Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 16 of 23 (503560)
03-20-2009 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Rrhain
03-19-2009 10:01 PM


Does this qualify as "anti-science"? That really depends upon what you mean by it. I wouldn't say the Republicans in question are denying the effectiveness of the vaccine, but they are blocking the use of it.
Even if we grant that it was anti-science, as you point out (and as I also said) there is a difficult amount of subjectivity involved in making that claim. And simply holding up one category or a couple of examples from one side doesn't seem to help determine which side is more anti-science than the other. It is significantly lacking in rigour.
As an example (and I don't delve to deep into American politics to be able to be too sure here, so forgive me), let's say the Democrats objected to the implementation of some science based technology because of the environmental impact would that make them anti-science?
A lot of the problem here is that the two sides seem to have slightly different views on social (and other) issues which might give the impression that they are 'anti-science'. It isn't that the Republicans were against the science of vaccination - it's just, as you said, that they were concerned about the social impact it would have to administer it (even if we both agree that the reason was bollocks).
So - what criteria should we be using, why that criteria, and what is the data that show one side being more pro-science or one side more anti-science by that criteria?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2009 10:01 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 03-20-2009 9:01 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 22 by onifre, posted 03-27-2009 11:39 AM Modulous has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 17 of 23 (503567)
03-20-2009 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Rrhain
03-19-2009 10:01 PM


Well, I personally oppose for making the HPV vaccine mandatory. It's too early yet to know if there is any adverse side effects, but I know that I personally would recommend it, specifically for girls, but if boys had it too, it would help reduce the spread.
On the other hand, to claim 'flu vaccines' are political is just plain crazy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2009 10:01 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 18 of 23 (503569)
03-20-2009 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Modulous
03-20-2009 7:48 AM


Re: What part?
The data from how the Bush admin played politics with the endangered species act, information about abstinence only education, global warming, and the corruption of the FDA shows at least that the previous republican administration was very anti-science.
We'll see how things go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2009 7:48 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2009 9:01 AM ramoss has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 23 (503574)
03-20-2009 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by ramoss
03-20-2009 8:52 AM


empirical claims are the realm of science
The data from how the Bush admin played politics with the endangered species act, information about abstinence only education, global warming, and the corruption of the FDA shows at least that the previous republican administration was very anti-science.
I'm not disputing that these things exist. That is not the issue at hand though, is it?
The issue at hand is who is more pro-science. To establish this takes more than just giving random examples of only one side's potential anti-scientific stances. For all we know, the Republicans may be anti-science here, but 1,000,000 times more pro-science everywhere else. Whereas the Democrats are just mediocre when it comes to science.
Is it so crazy to ask for actual comparative data and criteria? We know what science is right? We know what making an empirical claim means, yes? We know how to test those claims I'm assuming. That's all I'm asking. So - where's the science? I'm not disputing your conclusions, I'm just wondering if there was something more concrete than our opinions based on a collection of examples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ramoss, posted 03-20-2009 8:52 AM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Trae, posted 03-27-2009 5:54 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 20 of 23 (503642)
03-20-2009 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Modulous
03-20-2009 8:00 AM


Modulous responds to me:
quote:
As an example (and I don't delve to deep into American politics to be able to be too sure here, so forgive me), let's say the Democrats objected to the implementation of some science based technology because of the environmental impact would that make them anti-science?
Well, as we all know, science in and of itself is neither good nor bad. It's the way in which it is used that causes the trouble.
The left in the US is more against the use of nuclear power than those on the right. It isn't because of a question about the power but rather about the problems of how to dispose of nuclear waste. There is a plan to store it in a mountain in Nevada, but it hasn't happened yet due to political wrangling over the geological data concerning its stability with regard to earthquakes and concerns regarding the transport of materials across the US to the site.
I don't happen to know if those concerns are legitimate or not.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2009 8:00 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4307 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 21 of 23 (504326)
03-27-2009 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Modulous
03-20-2009 9:01 AM


Re: empirical claims are the realm of science
quote:
Is it so crazy to ask for actual comparative data and criteria? We know what science is right? We know what making an empirical claim means, yes? We know how to test those claims I'm assuming. That's all I'm asking. So - where's the science? I'm not disputing your conclusions, I'm just wondering if there was something more concrete than our opinions based on a collection of examples.
Honestly, I was kinda hoping that someone would have some data. I had hoped that maybe someone tied to education or research would be able to point me in the right direction. I can think of reasons for both sides to have an advantage over the other (perhaps liberals push more for liberal arts programs and assume science gets enough funding) but that's very bassless.
It does seem a bit misleading to just base this off of total dollar spending (Tyson). After all, the budge might lump in abstinence as science education.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2009 9:01 AM Modulous has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 22 of 23 (504346)
03-27-2009 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Modulous
03-20-2009 8:00 AM


Hi Mod,
A lot of the problem here is that the two sides seem to have slightly different views on social (and other) issues which might give the impression that they are 'anti-science'.
IMO, the problem isn't so much that "both sides have slightly different social views", it's that "both sides have slightly different lobbyist" pushing for different scientific agendas.
It gets wrapped up into a social issue for means of propaganda and public emotional support, but it is, without a doubt, all about whos pockets get greased by what big business.
The social impacts are just distractions from the main objective - financial gain.
Not that I have the time to do it, but I would be curious to see who the big science investors for each party are. I think that would give us a clearer picture for why certain scientific research is supported and others are rejected. I doubt these decisions are based on social views.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2009 8:00 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Sarawak
Member (Idle past 5478 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-07-2009


Message 23 of 23 (504350)
03-27-2009 1:02 PM


Both sides use science funding to push their political and social agendas. Who can be surprised at this?
But the Republicans deserve more shame for the simple reason that most Creationists of the virulent variety are in their ranks. There is a significant piece of the Republicans that is actually anti-science.
But the Democrats (mentioned above) also have their crackpots. I don't know how to separate politics from science, but if it could be done, everyone would benefit.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024