.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that we are so far away from really understanding the principles our rights are built on that we casually infringe and trample on other's rights without consideration - selfishly convinced of our own "superior enlightenment".

 

Incidentally, that's also why I see it as more selfish - not worse - more selfish. Christians think they're doing god's work. I don't see that as selfish, but rather childishly misguided - but the consequences are worse.

[Mokele]

May I ask what minority group you're in? Just curious, certainly not necessary. And yes, I would agree, when you're in the crosshairs it changes the intensity of your views.

 

Bisexual, and most of my friends are gay.

 

Just keep in mind, the republicans / conservatives don't represent the personality of the rich and religious any more than democrats / liberals represent the personality of the poor and secular

 

Well, currently the republicans are associated with the religious right, but I do agree that's merely a momentary thing; they've been associated with the democrats in the past, and other parties before them.

 

I'll just say public smoking bans aren't legitimately defended since the property is private - not public. You have no "right" to be on my property.

 

Depends on the context of a public smoking ban. If they're banning it in bars, yes, you're right, but if they're banning it in, say, courthouses or other public property, that's fine.

 

Either way, I have no right to force them to listen to me about a damn thing.

 

I disagree. You can't force them to listen about some meaningless trivia like whether the soda machine has coke or pepsi, but you do have a right to force them to listen if it's something like workplace safety where there's a real, genuine hazard.

 

Incidentally, that's also why I see it as more selfish - not worse - more selfish. Christians think they're doing god's work. I don't see that as selfish, but rather childishly misguided - but the consequences are worse.

 

From my POV, intentions of any sort are irrelevant - all that matters is the effect. Whose goals are nobler is just crap to be trotted out during election season, the real issue is the actual effect.

 

Mokele

[ParanoiA]

Bisexual, and most of my friends are gay.

 

Yeah, you're definitely in their crosshairs then. Issues like this is what drove me away from conservative / republicans.

 

Depends on the context of a public smoking ban. If they're banning it in bars, yes, you're right, but if they're banning it in, say, courthouses or other public property, that's fine.

 

Agreed. That is exactly what I meant.

 

I disagree. You can't force them to listen about some meaningless trivia like whether the soda machine has coke or pepsi, but you do have a right to force them to listen if it's something like workplace safety where there's a real, genuine hazard.

 

Agreed. This was in the context of the workflow. Management wants us to perform the work in such a way that we think is stupid and wasteful. Although, in his defense, he was concerned with losing his job due to their wastefulness.

 

Yeah, the employer doesn't have a right to endanger us.

 

From my POV, intentions of any sort are irrelevant - all that matters is the effect. Whose goals are nobler is just crap to be trotted out during election season, the real issue is the actual effect.

 

True, but Sisyphus requested clarification.

[Dak]

Bisexual, and most of my friends are gay.

 

My appologies if this is prying too much into your personal life, and feel free not to answre: but how did you end up with most of your friends being gay? it seems a bit statistically anomolous?

[lucaspa]

I'm not sure what your intent is in that last sentence. I'll just say don't punish conservatives for something that I asked about. Not sure if that's relevant, but I'm not coming at this from a conservative challenging you scientists...this really is genuine inquiry.

 

OK. The point is that the basic premise of capitalism -- as you stated it -- is wrong. Natural selection (which you mischaracterized as "survival of the fittest") does NOT entail unremitting direct competition between members of a species. Thus, your puzzlement that scientists aren't conservative and capitalist is answered: you started out with a wrong premise on what natural selection is. Therefore all your reasoning from that point is invalid.

 

Greed is a great motivator. Capitalism is full of R&D. You seriously believe that only the government invests in research?

 

I didn't say that. Look at what I wrote: "Especially research for knowledge's sake."

 

Capitalism does research geared to the next PRODUCT. It's not good at the basic stuff.

 

The government didn't pay for ipod research.

 

It paid for most of the research into integrated circuits and silicon chips on which the iPod depends. Same for cell phones. Much of the research on radio was done by the government.

 

Now, research for knowledge's sake, I'm sure is going to fall on government or private money that doesn't seek profit - no doubt about that.

 

And what kind of research do most scientists do? The stuff for knowledge's sake, or research that doesn't have an immediate product at the end.

