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

#81

Post by Jun8 » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 10:45 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…

Why does my ignorance "sadden" you? I would be first to point it out (although I wouldn't say that I'm more ignorant in these matters than the average intellectual) and one does not have to be omniscient either.

You cite some very interesting results. If these are indeed so well known in the political science community, please post links to a few introductory papers.

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

#82

Post by jobeirne » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 10:47 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #78

jobeirne wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps we've touched on a fundamental difficulty here: maybe good economic policy isn't rooted in consequence or empirical datum, but instead morality. For example, the proposition of a single-payer healthcare system essentially reduces to the question, ``should my neighbor be able to walk up to my house and demand a percentage of my income at gunpoint to pay for his healthcare expenses?'' Maybe the adoption of such…

Let's not go into healthcare itself. But I think you've touched on another important matter that I tried to introduce elsewhere, but hasn't been caught up yet. I think that we must be 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…

The problem here is that you're arguing as a consequentialist: maybe ``those bottom-rung folks can be motivated into improving themselves'', but that's a big if. I'm not concerned with what may happen if a policy is introduced: I'm concerned with the intrinsic morality of the policy itself; anything beyond that is crystal-gazing.

The only sure consequence of imposing a minimum-wage law is that private businesses are restricted in the wages that they can offer potential employees. Is it moral that the government will arrest me if I hire a 16-year-old to run errands for me at five dollars an hour? I don't think so.

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

#83

Post by CWuestefeld » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 10:48 PM UTC

njs12345 wrote: post #50

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..

You're failing to differentiate between supporting a policy versus the truth of a scientific argument.

It is pretty much accepted that minimum wage increases unemployment, although the effect may be small as pointed out elsewhere.

But you may also believe that we should offer a well-designed safety net to those who lose their jobs as a result, and that these people can thus improve their skills to benefit themselves in the longer term. Thus, it's perfectly possible to believe scientifically that the effect as bad, yet still support it as a political policy. (note that I do not support it, but I can understand how someone might)

It's been said elsewhere in this thread that even if Obamacare would work, the speaker feels that it's morally wrong to force other people to pay. So again, the scientific results don't necessarily determine the policy.

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

#84

Post by LargeWu » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 10:48 PM UTC

locopati wrote: post #73

LargeWu wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's also a distrust of the companies that would run such operations, seeing as the Republican party is often anti-regulation/oversight. A bad combination when it comes to nuclear power, imho.

There are plenty of power plants presently operating quite safely under the current regulatory scheme. Can you point to any specific concerns you have, or is this just FUD?

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

#85

Post by ramanujan » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 10:49 PM UTC

An interesting question is whether this has always been so. Anecdotally, scientists like Galton, Fisher, and Pearson were on the right (from today's perspective, the far right) in their work on the nature/nurture question.

What do historical polls look like? The R/D flip around 1965 will complicate tracking polls, but it'd be interesting to see the data if it exists...

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

#86

Post by yummyfajitas » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 10:50 PM UTC

sandipc wrote: post #52

jobeirne wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"Which is more harmful?" As a scientist, the damning of stem cell research.

Under other circumstances, democrats tend to be just as opposed to performing experiments which they feel are immoral. An example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/nyregion/09placebo.html?re...

(I'm speculating that the opposition are democrats, but in NYC it's a good guess.)

Or, to take a bipartisan example, people of pretty much any party would be opposed to repeating the Tuskegee experiment (or many others). It's not anti-scientific to oppose a particular experiment because you believe conducting it involves immoral acts. You might disagree with the morality involved, but that's not the same thing.

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

#87

Post by hugh3 » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 10:53 PM UTC

quanticle wrote: post #55

araneae wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

to the extent that the GOP favors a smaller government (and though they say this, they don't actually do so, but that's a different discussion), this would make one expect that those against such governmental funding would be morally bound to find other means of employment. I can support this with anecdotal evidence. I have a friend who got his Ph.D. in physics, but decided to work outside of academia. His primary re…

Libertarian doesn't automatically mean Republican, though. Again, speaking anecdotally, I know of a fair number of libertarians who switched party affiliations when the Patriot Act was passed, and the Bush Administration started its warrantless wiretapping program (a program that the Obama administration has sadly continued).

Anecdotally it seems that most of the Libertarians who switched their party affiliation to Democrat while Bush was in power switched it back to Republican once Obama came into power and managed to keep up all Bush's objectionable policies while adding a whole bunch of his own.

