(04-22-2020 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (04-22-2020 12:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (04-21-2020 05:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: As for your first statement, what specific "party platforms" are you referring to?
I don't agree with a lot of things the GOP says, but they are usually things far down my list of importance. I am anti-death penalty and neutral on abortion. But on the issues that I deem important, I am solidly on the right. I cannot even imagine what you might be calling "party platforms" that are anti-science.
Asking again. I really wonder what you consider anti-science planks in the GOP platforms.
I see a two major policy planks that fall under the anti-science umbrella - either because they run counter to the general consensus established by the scientific community, or they are based more firmly on a religious basis:
1) Climate change and mitigation
So denoting that the massive problems with the predictability issues with the models are in fact present, is 'anti-science'? Seriously?
Quote:2) Abortion access
Disagreement on a moral issue is now a question of science? Again, seriously?
Quote:Outside of policies, I find that conservatives are much more vocal about questioning the value of higher education, to the point of denigrating people who have decided to get a higher education degree in non-STEM majors. They often go past advocating for more apprentice/skill-type training and venture into the devaluation of continued education.
Most of that denotes that a huge amount of work does not need a PhD in Biblical Art History. In fact, most of the issue there is that perhaps, maybe perhaps, the German worker and educational model is best.
That isnt 'denigrating education' --- that is a simple statement of fact that running and operating a car mechanic shop, or an industrial HVAC shop, or being a master electrician doesnt necessarily need the 'predicate' of an upper level education.
And, yes, many of the degrees in arts an humanities in an economic sense are worthless. Kind of hard to argue the contrary of that.
Quote:I find that conservatives are more likely to believe that people in academics/research roles have hidden agendas, simply because they work in the field.
I would agree with your academic note designation -- the reason being that the political bent of arts, humanities, and 'soft sciences' tend to lean incredibly disproportionately to one side. And yes, that singleness of mind does tend to create 'group agendas' --- kind of hard not to.
I would disagree on your characterization of research, as it pertains to hard sciences. (Yeah I know I am a science hater, so indulge me that statement at least). You continuously attempt to smudge over the distinction between academic and scientific research regimes -- kind of on an ad nauseum basis to be frank.
I think most are comfortable stating that the dude (or dudette) who teaches "Thermodynamics of Engineering Materials" for the Materials Science program doesnt have any sort of liberal agenda that they can diffuse into their students. But you continuously use that (agreed upon, mind you) example to keep drumming.
But there is a fundamental stark difference between the MaSci curriculum and the curriculum of the TransGender Furries departments, which seems to be a minor blip in that consideration.
Quote:There is the general dislike of funding scientific research in a broad manner, and the general policy plank of wanting to cut back federal spending (which provides a significant amount of research dollars).
I think it is an enormous stretch to note a cut back in federal spending to an antipathy of science. A YUGGEE stretch. You are trying to import a an issue that has second order effects (if that) on the subject of science into a general indictment of a group to 'not be engendered' to science. That is kind of a serious bull**** stretch.
And, you seemingly forget or fail to denote that there is a TON of funding of true '****' science. I am not enamored of throwing 400k to monitor the day-to-day life of baby gnatchatchers, 100k to write about Russian smoking habits, $500k to ponder the burning question: “Does media choice cause polarization, or does polarization cause media choice?”, or 100k to figure out what bugs do near a lightbulb.
Quote:The left has some issues as well - most anti-vaxxers are on the left-side of the political spectrum (but who knows, maybe COVID-19 is fixing them) and a lot of lefties have an irrational dislike for nuclear power.
Perhaps there intense dislike for hydrocarbon power can be similarly expressed as such as well.
The one I am truly puzzled by is how a truly moral question of when, where, and how an abortion can (or may not) be performed is deemed a cornerstone in your definition of 'hating science'.
If you want to note that, there is an equal and opposite turn of that stance re: the progressive viewpoint that you studiously left out. One can say that it is the progressive view that is denigrating of science, in the refusal to note that life is present in the womb at that particular point in time for the vast majority of abortion procedures.
