1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Are conservatives anti-science?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Sweet Lou 4 2, Feb 1, 2015.

  1. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,714
    Likes Received:
    18,912
    There are a few things that lend credence to this. Beyond the fact that scientists and logic are not respected overall ("gotta have faith") there are troubling trends that are resulting in a great amount of tragedy.

    Namely:

    1. Climate Change. The potential fear of policy decisions have many conservatives denying what is at this point iron-tight proof that man is causing global warming we've been seeing. Conservatives will go as far as to become "arm-chair" scientists and find bunk theories to counter detailed and peer-reviewed scientific work. This even after the scientist the Koch brothers hired to debunk global warming said that global warming is real and man made.

    2. Vaccinations: Many conservatives pick up the fight against vaccinations as the cause for autism. There is absolutely no science behind any link, and never was. It's based on pure coincidence - ironically the very idea conservatives try to use to debunk Climate change, they use to attack vaccinations. The science is so clear that anyone who thinks there is a link between autism and vaccinations is not only ignorant, but also putting people's lives at risk by exposing more children to deadly diseases.

    3. Evolution: Evolution is a fact and has been observed to happen within humans amongst other species. Yet conservatives fight against it because it goes against their religious beliefs.

    4. Stem cell research: This one is sad - the clinging to the idea of an embryo being a human being is preventing the use of stem cell lines from being used to help treat serious diseases such as parkinson's diseases and many others.


    It becomes disturbing to me that intellectualism, especially that of scientific knowledge, becomes anti-thesis to the ideals of conservatism. In truth, I have always seen myself as a moderate - decisions should be made on facts and logic. And while I don't always agree with liberal stances, I find that the right is so twisted in its facts, so disdainful of anything that doesn't fit their world view or values that it's outright scary.

    While conservatives don't have the market on ignorance cornered by any means, I do feel their sort of ignorance is the most dangerous kind there is.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. CometsWin

    CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    28,028
    Likes Received:
    13,046
    Yes, it's frightening that the head of the committee on science and technology is one of these anti-intellectuals. Like whaaaaaat the hell? It's like putting the Saudis in charge of civil rights at the UN.
     
  3. LosPollosHermanos

    LosPollosHermanos Houston only fan
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    28,577
    Likes Received:
    12,519
    of course they are.
     
  4. Dairy Ashford

    Dairy Ashford Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    1,831
    There's more to science than three or four positions that reinforce a specific political agenda, furthermore even stereotypically conservatives are not explicitly anti-vaccination or anti-evolution.
     
  5. rudan

    rudan Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,441
    Likes Received:
    65
    Yeah, and liberals are anti American.............
     
  6. Nivos

    Nivos Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2014
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    887
    Another great topic, thanks.
    I can tell you as someone that has been in the science side, the business side and decision making side that nothing is clear cut as you suggest.
    There are huge risks involved and good arguments for all sides.
    Scientific uncairtainty is usually the biggest obstacle for decision makers, and in theoretic science, there are always uncertainties. Scientist can't proof anything like they are asked to by desicion makers, they can only disproof and create a theory. That is almost impossible environment to work with for decision makers.
    1) Climate change- the issue nowdays is not if global warming exist and if its man made. Its the pure cost/benefit analysis of taking action. I myself a great believer in taking action that the business side create great opportunities to drive technology forward. But there are good arguments against going all in to completely cut ghg emmissions and our job is now to create solutions that will mannage co2 emmissions and mannage to convince the business side that its in their benefit for the long run. A better communication between science and business is needed for that.

    2) vaccination- I don't understand what that got to do with conservatism. Most people I know that are agsinst vaccinations are naturalist and conspiracy theory believers that are usualy coming from the extreme left side of the political environment.

    3) Evolution- I know many scientists, including evolution biologists that believe in god and find their way between tradition and science. Its actually not contradicting the existence of god. But, saying that evolution is a fact is quite not true, its a theory. Although one of the strongest scientific theories that is backed up with many empiric evidence, always live the door open for a surprise. :)

    4) Stem cell- this is a very dengouros field of ethics in the science world. Its got nothing to do with conservatives but with the very much documented fact that science without limits and somekind of ethics regulation can create and lead to areas that we do not want to be in. Obviously we need to continue our research in the field but with extreme coutious and awareness of the danger involved in that field.
     
    1 person likes this.
  7. Commodore

    Commodore Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    30,839
    Likes Received:
    14,336
    harvesting embryos is sad, like something out of a dystopian Matrix movie
     
  8. FV Santiago

    FV Santiago Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    62
    It is 100% scientifically indisputable that human life is initiated at conception. Are liberals anti-science by claiming that it does not?

    See how this can work both ways?

    The climate change argument is absurd -- scientists (meteorologists) are wrong on a daily basis about the temperature and weather forecast. To think that scientists are infallible about their prediction for temperatures decades from now is lunacy. The very core of the scientific method is about challenging the status quo thinking in order to improve our understanding of the world around us. Science is politicized when statements like "the science is settled" are made and debate is stifled. What if the ancient Greeks shouted down scientists 2500 years ago who claimed that the earth was not flat?
     
  9. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58,732
    Likes Received:
    36,182
    The mask is slipping Jorge - not very many stars for this.
     
  10. Dubious

    Dubious Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,316
    Likes Received:
    5,087
    Science is never settled. It's always the consensus of the best information available at the time.
     
