RE: Tea Party and Science

RE: Tea Party and Science (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

PeonForHer -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/17/2013 6:17:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Well...he was a Christian and conservative after all so the Tea Party and he have something's in common. Butch But at least we can actually read - for example Posner's book on Mengele where it is listed that Mengele rejected Catholicism in favor of the state approved Nazi religion. Which, for the record, had some very peculiar beliefs. Phydeaux, if you don't mind my asking, what inspired you to read a book about Mengele? Myself, I've always thought that Mengele was just another Nazi fruitcake and not worth bothering with. What impressed you so much about him that you felt the desire to read a book about him? You're serious, aren't you? How would you define people who only read about stuff they liked? Who refused to be educated on anything outside their realm of comfort? Who decided what was worthy of being learned based on preconceived notions? Narrow-minded seems to fit. [:-] I only asked, Treasure - no need to get all alarmed about my sending the KBG (or the Gestapo) to your home. I'm sure Phydeaux will furnish us with a very respectable and satisfying answer. [:)]

kdsub -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/17/2013 7:54:15 PM)
I'm sure some folks just like to wallow in morbidity. I understand the mindset...I've a friend that reads illustrated medical journals with interest in the pictures only. I don't claim to know Phydeaux's reasons for reading that book but it would interest me if I were to see it laying about. It would be interesting reading trying to understand the mind that could conceive of such atrocities. Butch

PeonForHer -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/17/2013 8:47:31 PM)
True enough, I guess. I'm a copper's son, I suppose I should know. Mind you, my dad's a raving goose-stepper - perhaps not a good example. ;-)

TheHeretic -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/17/2013 9:13:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Yep. I'd imagine that Tea-Partiers would love Mengele. After all, Mengele and his fellow Nazis did a magnificent job of combating anti-American values in pre-WW2 Germany. What an awful place it must be, inside your hateful little mind, Peon.

Phydeaux -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/17/2013 9:18:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Well...he was a Christian and conservative after all so the Tea Party and he have something's in common. Butch But at least we can actually read - for example Posner's book on Mengele where it is listed that Mengele rejected Catholicism in favor of the state approved Nazi religion. Which, for the record, had some very peculiar beliefs. Phydeaux, if you don't mind my asking, what inspired you to read a book about Mengele? Myself, I've always thought that Mengele was just another Nazi fruitcake and not worth bothering with. What impressed you so much about him that you felt the desire to read a book about him? I've read books on Speer, Eichman, Goebbols, Stalin, Hitler, Chamberlain, Hess, Mussolini, the British King (can never remember which one), Tito, Hirohito Also read books on Guderian, Eisenhower, Montgomery, Ribbentrop, Patton, Marshal, Bradley, Macarthar, York, the guy that Said "nuts"..... I read a lot. I've also visited Auschwitz, Birkenau and two other concentration camps. "Those who don't know history......" Read churchills complete unabridged histories of wwII - all 7? volumes - at age 7.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/17/2013 10:19:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Yeah, which is it, 2000 or a large nationally representative sample. Well first of all, people who can read know that the story said "more than 2000". And secondly, people who can click on links (like the one that says "respondents" in the post you're replying to) can be expected to know that the size of the dataset was 2,316. Assuming they've mastered the arcane science of arithmetic addition, of course. K. Don't forget you're also requiring fine motor skills and hand-eye coordination for that clicking stuff. Arcane science and maths are great and all, but if you can't do the clickety-clicks, you won't have anything to practice your arcane arts on. [:D]

SilverMark -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 3:02:12 AM)
General Anthony McAuliffe....The guy who said nuts, funny enough I just rode on a stretch of highway in Pa. that is named after him the other day. Have read many things that I thought were interesting but not related to how I think, the worst being a biography on Himmler, he wasn't much of a thinker, more of a fabricator. There is something in trying to understanding a true horror story about the inhumane, which would explain why true crime non-fiction sells pretty well to the general public.

PeonForHer -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 4:27:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic What an awful place it must be, inside your hateful little mind, Peon. Far out. [:D] Well, not everyone can be as full of saintly warmth and love for humanity as you and Gandhi, Rich.

tweakabelle -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 5:36:16 AM)
It really doesn't matter whether teabaggers know more a little more science than the average voter. Or a little less ..... What matters is that the Right, especially the Religious Right, ignores or disputes science far more often. (Climate change and creationism being two cases in point.)

