Is the GOP anti-science?

[bongsaway]

Is the GOP anti-science?

Or is the GOP using the same arguments they use for religion? Pick and choose what they believe. They mostly don't follow the teaching of jesus and they deny climate change.

Try not to be too outrageous in your denials.

 

[Felis Leo]

Is the GOP anti-science?

Or is the GOP using the same arguments they use for religion? Pick and choose what they believe. They mostly don't follow the teaching of jesus and they deny climate change.

Try not to be too outrageous in your denials.

The GOP? No.

Are certain conservatives? Yes. There are many conservatives who deny the theory of evolution and believe in Young Earth Creationism. There are conservatives who deny anthropogenic climate change.

But I would argue that they are no more "anti-science" than people of the Left and among the Democrats base. The media just does not like talking about the anti-science folks on the left or their hysterical ideas.

For example, the anti-GMO movement is an almost entirely left-wing phenomenon. These folks have not one iota of evidence that genetically-modified foods cause any harm whatsoever, but insist on the purity of artisanal foods.

Now, going to your argument about the danger of global warming. It is an undisputed fact that the highest output, lowest carbon-emitting source of energy is nuclear power. And as much as people clutch their pearls in terror about the dangers of nuclear waste, it is far less dangerous than people are led to believe and can be safely contained. If the left was truly serious about tackling climate change, and see it as a true existential threat, I think it would be incumbent on them to promote the creation of several nuclear power plants across the United States (and around the world) to combat global carbon emissions. But they do not, because for so many people on the left (at least those with influence) proposing nuclear power brings about a near-religious response where they want to tie the proposer to a stake and burn them.

So are GOP voters anti-science? Sure. To an equal degree as many Democrat voters.

 

[pilot16]

Some are some arent. What I typically find is the bulk of both parties are pro science. Its the extreme fringes that are the oddballs. Bernie Sanders is anti science as well.

https://medium.com/the-method/berni...-long-history-with-pseudoscience-204afbe830d7
https://www.science20.com/jenny_spl...dear_bernie_science_doesnt_feel_the_bern.html

 

[Rogue Valley]

Is the GOP anti-science?

Trumpists, together with many Republicans and conservatives, are dead-set against any forms of science and logic that rebuts their cockamamie worldviews.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Is the GOP anti-science?

Or is the GOP using the same arguments they use for religion? Pick and choose what they believe. They mostly don't follow the teaching of jesus and they deny climate change.

Try not to be too outrageous in your denials.

In a word: yes. The GOP is anti-science.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Is the GOP anti-science?

Or is the GOP using the same arguments they use for religion? Pick and choose what they believe. They mostly don't follow the teaching of jesus and they deny climate change.

Try not to be too outrageous in your denials.

But they use smart phones.

 

[sangha]

The GOP? No.

Are certain conservatives? Yes. There are many conservatives who deny the theory of evolution and believe in Young Earth Creationism. There are conservatives who deny anthropogenic climate change.

But I would argue that they are no more "anti-science" than people of the Left and among the Democrats base. The media just does not like talking about the anti-science folks on the left or their hysterical ideas.

For example, the anti-GMO movement is an almost entirely left-wing phenomenon. These folks have not one iota of evidence that genetically-modified foods cause any harm whatsoever, but insist on the purity of artisanal foods.

Now, going to your argument about the danger of global warming. It is an undisputed fact that the highest output, lowest carbon-emitting source of energy is nuclear power. And as much as people clutch their pearls in terror about the dangers of nuclear waste, it is far less dangerous than people are led to believe and can be safely contained. If the left was truly serious about tackling climate change, and see it as a true existential threat, I think it would be incumbent on them to promote the creation of several nuclear power plants across the United States (and around the world) to combat global carbon emissions. But they do not, because for so many people on the left (at least those with influence) proposing nuclear power brings about a near-religious response where they want to tie the proposer to a stake and burn them.

