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

#111

Post by joe_the_user » Fri, Dec 10, 2010, 2:31 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #95

joe_the_user wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oddly enough, I think most scientist are opposed to immoral experiments as well. The question is whether or not one is using rational criteria to determine what's moral.

Most opponents of stem cell research are being rational. If you take as an axiom "fertilized eggs are people too", it's not hard to conclude that stem cell experiments are immoral. In much the same way, given the axiom "blacks are people too", the rational conclusion is that Tuskegee was immoral.

If that is the premise of opponents of stem cell research, they may be drawing rational, moral conclusions from it.

However the premise itself, "stem cells are people" is most certainly definitely drawn from religious faith.

The premise that black people are rather similar to white people, on the other hand, seems to draw on scientific knowledge. Obviously, there's still the step of drawing a rational, moral conclusion from that also.

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

#112

Post by subsection1h » Fri, Dec 10, 2010, 2:52 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #95

joe_the_user wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oddly enough, I think most scientist are opposed to immoral experiments as well. The question is whether or not one is using rational criteria to determine what's moral.

Most opponents of stem cell research are being rational. If you take as an axiom "fertilized eggs are people too", it's not hard to conclude that stem cell experiments are immoral. In much the same way, given the axiom "blacks are people too", the rational conclusion is that Tuskegee was immoral.

Most opponents of stem cell research are being rational. If you take as an axiom "fertilized eggs are people too", it's not hard to conclude that stem cell experiments are immoral.

Fertilized eggs can divide. Is it rational to believe that a person can divide? Is each twin 50% of a person?

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

#113

Post by AmyRyan » Fri, Dec 10, 2010, 2:52 AM 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…

Ah morality. Complex topic.

I've got an example for you: should my neighbor be able to walk up to my house and demand a percentage of my income at gunpoint to pay for his attendance at university?

And even if such a gunpoint demand is allowed, I'm curious what you would say about the morality of an unapalogetic libertarian that attends university with just such a subsidy.

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

#114

Post by yummyfajitas » Fri, Dec 10, 2010, 3:27 AM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #111

yummyfajitas wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most opponents of stem cell research are being rational. If you take as an axiom "fertilized eggs are people too", it's not hard to conclude that stem cell experiments are immoral. In much the same way, given the axiom "blacks are people too", the rational conclusion is that Tuskegee was immoral.

If that is the premise of opponents of stem cell research, they may be drawing rational, moral conclusions from it. However the premise itself, "stem cells are people" is most certainly definitely drawn from religious faith. The premise that black people are rather similar to white people, on the other hand, seems to draw on scientific knowledge. Obviously, there's still the step of drawing a rational, moral conclusi…

Scientific statement: "Black people are biologically similar (for some definition of similar) to white people."

Moral statement: "Creatures with X degree of similarity to white people deserve the same rights as white people."

The latter statement is simply unprovable via the scientific method. Forget even about the racism - the statement "you shouldn't rape/torture/murder people" also can't be proved via the scientific method.

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

#115

Post by yummyfajitas » Fri, Dec 10, 2010, 3:30 AM UTC

subsection1h wrote: post #112

yummyfajitas wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most opponents of stem cell research are being rational. If you take as an axiom "fertilized eggs are people too", it's not hard to conclude that stem cell experiments are immoral. In much the same way, given the axiom "blacks are people too", the rational conclusion is that Tuskegee was immoral.

Most opponents of stem cell research are being rational. If you take as an axiom "fertilized eggs are people too", it's not hard to conclude that stem cell experiments are immoral. Fertilized eggs can divide. Is it rational to believe that a person can divide? Is each twin 50% of a person?

If your definition of people includes fertilized eggs, then it is clearly rational to believe a person can divide.

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

#116

Post by seigenblues » Fri, Dec 10, 2010, 4:11 AM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #96

seigenblues wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, politics certainly puts humans at their most irrational indeed! It's quite some gymnastics you're turning here. Somehow, you've ended up saying that when educated citizens overwhelmingly support one governing philosophy, it's not only somehow bad for the educated citizens, it's also bad for the philosophy! That's a neat trick. (btw, that philosophy -- american 'liberalism' -- would barely deserve the name in any…

Somehow, you've ended up saying that when educated citizens overwhelmingly support one governing philosophy, it's not only somehow bad for the educated citizens, it's also bad for the philosophy! That's a neat trick. It would be, if I had conflated "philosophy" with "political party" But I didn't. Cheers.

That doesn't actually change the thrust of the point at all. Go ahead and switch those two words around how you want and tell me how it substantially changes my argument.

You've made educated people supporting something both bad for educated people and bad for the something. Now, you're welcome to start arguing against the educational system they're immersed in (science), and that's certainly a line you can go down, if you want. It's a bit played out and i'd be surprised to hear you rally an enthusiastic offense there, but go right ahead.

Furthermore, your point about groups & party systems is still totally fatuous: you can be in A or in ~A. then, A can be in B or in ~B. You can say "all the A's are in B." or you can say "all the ~A's are in ~B".

Shorter: you can't make the not-too-menacing statement "ohh, all the scientists are democrats! how terrible for the democrats and the scientists!" without making the equally trite "ohh, all the non-scientists are republicans! How terrible for the non-scientists and the republicans!"

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

#117

Post by gaulinmp » Fri, Dec 10, 2010, 6:34 PM UTC

brc wrote: post #61

sachinag wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thei…

~Your position on Nuclear power is completely irrational.

Your opening statement is pointlessly inflammatory. He obviously just has a different risk preference than you do. Why be so antagonistic? Personally I'm all for having a Nuclear power plant in my back yard, but I would also respect other's aversion without mockery.

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

#118

Post by vannevar » Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 10:08 PM UTC

narkee wrote: post #57

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…

I don't see why the premise that "There should be as many scientists roughly in each party" is pre-supposed to be true. It's not self-evident at all.

Particularly when you consider that many Republican leaders publicly advocate creationism being taught as science, or that global warming is not happening, both of which are demonstratively and objectively false beliefs. Republican rhetoric over the past 30 years has been increasingly critical of science as a process, essentially arguing for faith and debate as the preferred means of discovering the truth, rather than reason and experimentation.

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

#119

Post by vannevar » Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 10:24 PM UTC

hugh3 wrote: post #44

Jun8 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I second that as a latte-drinking, gay-marriage-backing, gun-banning liberal. Regarding the gun-banning, I would note that many gun owners overestimate the utility of firearms for protection in exactly the same way many liberals overestimate the risks of a modern nuclear power plant. Perhaps we all have a common interest in encouraging our fellow citizens to rely on enlightened reason rather than blind fear in making public policy, regardless of the question at hand.

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

#120

Post by crpatino » Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 10:33 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #43

sachinag wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]…

>>> Seriously, they deliberately operated it way outside of the known to be safe parameters, and turned off all the safety systems ...

If you think about it, that's pretty scary.

Even if the science behind this is fully understood and the engineers flawlessly put alarms, locks and backups for every possible failure mode, it only takes one idiot manager to overrule them all and have the safety systems turned off.

Makes you wonder about all those other things you are told "cannot possibly go wrong"...