Yachtie -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 5:43:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It really doesn't matter whether teabaggers know more a little more science than the average voter. What matters is that the Right, especially the Religious Right, ignores or disputes science far more often. (Climate change and creationism being two cases in point.) Disputing science is not a bad thing. What is a bad thing is accepting science simply because, well, it's science.

tweakabelle -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 5:49:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It really doesn't matter whether teabaggers know more a little more science than the average voter. What matters is that the Right, especially the Religious Right, ignores or disputes science far more often. (Climate change and creationism being two cases in point.) Disputing science is not a bad thing. What is a bad thing is accepting science simply because, well, it's science. Yep. Disputing science isn't a bad thing in itself. No knowledge system is infallible. However rejecting science as a basis for public policy is quite a different matter. Adopting positions that directly contradict science (eg refusing to teach critical thinking skills to students or insisting on teaching out-and-out BS such as creationism or so-called 'intelligent design' theories on a equal basis to science) is a matter for real concern (regardless of the colour of one's politics.)

thishereboi -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 5:54:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It really doesn't matter whether teabaggers know more a little more science than the average voter. Or a little less ..... What matters is that the Right, especially the Religious Right, ignores or disputes science far more often. (Climate change and creationism being two cases in point.) Damn those religious right people, the only thing they seem to be good for is making others feel superior by comparison. But I suppose if that is all you have you can't really help yourself.

Yachtie -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 6:14:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It really doesn't matter whether teabaggers know more a little more science than the average voter. What matters is that the Right, especially the Religious Right, ignores or disputes science far more often. (Climate change and creationism being two cases in point.) Disputing science is not a bad thing. What is a bad thing is accepting science simply because, well, it's science. Yep. Disputing science isn't a bad thing in itself. No knowledge system is infallible. However rejecting science as a basis for public policy is quite a different matter. So is blind acceptance. Problem is, there is a lot of blind acceptance.

crazyml -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 6:21:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie So is blind acceptance. Problem is, there is a lot of blind acceptance. Where?

tweakabelle -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 6:22:51 AM)
quote: So is blind acceptance. Problem is, there is a lot of blind acceptance. This remark kind of defeats the point of this thread, doesn't it?

Yachtie -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 6:26:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: So is blind acceptance. Problem is, there is a lot of blind acceptance. This remark kind of defeats the point of this thread, doesn't it? How?

Zonie63 -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 6:46:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie “But then again, I don’t know a single person who identifies with the tea party,” he continued. “All my impressions come from watching cable tv — & I don’t watch Fox News very often — and reading the ‘paper’ (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused Internet sites like Huffington Post and POLITICO). I’m a little embarrassed, but mainly, I’m just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view.” Herr Professor has a few other mistaken views I'd bet. My first thought is his liberalism. [;)] I tend to view the political divides in this country as a matter of conflicting social and philosophical values. I realize that it's a rather common tactic in political discourse to try to paint the opposition as either "stupid" or "crazy," and both sides are guilty of this. But it's all political theater, and any time science is raised in the context of a political discussion, it's wise to seek out independent (and hopefully unbiased) confirmation of whatever claims are being made. Overall, I think there has been a greater push towards improving math and science education in this country, as it is felt that we're lagging behind the rest of the industrialized world in these areas. So, I think it would be relatively easy to find people who don't know much about science, no matter if they're in the Tea Party or not. I think it's interesting to examine how the general public views science overall. I'm not a scientist, but I try to keep up as best I can. But I notice a profound difference in how scientific matters are presented in articles written by actual scientists versus those written by journalists writing about science. Journalists have a tendency to want to spice things up a bit. Politicians and other snake oil salesmen might do the same thing, presenting their "scientifically-proven formula" like it's some kind of wizard's magical elixir. Other people might be fearful of science, thinking that they're all like Simon Bar Sinister.

PeonForHer -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 6:52:46 AM)
Science is steeped in politics I'm afraid, Zonie. Something that Ulrich Beck goes on at length about in his 'Risk Society'. It reached its nadir in Nazi Germany and never fully recovered thereafter. Once the man in the white coat was knocked off his authoritative pedestal, nothing was going to be the same again.

samboct -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 7:11:02 AM)
RedMagic Umm, a few distinctions may be helpful here. The American Chemical Society notes that members of the organization who are engineers have similar politics as the rest of the country. AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) notes that 85% of its membership votes democrat- and by inference are liberals. I know a bunch of scientists (I am one by training)- but I'd say that AAAS figures are on track. In other words- there are some Tea Partiers that may know science- but very few of them do science. Since I also hang around the Wall St. crowd-I've also met a bunch more scientists who vote Republican. My hunch- with no data to back this up- is that given the number of scientists in academe- these folks are heavily liberal- while the scientists in industry are a bit more middle of the road- but that's just a guess. Sam

LanceHughes -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/18/2013 7:29:28 AM)
I joined Mensa, thinking all those "brilliant" people would have my exact same political and religious views. Guess what? Not so.... from my take, on those topics, I saw a distribution of just about what the general population has. Case in point, there was a letter to the Editor of the National newsletter, cum magazine, that suggested that since we were all so intelligent, we should all believe in (his) God. As to the scientic mind being less or more Tea-party oriented, the implication is "(All) Tea Baggers are not scientific; People that are not scientific are not intelligent; Therefore, (all) Tea Baggers are not intelligent." This argument falls in both premises, ESPECIALLY in talking about groups, right? P.S. I personally know a Tea Bagger that is super-intelligent. A gay man to boot. (My lover for 13 years.)

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875