Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem • Hacker News Board

Re: Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

#41

Post by hugh3 » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 9:50 PM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #12

evgen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would claim that there are two factors that lead to the fact that most scientists are Democrats: the overall lean of universities, and the source of funding. And the overwhelming anti-science bias within large segments of the Republican base has nothing to do with it? Yeah, it has just got to be all of those liberal universities and scientists living off the government teat... You can delude yourself all you want,…

Mostly true, but conservatives hardly have a monopoly on willful ignorance. Ask the stereotypical liberal what he thinks of nuclear power or GMO crops, and you're not likely to get a response based on sound science.

True, but on the other hand arguing against nuclear power or GMO crops isn't nearly as crazy as arguing against evolution. One is based on a misconstruing of risks (some of which remain a bit fuzzy anyway) while the other is based on being a complete fricking wacko.

To put it another way, you can easily have two honest and sensible scientists arguing about whether nuclear power is a good idea; you can't have two honest and sensible scientists arguing about evolution.

Re: Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

#42

Post by LargeWu » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 9:50 PM UTC

sachinag wrote: post #22

orangecat wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly true, but conservatives hardly have a monopoly on willful ignorance. Ask the stereotypical liberal what he thinks of nuclear power or GMO crops, and you're not likely to get a response based on sound science.

Nuclear power and GMO crops have the same issue for liberals like me: when they fail, they fail in catastrophic fashion. We've already had Cherynobol and Monsanto's "Terminator" seeds getting out into the wild. To paraphrase badly, liberals opposed to both are concerned about Black Swan events. Your assessment of the risk and that of those of us who are a bit more "reactionary" are just different, but it doesn't mean…

Chernobyl is ancient history when it comes to nuclear technology. Pretty much all of the problems with catastrophic failure of nuclear power plants have been solved, yet many on the left still oppose it, almost out of tradition, rather than because of any compelling scientific argument.

Re: Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

#43

Post by yummyfajitas » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 9:51 PM UTC

sachinag wrote: post #22

orangecat wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly true, but conservatives hardly have a monopoly on willful ignorance. Ask the stereotypical liberal what he thinks of nuclear power or GMO crops, and you're not likely to get a response based on sound science.

Nuclear power and GMO crops have the same issue for liberals like me: when they fail, they fail in catastrophic fashion. We've already had Cherynobol and Monsanto's "Terminator" seeds getting out into the wild. To paraphrase badly, liberals opposed to both are concerned about Black Swan events. Your assessment of the risk and that of those of us who are a bit more "reactionary" are just different, but it doesn't mean…

...fail in catastrophic fashion...Monsanto's "Terminator" seeds getting out into the wild.

And the catastrophe was what, exactly? It was so minor that I must have missed it.

Incidentally, I don't believe your fear of catastrophic failure is the real motivation. I believe it's a post-hoc rationalization. My reasoning? There has only been one serious nuclear accident ever, and it was caused by deliberate negligence [1]. Various socialist policies, when carried out by people being deliberately negligent or malicious, have failed far more catastrophically than Chernobyl. Yet most liberals don't tend to oppose them.

[1] Go read about it. Seriously, they deliberately operated it way outside of the known to be safe parameters, and turned off all the safety systems (which would, if left active, have shut the reactor down safely). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Re: Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

#44

Post by hugh3 » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 9:52 PM UTC

Jun8 wrote: post #26

evgen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would claim that there are two factors that lead to the fact that most scientists are Democrats: the overall lean of universities, and the source of funding. And the overwhelming anti-science bias within large segments of the Republican base has nothing to do with it? Yeah, it has just got to be all of those liberal universities and scientists living off the government teat... You can delude yourself all you want,…

In order to understand any situation, we should go beyond simplistic stereotypes like "pitchfork-wielding, bible-thumping." This is no different than Fox TV anchors who view liberals as latte-drinking, gun-banning, gay marriage-backing wimps.

Well, I dunno about your analogy; "gun-banning" and "gay-marriage-backing" are pretty accurate descriptions of mainstream "liberal" policies, and "latte-drinking" is pretty much an accurate description of 90% of the population.

Re: Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

#45

Post by danilocampos » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 9:52 PM UTC

When you've got a party that's tied to a 6000-year-old earth and early man walking beside dinosaurs, how can anyone with a third grade or higher science education be excited to join?

The overwhelming sentiment among the Right in the United States is a perverse anti-intellectualism. Stupidity and lack of education have been enshrined as the height of authenticity. If you need proof, look at John McCain's running mate.