 

Well, I guess I'd have to challenge the validity of the study since intolerance is a major characteristic of liberalism. They are intolerant of individuality and civil liberties. They are intolerant of anything associated with god, but have no issues with other fairy tales. Intolerance is just as ingrained in liberalism as it ever has been with conservatism. So, I think the study is either biased, or poorly executed.

 

And yet you've never read the Methods section, have you? This is argument ad hominem, pure and simple. Let's see, who was it that participated in the Civil Rights Movement for civil liberties? Conservatives? NOPE. Liberals. Who is it that wanted to protect black churches from bombings. Liberals again.

 

And no, liberals are NOT intolerant of God. They are about separation of church and state. Why? To PROTECT the liberties of people.

 

But the data is not too obvious to deny. Or else, why are scientists denying it?

 

You are confusing the scientists with the idea. And using Argument from Authority. For ANY idea, there are going to be a few people who don't accept it. For any number of emotional reasons. And that will include some scientists. Scientists, as people, can be just as emotional as anyone else. It is science that is unemotional. That's why I said you had to look at the DATA. The DATA is overwhelming.

 

I doubt, or at least, question the conclusion of this data. Yes you can measure the ice caps melting, and take stock of temperatures over the globe and conclude it's getting warmer - but you can't therefore conclude it's not a cycle and won't reverse as such.

 

Yes, you can. Because you can determine the causes of these events. And that cause is human activity. Also, you can use the geological record to look at cycles in the past. You can see if cycles happen this fast and how severe they are. Ice cores from Greenland and the Andes give us cycles for the past 100,000 years and more. None of them correspond to this.

 

That's just an example of some things I've read.

 

And welcome to denying the data. That's why I said you had to read the papers for yourself. Not just rely on a "he said, he said" situation.

 

Let me know when all of your buddies finally agree. I don't mean 51%. I mean like over 90%.

 

Been there, done that. The consensus is already well over 90%. Again, the problem of looking at "he said, he said" arguments is that the minority position is going to try to make their position appear stronger than it is. One way to look at consensus is to do a PubMed search on "global, warming". Look at the number of articles documenting it is happening vs the number of articles documenting it is not or that it is not human activity. The key here is "documenting". Not just rationalization arguments -- like your cycles argument -- but hard data.

 

I have no choice but to listen to one side AND the other.

 

Sure you do. I gave it to you. LOOK AT THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE YOURSELF! Science and Nature are in any public library. Most people live within a half hour drive of a college. Go use their library for articles in other journals not in your public library. The internet gives several basic search engines of the scientific literature I mentioned one: PubMed. There are others.

 

I think you WANT to listen to "both sides" because you have a prejudice for one side and don't want to find out how wrong it is.

 

Remember, this isn't an emotional appeal but a logical one. It's logical to agree with GW for the interum (due to the minor majority), and quite irresponsible for me to draw conclusions on GW, due to the minor majority.

 

False premise: a minor majority. It isn't. Not within the scientific community. It's damn near unanimous, with the holdouts doing so because they are getting paid to do so.

 

What you're demanding is a decision today - right now. If I do not declare my unending allegiance to the GW catastrophe today, when the experts of said issue are split today, then I'm sitting in ignorance?

 

That isn't what I said. I said the DATA is already overwhelming. There is no "decision" to make. Your ignorance is ignorance of the data and refusal to go look at it.

 

You are demanding a conclusion without the facts to empirically prove that conclusion.

 

No, I'm saying the empirical facts are already there. The conclusion is obvious with the current data. I'm just saying that your refusal to look at the data is religion: the religion of already having decided and wanting the world to be the way you want, not what it is.

[lucaspa]

Although, I would point out that the private sector also invests research money in truely important stuff like medicine and so forth. Hospitals are full of equipment that was researched with private dollars. Probably none of it without the goal of profit in mind either.

 

All the company dollars were done with profit in mind. The basic research is done in academic labs. Only AFTER that is done and knowledge is found that is reasonably expected to earn a profit do the companies come in. Let's look at the field I am most familiar with: adult stem cells. Look at the source of funding for all first papers in adult stem cells: private or government. Non-profit. Only AFTER the adult stem cells are discovered -- and thus a possible product -- do you find companies involved. Either founded by the scientist or the invention licensed by the company. Then the company funds the pre-clinical and clinical trials.

 

But even HERE the goverment helps with what are called Small Business Innovative Research Grants -- SBIR. These are grants for risky initial studies. The studies that companies will NOT fund.