So are GOP voters anti-science? Sure. To an equal degree as many Democrat voters.

Your examples are extremely poor, with one -- so-called GMOs --being a demonstration of the very ignorance you decry.

 

[srexob715]

Is the GOP anti-science?

Or is the GOP using the same arguments they use for religion? Pick and choose what they believe. They mostly don't follow the teaching of jesus and they deny climate change.

Try not to be too outrageous in your denials.

Yes……..well any science that goes against their already held beliefs. Many in the GOP are closed minded, whereas most in the democrat party are open minded. Democrats are more willing to change their mind about things, therefore they are able to believe in science more easily.

 

[ecofarm]

For example, the anti-GMO movement is an almost entirely left-wing phenomenon. These folks have not one iota of evidence that genetically-modified foods cause any harm whatsoever, but insist on the purity of artisanal foods.

Rarely do I see someone brazenly declare abject ignorance.

 

[apdst]

Is the GOP anti-science?

Or is the GOP using the same arguments they use for religion? Pick and choose what they believe. They mostly don't follow the teaching of jesus and they deny climate change.

Try not to be too outrageous in your denials.

No

/thread

 

[KLATTU]

Always beware of people who fall back on the 'studies show' argument.It usually means they found some study that supports their already made up mind.

 

[manofknowledge]

The GOP? No.

Are certain conservatives? Yes. There are many conservatives who deny the theory of evolution and believe in Young Earth Creationism. There are conservatives who deny anthropogenic climate change.

But I would argue that they are no more "anti-science" than people of the Left and among the Democrats base. The media just does not like talking about the anti-science folks on the left or their hysterical ideas.

For example, the anti-GMO movement is an almost entirely left-wing phenomenon. These folks have not one iota of evidence that genetically-modified foods cause any harm whatsoever, but insist on the purity of artisanal foods.

Now, going to your argument about the danger of global warming. It is an undisputed fact that the highest output, lowest carbon-emitting source of energy is nuclear power. And as much as people clutch their pearls in terror about the dangers of nuclear waste, it is far less dangerous than people are led to believe and can be safely contained. If the left was truly serious about tackling climate change, and see it as a true existential threat, I think it would be incumbent on them to promote the creation of several nuclear power plants across the United States (and around the world) to combat global carbon emissions. But they do not, because for so many people on the left (at least those with influence) proposing nuclear power brings about a near-religious response where they want to tie the proposer to a stake and burn them.

So are GOP voters anti-science? Sure. To an equal degree as many Democrat voters.

I am not anti-GMO but I believe that the argument against them is not that they cause direct harm, but that the effect of them spreading through an eco-system is unknown.

Regarding nuclear power I would point to the Fukushima nuclear reactor in Japan as evidence that nuclear waste is indeed a risk with severe consequences.

 

[RAMOSS]

Your examples are extremely poor, with one -- so-called GMOs --being a demonstration of the very ignorance you decry.

On the other hand, the 'anti-vaxxers' have a left wing contingent too.

 

[manofknowledge]

Always beware of people who fall back on the 'studies show' argument.

Yes because they actually use evidence to make a point instead of making stuff up.

 

[srexob715]

On the other hand, the 'anti-vaxxers' have a left wing contingent too.

And some anti-vaxxers are against vaccines because of religion...…….which is right wing.

 

[JackA]

In a word: yes. The GOP is anti-science.

Anti intellectual generally to a significant degree. Ideology doesn't mix with rational thought.

 

[RAMOSS]

And some anti-vaxxers are against vaccines because of religion...…….which is right wing.

That is why that I said that they had a contingent.

 

[pilot16]

GMOs is an odd thing. Up here in New England we have had Vermont who has put in laws requiring labels now for years. I think Hawaii has also done that now. Its more of a mistrust in Monsanto thing there. If they were big into GMOs I dont think it would have had such a big impact. Mention Monsanto to some and they go nuts.