No one with a scientific mind can feel welcome among people who are tied to policies that consider common sense contraception as somehow morally reprehensible.

Re: Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

#46

Post by CWuestefeld » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 9:55 PM UTC

narkee wrote: post #10

CWuestefeld wrote: post #4

I would claim that there are two factors that lead to the fact that most scientists are Democrats: the overall lean of universities, and the source of funding. First, scientists tend to work in academia. It's well documented that universities are strongly slanted to the left. It seems reasonable to expect that when the left-leaning universities are looking to hire, they will tend to (possibly not intentionally) favor…

>It's well documented that universities are strongly slanted to the left I think that this just deflects the question. Why is it that universities are left-leaning? The implication is that knowledge acquisition is co-related with left-leaning politics? I'm not about to go into the implications of such an assertion, lest a political flame-war break out, but I think answering that more general question will explain the…

The implication is that knowledge acquisition is co-related with left-leaning politics?

That's a very good question. If you don't mind, I'd like to tweak it a bit first. As a libertarian myself, and from my association with other libertarians, I believe that people of that political bent are also much more likely to pursue a rational truth. So I'd like to re-do the boolean algebra to refer to "non-right-leaning" rather than "left-leaning".

Anyway, the premise is partly flawed. I gave an example of economics, and other examples were cited such as opposition to GM crops, where those on the left are clearly in opposition to the best available scientific understanding.

But by my own observation, it does appear that as a generalization your premise holds strongly for the life sciences, and also holds for hard sciences like physics and chemistry. I think it would be interesting to pursue that.

HOWEVER, I think that while considering it, that we are careful to keep science and policy separated. Even if we are to grant that a certain point of science is correct, it does not necessarily lead to acceptance of a point of policy.

For example, it is well known that at the margin, minimum wage laws increase unemployment amongst the least skilled workers. But it doesn't automatically follow that such a policy should not be followed; perhaps with a proper safety net, those bottom-rung folks can be motivated into improving themselves. Likewise (and even more controversially), even if climate change is as serious as some claim, it does not necessarily follow that all efforts must be pursued: it may be that the cost of fixing it exceeds the cost of the expected damage.

It's just too easy to say "we have this problem, thus we must do something". The values that drive our actions are different from the science that allows us to understand the world.

Re: Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

#47

Post by ThomPete » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 9:55 PM UTC

It's interesting. Compared to most of Europe to many people in Europe the entire political scene in the US looks like a Republican scene.

I fail to see how that is a problem anymore than saying that most people who work on wall street are republicans.

The actual political position is only relevant in context not from an absolute point of view.

Re: Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

#48

Post by quanticle » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 9:55 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #4

I would claim that there are two factors that lead to the fact that most scientists are Democrats: the overall lean of universities, and the source of funding. First, scientists tend to work in academia. It's well documented that universities are strongly slanted to the left. It seems reasonable to expect that when the left-leaning universities are looking to hire, they will tend to (possibly not intentionally) favor…

For example, Democratic support of minimum wages and other price controls, and especially their opposition to free trade, fly against the wind of economic science.

The problem is that there are plenty of Republicans willing to oppose free trade as well. Lets also not forget that it was Nixon who imposed price controls in the '70s. You'll be hard pressed to find sound economics in either party.

Re: Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

#49

Post by jobeirne » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 9:55 PM UTC

hristov wrote: post #32

That is a problem. But it is not a problem for science, it is a problem for the republican party. For the last ten years they have been so aggressively pro stupidity that intelligent people are embarrassed to be affiliated with them, even if their general political beliefs are closer to the republican than to the democrat side.

The Democratic party has exhibited a ``pro-stupidity'' attitude on the same order of magnitude, just in more subtle ways. Instead of damning stem cell research, the Dems champion Keynesian economics, seek to implement entitlement programs, and push protectionism (``buy local'').

Which is more harmful?

Re: Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

#50

Post by njs12345 » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 9:57 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #4

I would claim that there are two factors that lead to the fact that most scientists are Democrats: the overall lean of universities, and the source of funding. First, scientists tend to work in academia. It's well documented that universities are strongly slanted to the left. It seems reasonable to expect that when the left-leaning universities are looking to hire, they will tend to (possibly not intentionally) favor…

Many economists would certainly support the idea of a minimum wage, so I hardly think it's fair to portray it as a settled matter..