 

Anyway, which party promotes banning smoking in public?

 

Let's see, since there are several studies showing that second hand smoke harms people, why would you NOT ban it? As I learned about freedom: the freedom to swing your arm ends at my nose. So, the freedom to poison yourself with smoking ends at my lungs.

 

Which party got trans-fats banned in New York restaraunts?

 

That would be the Republican mayor.

 

Which party burns like garlic on a vampire about anything to do with "god" on money, in school, any public property?

 

That would be the conservatives who wrote the Constitition! You know, the one that said government shall do nothing to establish religion? Do you deny that theism is a religion?

 

Do I really need to go on?

 

Yes, because so far you are 3 strikes for 3 swings.

[Dak]

Just to nip this in the bud:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

global warming = has consensus.

 

Mokele I believe Oreskes, 2004 (from the wp article) was the paper you cited early but couldn't remember the name of, that indicates 0% disagreement with certain assertations of GW theory.

 

----

 

if anyone wishes to continue the GW argument, may i suggest a different thread, as GW debates tend to be OP-consuming.

[lucaspa]

May I ask what minority group you're in? Just curious, certainly not necessary. And yes, I would agree, when you're in the crosshairs it changes the intensity of your views.

 

But not necessarily. I'm white, male, heterosexual Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

 

Just keep in mind, the republicans / conservatives don't represent the personality of the rich and religious

 

No, just their interests. And Republicans don't represent the "religious", but rather one particular religion: Fundamentalism.

 

I see religion in these things when the believers depend on faith for one, and are unmoved by contrary facts for two.

 

Then your opposition to global warming is religion! Your opposition depends on faith that the small minority is right and you are unmoved by all the contrary facts to your position -- the ones that show global warming is happening and is caused by humans.

 

Why don't you hate your own position?

 

I'll just say public smoking bans aren't legitimately defended since the property is private - not public. You have no "right" to be on my property.

 

Let's see, does the owner have a "right" to randomly discharge a gun within the bar or restaurant or office? Why not? Because that bullet could hit you and harm you. Well, it is guaranteed that the smoke is going to hit you and get in your lungs. And the data says that the smoke will harm you. Enough of it and it can even kill you.

 

And if people demand freedom from smoke on my property, they are overstepping their authority.

 

Keep in mind, in my mind, we have strayed so far away and have mangled our rights to the point that some people are flabergasted at the idea of not having a right to force behavior on another.

 

And those have to be kept in check. For instance, if you are smoking in your own home I have no objection. It's your lungs. I'll even go along with the idea that you can inflict the smoke on your children.

 

I had a discussion a couple of months ago with a co-worker who was just dumbfounded and disgusted with me at the idea that as "employees" of a corporation, we don't have a right to force management to listen to our ideas. This was in reference to a PMEI process, introduced by the union to force the company to hear our ideas about how the work should be done.

 

You have the right to struggle to get management to listen to your ideas. I don't see how you can, in practice, "force" management to do so. After all, management can simply refuse, even if that means bankruptcy. I think your co-worker may have been confused on what the right was and said "forced to listen" instead of "struggle to get them to listen".

 

Either way, I have no right to force them to listen to me about a damn thing.

 

But don't you have the right to exert pressure on management to listen? Even go out on strike if the ideas are that important?

 

After all, that is what labor has done all thru history: forced management to not only listen but institute reforms such as higher wages, safer working conditions, health care, etc.

 

If we hold absolutely to your position, then you are a slave, not an employee.

 

Christians think they're doing god's work. I don't see that as selfish, but rather childishly misguided - but the consequences are worse.

 

And Christians have furnished most liberals in the past. However, now we have a new religion -- Fundamentalism -- that calls itself "Christian" but isn't. Fundamentalists aren't doing God's work; they are being selfish.

[D H]

All the company dollars were done with profit in mind. The basic research is done in academic labs.

 

There has been and continues to be a lot of basic reseach done in private industry. The transistor (Bell Labs) and the single chip CPU (Intel) were developed with corporate IR&D funds. Even the oft-hated Microsoft has an incredibly large R&D department, and this includes a lot of people doing basic research.

 

But even HERE the goverment helps with what are called Small Business Innovative Research Grants -- SBIR.

