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

#61

Post by brc » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 10:08 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…

Your position on Nuclear power is completely irrational. One easily prevented, catastrophic failure with relatively minor flow-on effects is not enough to fear nuclear power. Regular power sources drip-feed death and destruction on a regular basis, but because they don't all happen at once, the numbers go unnoticed.

Similarly, anti-GM crops is circular logic. All food products we eat are long-since modified from their original native or wild source.

The struggle within science to find a place for the bible within the geological record has been going on for at least 2 centuries. As such I don't see the problem being resolved anytime soon. Some of the towering giants of science have bent themselves out of shape trying to retro-fit biblical tales into natural history, and that doesn't invalidate their other contributions. What I'm saying here is that holding an irrational position on evolution doesn't necessarily devalue a scientists value, as long as they aren't primarily studying evolutionary-related fields. If the person who comes up with a cure for cancer doesn't believe in evolution, personally it wouldn't worry me one bit.

Of all that, I do think the Republicans have a problem with religious beliefs taking over the party. I don't know of any other major conservative party in the world which puts things like evolution in question the way they do. Although I suspect it's not endemic within the party, the moderates within the party should be doing more to establish a more mainstream view as the primary position.

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

#62

Post by MichaelSalib » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 10:10 PM UTC

Jun8 wrote: post #54

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #37

This is a problem, and it really has nothing to do with specific policies or parties. Any democracy will evolve into a multi-party system. In the U.S. we've basically went with two parties, and it looks like we are stuck with it. So in a two party system, any group that completely affiliates with one party, either by membership or just tradition, both damages that party and the group itself. What I love about politic…

Very well put! What keeps amazing me about US politics is that (as in other places) there is a small number, n, of top issues, e.g. gay marriage, abortion, off-shoring work, gun control. I think n~10. Assuming the simplistic approach that your stance on of these issues are binary valued, there are 2^n ~ 1000 different positions available. Since these are highly correlated, the real value is much lower than this, thou…

Comments like this sadden me.

There is a field called political science. There are lots of researchers in that field publishing in journals, attending conferences, writing books, etc. And they've actually come up with some interesting results. In particular: voters do not make voting decisions based primarily on issues. In fact, there's some evidence that the causation often goes the other way.

Any model that starts with the assumption that voters choose candidates based on issue matching starts with fail.

Why should I be shoehorned? I am a gnostic, against excessive off-shoring, pro-choice, against gun banning and so on. It's a curious mix. Yet, I have to choose between two packages.

Because the nature of political parties that can function in any society is heavily dependent on the institutional structure of the government. Again, this is a question that actual political scientists have researched and answered.

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

#63

Post by hugh3 » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 10:11 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #53

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.

Yes! It's not difficult to meet physicists or engineers with conservative politics. But thoughtful, intelligent conservatism has more or less left the scene, which means thoughtful, intelligent conservatives don't really have much representation. (In other words, American politics is deeply suffering at the loss of William F. Buckley.)

Glenn Reynolds? Admittedly he'd call himself libertarian rather than conservative, but he's pretty much the closest thing to a latter-day WFB.

On the other hand, despite having one of the most widely-read blogs in the world you'll almost never see him on TV. Both the right-wing and the left-wing sides of the media don't like to show conservatives unless they're angry and fire-breathing. And even the most intelligent of the fire-breathing conservatives (say, Krauthammer) always come off as non-thoughtful.

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

#64

Post by potatolicious » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 10:11 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…

We are a long way from Chernobyl, the state of the art in nuclear power generation is not at all the same.

Pardon the snarkiness a little bit, but your fear nuclear power because of catastrophes like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island is about as rational as my fear of flying because jetliners in the 50s weren't very safe.

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

#65

Post by hugh3 » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 10:13 PM UTC

jberryman wrote: post #27

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,…

I'm reminded of the '08 republican primary debates and "Raise your hand if you believe in evolution". I don't see many scientists happily getting behind a party made up of people who need to be asked that.

I'm a Republican(-supporting) scientist, but I cringe every time I think of that moment.

And ever since that moment I cringe every time I hear Mike Huckabee mentioned as a serious candidate.

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

#66

Post by scelerat » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 10:14 PM UTC

I'm no scientist, but do place a premium on inquiry, falsifiability, and rationality in most endeavors. IMO the Republican party is run by people who are openly theocratic, anti-intellectual, and anti-rational. It is no surprise to me that so few scientists are registered as Republican. I see this as a problem for Republicans specifically, and the United States generally. FWIW, last time I affiliated myself with any party was in 2000, when I was a Republican.

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

#67

Post by hugh3 » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 10:14 PM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #58

hugh3 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hone…

Agreed. Religion is the differentiator, not political ideology. You can also have rational disagreements about whether global warming is a serious threat.

Indeed you can (despite the attempts of some folks who attempt to claim that you can't).

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

#68

Post by hugh3 » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 10:18 PM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #33

jbooth wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a small sample size: http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_relativity This guy free-associated the theory of relativity with "moral relativism" (ideological bingo word!) and apparently concluded that that means relativity is wrong. Article full of cites follows. If it's cited, must be true, right? He also liberally (heh!) re-uses the bogus arguments from below about how relativity research is funded by the go…

I'm a liberal, but even I can see that conservapedia represents the overall conservative/Republican base about as well as Mao represents all Chinese.

As far as I can tell, Conservapedia is written by two actual conservatives of the nutty variety and about fifty left-wing trolls.

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

#69

Post by CWuestefeld » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 10:20 PM UTC

MichaelSalib wrote: post #62

Jun8 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very well put! What keeps amazing me about US politics is that (as in other places) there is a small number, n, of top issues, e.g. gay marriage, abortion, off-shoring work, gun control. I think n~10. Assuming the simplistic approach that your stance on of these issues are binary valued, there are 2^n ~ 1000 different positions available. Since these are highly correlated, the real value is much lower than this, thou…

Comments like this sadden me. There is a field called political science. There are lots of researchers in that field publishing in journals, attending conferences, writing books, etc. And they've actually come up with some interesting results. In particular: voters do not make voting decisions based primarily on issues. In fact, there's some evidence that the causation often goes the other way. Any model that starts…

voters do not make voting decisions based primarily on issues. In fact, there's some evidence that the causation often goes the other way.

Interesting, I'd like to read more about this. Can you point me to something (less than book-length) that would tell me more?

(I'm familiar with The Myth of the Rational Voter thing, but it sounds like you're going even a step farther than that)

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

#70

Post by zcid » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 10:22 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.

I completely agree with you about nuclear power. I don't understand why people fail to realize the vast improvements in safety made over the last 20 or 30 years. I won't claim they're 100%, but I would live next to a reactor without any fear.

The GMO crops issue is a little more complicated though. The human body is extraordinarily complex and small changes in our environment and diet can create totally unexpected and undetectable chain reactions with results appearing decades later. I put enough effort into my health and well-being that I try to avoid anything that could negatively affect my body.

GMO crops might be worth the chances in 3rd world countries where starvation is an ever-present reality, but they will not be seen on my plate any time in the near future.