 

[Bum]

Is the GOP anti-science?

No more than Democrats are pro illegal, or anti capitalist.


Sure, there are some that are, but lets be careful with the broad brush.

 

[KLATTU]

Yes because they actually use evidence to make a point instead of making stuff up.

No . It's because they are usually very naive about the inherent flaws in academic research.As , most likely are you.

https://listverse.com/2015/03/25/10-reasons-scientific-studies-are-surprisingly-unreliable/
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2013/10/18/trouble-at-the-lab

Trouble at the lab
Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-psychology-studies-are-not-all-reliable-2015-8
2 simple charts show everything that's wrong with psychology studies

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers'

#SCHOOLED

 

[Moderate Right]

Is the GOP anti-science?

Or is the GOP using the same arguments they use for religion? Pick and choose what they believe. They mostly don't follow the teaching of jesus and they deny climate change.

Try not to be too outrageous in your denials.

It's actually the very opposite. It is the left who are anti-science. Science proves that the planet has had periods of temperature increases and decreases, even before man was on the planet and yet the left would have us believe that it is all of a sudden just happening now. And, science proves that no matter what we do, temperatures will still rise and yet the left would have us believe that if we did everything they say, temperatures would quit rising. Why does the left deny science?

 

[manofknowledge]

It's actually the very opposite. It is the left who are anti-science. Science proves that the planet has had periods of temperature increases and decreases, even before man was on the planet and yet the left would have us believe that it is all of a sudden just happening now. And, science proves that no matter what we do, temperatures will still rise and yet the left would have us believe that if we did everything they say, temperatures would quit rising. Why does the left deny science?

Of course they are flawed. The exist for be criticized. That is how science progresses. The fact that they document scientific hypothesis makes them better as a reference than making stuff up which is the alternative.

 

[Felis Leo]

Your examples are extremely poor, with one -- so-called GMOs --being a demonstration of the very ignorance you decry.

I do not think so. If we are to take climate change seriously, which I do, and we want to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which I do, the only viable option that we have (presuming we wish to maintain current energy levels and not go backwards into 19th Century) is nuclear power. The opposition is mainly from the left in that regard.

As for GMOs, I welcome your explanation to enlighten me, sangha. And mind you, I am not talking about the anti-pesticide "organic" food movement that has an equal number of liberal, conservative and centrist proponents. I am referring specifically to anti-genetically-modified food, whose most visible opponents appear on the political left.

 

[Felis Leo]

Rarely do I see someone brazenly declare abject ignorance.

If I am woefully ignorant, I welcome enlightenment, ecofarm.

 

[ecofarm]

If I am woefully ignorant, I welcome enlightenment, ecofarm.

1. Personal risks. These are largely overblown but exist in a lightning strike chance (ten lightning strikes in a row):

A. Horizontal gut transfer, particularly of antibacterial genes. Virus/bacteria take genes from other stuff. All GMO have antibacterial genes as a matter of process (petri dish selection). One can imagine the possible impact of such transfer.

B. Excessive pesticide use. While the idea is to use less as a result of ability to apply post emergence, in reality farmers just hose the field down whenever.

C. Lack of nutrition. Like all industrial crops, selection is for shelf life and uniformity. In this was, GMOs are not unique but the concern is highlighted. Evidence is generally only found in micronutrients and phytochems.


2. Social Risks.

A. Chemical treadmill. Google or wiki this. It's when a farmer becomes dependent on a company because his land becomes attuned to the inputs for production. His land becomes unsuitable for diversified or changing production while he becomes financially dependent (as well) on a corporation.

B. Disassociation from our food. Big subject in itself.


3. Ecologic Risks.

A. Superweeds.
B. Non target organisms.
C. Genetic drift.
D. Excessive pesticide use.
E. Increased monoculture.
F. Who even the **** knows.



That's just off the top. I'm sure I missed stuff. You think there's nothing? Laughable ignorance.