I am reminded of the old joke about the man who goes to hell and is given a choice of two rooms in which to spend all eternity. In the first, everybody is forced to stand on their head for all eternity, groaning uncomfortably with the strain. In the second, everybody is standing around knee-deep in poop, but they're also drinking coffee, eating biscuits and chatting. After thinking long and hard, he eventually chooses the second room, but the moment after he walks in a voice comes over the intercom "OK, coffee break's over, everybody back on your heads."

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

#88

Post by ramanujan » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 10:55 PM UTC

jobeirne wrote: post #75

joe_the_user wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can debate whether Keynesianism is actually stupid elsewhere. Maybe it's the worst possible policy. But stupid or smart Keynesianism is not certainly "pro-stupidity" economics in the sense that's obvious aiming to be smart. It's endorsed by lots of apparently smart economists, it uses coherent mathematical models etc. You might argue that the positions of Glen Beck or George Bush would be smarter to adopt than tho…

Perhaps we've touched on a fundamental difficulty here: maybe good economic policy isn't rooted in consequence or empirical datum, but instead morality. For example, the proposition of a single-payer healthcare system essentially reduces to the question, ``should my neighbor be able to walk up to my house and demand a percentage of my income at gunpoint to pay for his healthcare expenses?'' Maybe the adoption of such…

I think you're conceding too much ground. You need only look at Hong Kong vs. mainland China (pre-Deng) to empirically see the difference between massive government spending and laissez faire in sharp relief. Same with North Korea vs South Korea, or East vs West Germany, or pre/post reform India. In other words, you need not invoke morality to demonstrate that a large government sector represses growth.

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

#89

Post by joe_the_user » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 10:57 PM UTC

jobeirne wrote: post #75

joe_the_user wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can debate whether Keynesianism is actually stupid elsewhere. Maybe it's the worst possible policy. But stupid or smart Keynesianism is not certainly "pro-stupidity" economics in the sense that's obvious aiming to be smart. It's endorsed by lots of apparently smart economists, it uses coherent mathematical models etc. You might argue that the positions of Glen Beck or George Bush would be smarter to adopt than tho…

Perhaps we've touched on a fundamental difficulty here: maybe good economic policy isn't rooted in consequence or empirical datum, but instead morality. For example, the proposition of a single-payer healthcare system essentially reduces to the question, ``should my neighbor be able to walk up to my house and demand a percentage of my income at gunpoint to pay for his healthcare expenses?'' Maybe the adoption of such…

Considering this discussion has already careered into the realm of hot-button issues ...

... we could add that any vote against foreign aid would require congressmen to watch videos of Africans dying of starvation, any vote for defense spending should require pictures of foreigners dying horribly and any vote again it should require the viewing of a live re-enactment of the burning of Washington, any vote against cell research would require the direct viewing of people suffering from exotic, disgusting diseases, anything offending the catholics should require a harangue describing the multiple tortures involves in Hell and so-forth...

I flagged this topic but, like Dogbert said "I can dish this out all day.."

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

#90

Post by CWuestefeld » Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 11:00 PM UTC

Jun8 wrote: post #21

verysimple wrote: post #3

This kind of rhetoric disturbs me. The burden doesn't lie with the scientific community, but rather the republican party. Science is not a movement, it's a set of practices that emphasize observation and empirical analysis to interpret the world around us. Science is there for anybody who wants to open their mind to it to enjoy. I'm sure some republicans have and assuming those numbers are correct, 1 of 3 things happ…

Although it is true that the scientific method cannot be thought of as "political" in any sense, I think it's a big mistake to see science as deriving, almost mechanically from observations. It is done by scientists and in all ages scientists are affected by non-scientific aspects of their societies, i.e. traditions, commonly held beliefs, and politics. Also, not all science is as abstract as, say, mathematics or hun…

Some questions, e.g.: should we ... are scientific

No, none of those "should we" questions are scientific. Those are policy questions. Policy is informed by science, but passes through a filter of cultural values as well.

I've said it several times here, but I'll do so again. Just because we can establish a theory as true does not necessarily lead to any particular policy.

Suppose that climate change is not happening, at least to the extent of the sky falling. That does not mean that we do not have an obligation to preserve our environment; that is still determined by our values.

Conversely, even if the climate is changing as significantly as some say, it doesn't necessarily mean that we must change our lifestyle to avoid it. Again, it's a question of values.

Science should not be seen to lead directly to policy.