  11. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    494
    Except that liberals aren't pro-choice because of scientific arguments, they are so because of the moral arguments.

    Climate =/= weather

    Nobody is claiming infallibility. People are showing, with scientific evidence, that the Earth is warming, and that it is highly likely that human emissions are contributing to that warming. If this trend continues, hundreds of millions of people will be living in the equivalent of Venice, without the benefit of planning the community to grow and thrive with water flowing in the streets.

    Yes, absolutely. However, conservatives aren't using the scientific method to question the science, they are ignoring the scientists and listening to and believing pundits who have no scientific credentials whatsoever. For God's sake, you actually claimed that we couldn't believe climate science because meteorologists can't accurately predict the weather. Do you seriously not see the problem in that statement?

    No, science is politicized when politicians and pundits make claims about scientists and climate science like "they're just trying to get grant money" or "there hasn't been any warming since 1998." Of course, they aren't using the scientific method, they aren't climate scientists, and they aren't even trying to refute the actual science. They're just spouting off, knowing that the sheep will believe whatever they're told.

    They did, right up until OTHER SCIENTISTS proved them wrong. IIRC, some scientists who did prove the "Earth is flat" theory wrong were berated, shunned, and banished for their heretical beliefs. The ones berating scientists back then are analogous to the conservatives of today, foaming at the mouth that the status quo beliefs aren't being followed.
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. g1184

    g1184 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,798
    Likes Received:
    86
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html

    Doesn't seem like they're pro-science ...
     
  13. Amiga

    Amiga I get vaunted sacred revelations from social media
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    21,697
    Likes Received:
    18,476
    Post like this make me think conservative aren't anti-science. They don't know enough to be anti-science. They are pro-ignorance.
     
  14. Space Ghost

    Space Ghost Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    14,945
    Likes Received:
    6,150
  15. g1184

    g1184 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,798
    Likes Received:
    86
    how do you get 45%?
     
  16. justtxyank

    justtxyank Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    42,653
    Likes Received:
    39,216
    It's not an anti-science agenda at all.

    This has been the biggest thing that has driven me from the conservative movement to where I am sitting today. I would consider myself a completely up for grabs vote now.

    The issue isn't anti-science, it's anti-intellectualism. Just look at the people that conservatives think are against them:
    -media
    -teachers
    -college professors
    -scientists
    -"the liberal lawyers"

    Listen to many conservative commentators describe a Harvard professor and hear the derision in the tone, they are mocking them.

    Many tea party types are so against these groups that they don't even want their kids to go to good colleges because they think they are just liberal brainwashing centers. It's saddening to me really.
     
    1 person likes this.
  17. ipaman

    ipaman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    13,020
    Likes Received:
    7,784
    it's strange because most are pro-bible which has some ****ed up science in there with no proof but they refuse to believe actual real current science with tons of proof.
     
  18. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    53,651
    Likes Received:
    41,527
    As I mentioned in several other threads this is an issue of a lack of understanding of what science, denial and flat out ignorance is and the difference between science and policy. Science doesn't make policy decisions but one would hope that a truly conservative strategy would be to consider the best possible information including what is the consensus scientific views.

    That said I think these issues also have a lot to do with how these issues relate to other issues and how they play to key interest groups.
    Considering how many ties there are between the Republican Party and the energy industry it seems very obvious to me that the GOP is the party that denies the role that fossil fuels play in to climate change. While many conservatives probably truly believe this I don't think it can be ignored how self-serving this view is.
    This issue I don't think is that closely tied to political parties. If you look at the areas where the most opposition to vaccinations is they also happen to be some of the bluest areas politically. This has to do with a lot of other factors such as again misunderstanding of science, denial, and ignorance, but also to things like the role that celebrity plays in shaping opinion. Suspicion of government and frankly what is considered fashionable. Those things tend to cross party lines in various ways.
    The obvious factor here is religion with the very strong roles that evangelical and fundamentalist Christian groups play in the GOP. This just happens to be the odd confluence of Christian groups with moneyed interest that make up the current GOP while a hundred years ago the Evangelical movement was more aligned to the Democrats and the Populist movements.
    Once again religion is the main factor here since the idea of when life begins seems to track very closely with one's religious views.

    I agree with you and it's very unfortunate that's the case. These are issues that should transcend politics but unfortunately the nature of having a democratic republic form of government means that almost all issues get caught up in partisan politics. As I've said in the PRC there is no political debate regarding things like Climate Change. There is almost no political debate on anything else too.
     
  19. Dairy Ashford

    Dairy Ashford Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    1,831
    There's a lot of anti-establishment stuff there that appeals to class-resentment and "direct-action" by those ideologues outside the political, legal or commercial processes. You could have probably found younger liberals and hippies similarly complaining about the CIA, Nixon, ivory tower stuff or the "system" from the '60s until the early '90s when they were middle-aged and entrenched enough to be in leadership roles.
     
  20. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,917
    Likes Received:
    2,259
    What's absolutely hilarious is how little science can truly explain. It can't cure diseases that have been around for thousands of years, certainly can't even begin to explain the meaning of life (or even the origin), and the level of knowledge that science has will certainly be laughed at in only 100 years time. We laugh about scientific beliefs from the early 1900s (rain follows the plow, anyone?? lol), they'll certainly laugh about what we know now.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now