Plan B Forum

Why "most liberals" can't be scientists? The answer is highlighted below; it's an ability they lack.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+sc ... ORM=DCTSRC

Science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.

Pew did a research study on this in 2009 and it doesn’t appear the situation has changed much since then. You can Google it yourself because I’m tired of doing the work to refute your various claims fabricated from whole cloth.

In 2009 only 6% of American scientists self identified as Republicans. 55% identified as Democrats and 32% identified as independent.

Now please tell us how American scientists are not some of the best in the world.

Okay here’s a link to an article that tracks donations to political candidates by scientists in America. Interesting information if you’re willing to open your mind to actual facts. It certainly appears that the Republicans are driving away support from scientists by their decision to reject science as a political strategy. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01382-3

"most liberals" can't be scientists? Actually I agree with Liberty that most liberals cannot be scientists.

But then most conservatives can't be either. The current political ecology in America is divided into conservatives and liberals on the basis of strictly emotionally issues. Rational, fact-based examination, which is what most scientists do, is simply not within skill set of most liberals or conservatives in the American population today and they see no utility in that sort of thing.. I am not sure it ever was. As I was reminded when I went to wiki and read about the assassination of Pres. Garfield

snailgate

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 17, 2023 8:19 pm

Pew did a research study on this in 2009 and it doesn’t appear the situation has changed much since then. You can Google it yourself because I’m tired of doing the work to refute your various claims fabricated from whole cloth.

In 2009 only 6% of American scientists self identified as Republicans. 55% identified as Democrats and 32% identified as independent.

Now please tell us how American scientists are not some of the best in the world.

Okay here’s a link to an article that tracks donations to political candidates by scientists in America. Interesting information if you’re willing to open your mind to actual facts. It certainly appears that the Republicans are driving away support from scientists by their decision to reject science as a political strategy. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01382-3

I don't feel the need to check your numbers. I don't think you lie, or at least I hope not; of course, they could be wrong. When you say scientists, I believe you're referring to researchers and academics. Anyone who employs the scientific method can be a scientist. Most research is done at universities, and most universities are liberal and intolerant to non-liberal opinions. People working at these universities would be very reluctant to identify as anything other than liberal. Most people are interested in protecting their careers and taking the path of least resistance. Look at the ridiculous things that Afrocentrics have said over the years; few academics had the courage to challenge them.

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 18, 2023 3:21 am

"most liberals" can't be scientists? Actually I agree with Liberty that most liberals cannot be scientists.

But then most conservatives can't be either. The current political ecology in America is divided into conservatives and liberals on the basis of strictly emotionally issues. Rational, fact-based examination, which is what most scientists do, is simply not within skill set of most liberals or conservatives in the American population today and they see no utility in that sort of thing.. I am not sure it ever was. As I was reminded when I went to wiki and read about the assassination of Pres. Garfield

snailgate

I think I agree with you, BP. I don't know why so many people find it so hard to be objective; it's not that hard. If I am ever on trial, I hope I have a jury of objective-thinking amateur scientists.

So, in other words, most people can't be scientists. It seems to me that true scientists would be people who are able to not let their political leanings affect their research.

Of course "scientists" who worked within totalitarian regimes on the left or right clearly allowed the politics to alter both their observations and conclusions; clearly not all scientists are motivated by dispassionate objective observations and experimentation. This has been true throughout history, and continues to be true to this day. It's fairly easy to find such publications and theories, but there are many who hold fast to them--be it the genetic inferiority of certain races, to the cause(s) of certain diseases, to the effectiveness of vaccines... If it weren't for these "scientists",there would be a lot less bullshit on the internet.

Face it, it's easy to pretend that science is completely objective and that there are no disputes, but everyone is motivated by their own experiences and prejudices, etc., and this affects the theories and conclusions they reach. And, FWIW, because a lot of the underlying science is voluminous and difficult to learn, many non-scientists cannot accurately understand the questions, let alone the answers and conclusions.

Indeed, the distortion of opinion is not entirely due to politics, I have seen many feuds between prominent scientists in various research communities where sides are chosen and people work together to challenge the findings of another (often overly pompous) scientist. There is some benefit to the science because of this competition, but a lot of time and effort is wasted trying to sabotage each other. Conclusions are not made in a vacuum, but in the real world.

A Person Who Eats Meat

by Leonard Cohen

A person who eats meat
wants to get his teeth into something
A person who does not eat meat
wants to get his teeth into something else
If these thoughts interest you for even a moment
you are lost.

Ah ! MajGenl you have inspired me again. Surely some group has officially declared Leonard Cohen a prophet.

I listen to the hummingbird.

snailgate.

It's been years since I thought of that poem Meade; thanks.

The other day, I heard the vice president being outraged that Florida's black history standards teach that some slaves learned skills that benefited them. It must have been true because slaves did everything; jobs for poor whites were not to be had in the old South. Slaves ate, and the poor whites went hungry. When freedom came, did the Freedman stop making shoes? No, he resumed making shoes, but he worked for himself. Ending slavery was the best thing for the poor whites in the old South; at least they could compete and have a chance to eat.

error

liberty wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2023 2:14 am

error

That pretty much sums up just about anything liberty posts here.

-"BB"-

What is insulting to blacks is the notion that whites went to Africa and kidnapped blacks into slavery. It's insulting because it implies that the Africans were just rabbits to be rounded up. They were excellent warriors well capable of defending themselves. Local African kings and chiefs supplied the slaves through warfare; they had a monopoly and didn't tolerate competition.

I think a better name would be the Needham Chinese paradox; however, most people call it the Needham's puzzle. This question is why China didn't develop science rather than Western Europe. The Chinese were centuries ahead of the West in technology; but they fell behind, and the Europeans produced the scientific revolution.

For liberals, the answer is simple. The Chinese, Arabs, and the Sub-Saharan Africans all invented modern science, and the evil white Europeans stole it, destroyed all evidence of its prior existence in other regions, and claimed credit for themselves. That is the political correct answer a liberal has to believe.

Aren’t you supposed to be at your klan meeting tonight?

Speaking of that, why is it that the Klan didn't develop or progress science? Hell, they had the benefit of centuries of scientific development around the world, and the best they could do was pour lamp oil on wooden crosses to help them burn. I guess science and racism don't mix--the nazi development (or lack thereof) of atomic weapons shows that (they'd rather spend their time searching for shit like the spear of destiny).

And Lib, all science builds on the development of others (Isaac Newton coined a pretty good phrase recognizing that) be it across the hall or aroundthe world; if you choose to view that as theft, not much I can do, but it is the normal progression of science in the real world.

liberty wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2023 2:34 am

What is insulting to blacks is the notion that whites went to Africa and kidnapped blacks into slavery

You'd best stop being the only person in the known universe to believe such a silly thing.

It was your scientificky Arabs what done it guvna.

Innit?