 

This is not a good example. The SBIR programs have been a rather ineffective R&D investment by the government. Many agencies use their SBIR programs an auxiliary funding source to fund work they want done but that wasn't funded by Congress. Many (maybe even most) companies that participate in the SBIR programs are small government contractors. They, like the agencies for whom they work, treat the SBIR programs merely as an alternative funding program. The government keeps tweaking the programs' rules in the hopes that someday the programs will work as promised.

 

Part of the problem is that the SBIR programs don't give out enough small rewards and are too reluctant to wield the hatchet on those projects that do receive funding. In the area I am familiar with (NASA), about 12% of the initial proposals are funded (Phase I) but a huge 40% of the Phase I proposals go on to Phase II. Dealing with a large number of tiny contracts is anathema to government bean counters. Admitting failure is anathema to researchers and to the contracting officer's technical representative. In private industry, a greater proportion of initial proposals receive some level of funding but the number that go on to get massive support is much smaller. Industry has learned that some apparently crackpot ideas can become big winners, but that most ideas go nowhere.

[ParanoiA]

OK. The point is that the basic premise of capitalism -- as you stated it -- is wrong. Natural selection (which you mischaracterized as "survival of the fittest") does NOT entail unremitting direct competition between members of a species.

 

Yeah, I think Mokele made that point earlier. But, there is competition and natural selection within a given species. It's not all about competition between the species - there's plenty of competition going on within the species as well. Mating preferences, pack leaders and etc... Human packs fight with other packs of humans.

 

Comparing capitalism with natural selection is metaphorical - not literal. You can take issue all you want but there are 4 pages of posts that contradict it being an invalid association.

 

Survival of the fittest is a description of part of the natural selection process - not the synonym.

 

 

 

I didn't say that. Look at what I wrote: "Especially research for knowledge's sake."

 

No, what you wrote was:

 

Also look at it this way -- who pays the research money? Government. Why? Because capitalism can't look forward beyond the next quarterly report to invest in research. Especially research for knowledge's sake.

 

The last sentence doesn't erase the first part of the paragraph. I agreed on your last sentence and don't agree on the previous 4.

 

It paid for most of the research into integrated circuits and silicon chips on which the iPod depends. Same for cell phones. Much of the research on radio was done by the government.

 

The company I work for invented the transistor - via research - for those integrated circuits. They're all mangled up together and incidental. Research begins where previous research left off.

 

And what kind of research do most scientists do? The stuff for knowledge's sake, or research that doesn't have an immediate product at the end.

 

Both. Although, there's always a product at the end. I admire those who don't do it for money. And ones who do.

 

And no, liberals are NOT intolerant of God. They are about separation of church and state. Why? To PROTECT the liberties of people.

 

Yes, I can see how the word god on the dollar bill violates your liberties...slippery slope right?

 

And yet you've never read the Methods section, have you? This is argument ad hominem, pure and simple.

 

No it's not. Intolerance is a trait possessed by people who can't stand others having a different view and find some way to force them to behave within their view. There is no party or ideological affiliation. Liberals just hate that because they used to pride themselves as railing against it. Maybe the study identifies this with conservatives. But since I "see" the trait, myself, in just about everyone, particularly political ideologies - then I know there's something being left out of that study.

 

And welcome to denying the data. That's why I said you had to read the papers for yourself. Not just rely on a "he said, he said" situation.

 

This is ridiculous. Am I supposed to spend the next years of my life soley reading papers on GW and learning climatology? How about all of the other political issues going on today? Are we supposed to get degress and read papers from dusk til dawn on the hundreds of issues relevant today? Of course not. We do what early humans started...we divide the workload. So and so gets super smart about this subject while so and so works his brain on this one and so on. Right now, all the climatology so and so's are arguing with each other. So...

 

Been there, done that. The consensus is already well over 90%. Again, the problem of looking at "he said, he said" arguments is that the minority position is going to try to make their position appear stronger than it is.

 

Now there's a good point. I could easily believe this. And if that's the case, I'll happily change my status to "convinced". I'll read your suggestions too, because I really wasn't sure where to start other than google searches.

 

I think you WANT to listen to "both sides" because you have a prejudice for one side and don't want to find out how wrong it is.

 

Ok, I don't argue with the conservatives on my floor about GW because I'm prejudiced in favor of their view. Although I probably would even if I was, just for argument's sake. I take the view of healthy skepticism because it's so polarized. That could be the result of your previous comment on the minority making it appear stronger than it is, but in my mind, there's too much money, ego, emotion and politics mixed up in order to easily make a conclusion.

