Actually as many conservatives don't vaccinate their children as liberals. It's trully a cross-political phenomenon. But you are showing you are a blind conservative here.
Do you want me to post the polls of percentages of Americans that have a literal belief in the biblical creation story?
Only if this poll relates to conservatives who believe the earth is 10,000 years old and if you post another poll relating to the number of liberals who don't vaccinate their children. Who's straw manning now?
Wow. You got me there. I'm just a "blind conservative" who derives their thoughts from phantom blogs which are never posted but somehow you know that I read and derive my opinions from. If observation is a foundation of science: then who is being anti-science in this case?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx 46% of Americans believe "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." That number goes up to 58% for Republicans. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6334a1.htm This report describes national, regional, state, and selected local area vaccination coverage estimates for children born January 2010–May 2012, based on results from the 2013 NIS. In 2013, vaccination coverage achieved the 90% national Healthy People 2020 target* for ≥1 dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR) (91.9%) So we have 10% of people not getting vaccines for any reason at all - less than that would be the anti-vaccine believers. Even if you assume they are ALL liberals, and that liberals are just 30% of the population, you still couldn't get to the 58% percentage.
So much irony in your post. You cherry pick and re-interpret everything to fit your agenda. And then cry when people point it out. Yes you are anti-science. Spinning data to fit your reality isn't scientific thinking, it's delusional.
Would be interested to see all of these "pro science" liberals give credentials. Degrees ending with an S instead of an A would be a nice start.
Oh, I didn't know that agreeing with the scientific method as the most rational and accurate approach to discovering natural laws and understanding that those that are deemed "scientists" have more expertise and credibility on matters of science than individuals such as Ken Ham, Michelle Bachmann, and any prominent climate change denier political activist funded by big oil required a bachelors in science. A high school graduate should understand this. Do I have to be a scientist to understand what a "scientific theory" actually entails? Do I have to be a scientist to roll my eyes every time someone asserts that evolution is "only a theory"? BTW, I'm a Poli Sci major but before my Marine Corps service I was a chemical engineering major. Do as you will with that given piece of information. If you feel as if that discredits my opinion then so be it.
Ok. Fair enough if we assume Republican = conservative, Democrat = liberal, Independent = . If we assume that, apparently both liberals and conservatives are "anti-science". More important question becomes "why are Americans anti-science".
So neither of you were very "pro science" then. Interesting. Most people who I hear invoke science don't have a ****ing clue and have never read a publication in their life. I have no idea WTF "anti-science" is even supposed to mean.
The threshold of requiring a degree in a subject to be pro that subject is quite an amazingly ignorant idea. Congratulations.
I assumed you would take it in that direction. I assume you have a B.S... and I assume it's from at least a decently ranked university and not University of Houston level(I know that's going to make some posters here butt hurt:grin or else your high horse would be unwarranted. That shouldn't matter as "anti-science" just means holding on to preconceived notions while disregarding the most current scientific understanding of natural laws and theories. I don't see anywhere where would would need a B.S. to understand such a common sense principle.
I'm willing to bet that most people with science degrees probably skew liberal. In fact that accusation has been made a few times in this thread that scientists have a built in political bias. Anyway this is an odd argument to make on the internet. I mean should only those with law degrees to argue constitutional issues? Should only those with medical degrees argue vaccination?
Your assumption is correct. http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
Also to add in the realm of policy, which is ultimately why any of this matters, policy is not being made by scientists as most politicians, voters, and corporate executives aren't scientists. The issue here isn't so much the science but how people base decisions on the science. You can not have a science degree but still seek to make informed decisions and also understand the fundamentals of any science issue. This is very possible given the vast amount of information available to us through the internet.
If anyone is curious (as I was) what Pew considered to be a 'scientist', they drew their sample from the membership of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest general-science organization in the country and publisher of Science. It occurs to me that what they are showing is actually a liberal skew in the AAAS. AAAS represents well academic and research scientists. If someone wanted to broaden their set of authority figures to include engineers or doctors or other sorts of practical application vocations, the AAAS probably doesn't do that. That's fine with me and seems like an appropriate set to define as 'scientist', but I just wanted to know. But, in thinking about what the scientists believe, there is this assumption that their beliefs must be informed by all that science stuff they know. I think they're human and they (like everyone else) are influenced -- especially in political matters -- by their social circle. That they skew liberal doesn't strike me as an asset to anyone.