 

In all honesty, I suspect GW is not a cycle and there's nothing we can do to stop it now. I doubt humans are the cause of it, but most certainly accelerated it. If anything, that's where my prejudices would lead me. I don't know any conservative that would agree with that. Not many liberals either since they want humans to be the bad, evil animal that ruins everything.

 

It's damn near unanimous, with the holdouts doing so because they are getting paid to do so.

 

This is not the first time I've heard this. I think even Fox news mentioned this once. Noted.

 

No, I'm saying the empirical facts are already there. The conclusion is obvious with the current data. I'm just saying that your refusal to look at the data is religion: the religion of already having decided and wanting the world to be the way you want, not what it is.

\

 

Your bias is overwhelming Lucaspa. Why even address my post? You already have me figured out and categorized and dismissed. That's intolerance. And since you have no facts to support your conclusions of my intent, it's also emotion based - religion.

 

Models are not empirical. But they're convincing - very convincing. I swear, you and bascule drive me further away from believing GW than anyone with your intolerant, religious behavior about it.

 

It's like going to church and saying you're interested but not convinced about god, only to have them throw it in your face that you're going to hell because you're not a total believer. Look man, I walked in the door. Why are you trying to run me off?

 

All the company dollars were done with profit in mind. The basic research is done in academic labs. Only AFTER that is done and knowledge is found that is reasonably expected to earn a profit do the companies come in.

 

Right. And what's wrong with that? You want to do it all? You act like turning a profit is evil or something. You make money too right? Did you earn your degree so you could work non-profit? Or did you expect to get fed with it? Maybe you don't mean it how I'm interpreting it, but it sure sounds like it. The only point, still the only point relevant here is that the private sector does invest in research.

 

Let's see, since there are several studies showing that second hand smoke harms people, why would you NOT ban it? As I learned about freedom: the freedom to swing your arm ends at my nose. So, the freedom to poison yourself with smoking ends at my lungs.

 

And the freedom to dictate smoking ends at my front door. Period. If I own the business, you're trampling on my rights to smoke in it. Public property is a different story and I would agree 100%.

 

That would be the conservatives who wrote the Constitition! You know, the one that said government shall do nothing to establish religion? Do you deny that theism is a religion?

 

Congress shall "endorse" no religion. God is not a religion. And the government is not endorsing any particular worship of it/her/him. Chicken Little is also in the public library - shall we get it removed to?

 

That would be the Republican mayor.

 

Got me there. But he also banned smoking which is also NOT a conservative / republican view.

 

Then your opposition to global warming is religion!

 

I'm not a GW opponent. I'm a regular guy who believes it, but isn't convinced. And you are a religious zealot that is intolerant of anything less than 100% belief, despite the state of affairs.

 

Let's see, does the owner have a "right" to randomly discharge a gun within the bar or restaurant or office? Why not? Because that bullet could hit you and harm you. Well, it is guaranteed that the smoke is going to hit you and get in your lungs. And the data says that the smoke will harm you. Enough of it and it can even kill you.

 

You don't have right to do anything you want on your private property, so the gun analogy is just silly. It is NOT guaranteed that the smoke is going to hit you because you can walk yourself right back out of the restaraunt. If enough of you do that, the owner will rethink his approach on smoking or his business will eventually die.

 

This is what I mean. You probably have a confused look on your face right now because you can't imagine not being able to force someone to comply to your beliefs. That you might have to leave rather than making them stop.

 

What about car exhaust? Where's the outrage on that? Some of us don't drive at all, yet we have to inhale that crap. And that's public roads.

 

But don't you have the right to exert pressure on management to listen? Even go out on strike if the ideas are that important?

 

Not when our interests are not at stake. This isn't about wages or benefits. It's about how the company chooses to run their business. It's wrong to assume you should have a right to force them to listen to your ideas. "Get another job if you don't like it but don't force your views on me" - is the principle I'm talking about. I always break things down to fundamentals - because it's the fluff that hides the obvious.

 

You get people all worked up about corporations and how filthy rich and evil they are or whatever and forget that you are suspending principles and ethics based on your perception of that corporation suspending principles and ethics. It isn't right.

 

And I haven't even started on the fact that you're forcing your narrow minded "worker" views onto people that are looking at a huge, dynamic picture that you aren't privileged to.

 

Damn this a long post...