What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
673 Comments
- bullcutter, on 07/10/2009, -32/+439Well, I guess reality does have a liberal bias after all.
- JohnAngiostatic, on 07/10/2009, -20/+335The study goes on to say that 97% of scientists think its appropriate for them to be actively involved in political debates. The only question i have now is: how can we get scientists into government positions?
- zrants, on 07/10/2009, -14/+204It should come as no surprise that scientists support politicians who support the scientific theories, such as evolution, that they have used for decades to develop
and test vaccines and other medical treatments. How many creative theorists are willing to give up on the rewards of medical breakthroughs based on those theories they now deny?
There is a tremendous concern among the scientific and educational community over the lack of interest and study in sciences by upcoming young adults. Some of this lack of interests can probably be blamed on the political discussions and arguments over scientific theories being raged in courtrooms over the rights of religious groups to dictate the content of text books. These legal issues raise questions regarding the validity and ethics of scientists and their methods.
We are back to the middle ages and witchcraft where people much choose between religion and science. Students are confused and staying away from science at the very time society needs to train a new generation to develop new solutions to the myriad of problems we now face. - Firstdaughter, on 07/10/2009, -14/+190I'm not surprised that this the case for several reasons:
1. Researchers and universities rely upon federal (NIH) grant money which was greatly reduced under the Bush adminstration with their war on terror. Greatly reduced may be an understatement as every colleague of mine in both clinical and research whether privately funded or not has been affected by this grant money shortage. I know many graduate students who's professors did not have their research grants renewed and were forced to either start their thesis over in a new lab (if they could find one with enough grant money to support them) or quit.
2. Many laws banning types of research were inacted under the Bush adminstration - most notably stem cell research.
3. Most scientists are taught to analyze all sides of a debate while remaining impartial. The conservative mindset does not lend itself to this way of thinking as it is more black and white.
4. Today's GOP is much more conservative and the religious base is more evangelical than ever before. Scientists have a preponderance of evidence supporting evolution but the right wing continues to push creationism. Many scientists are either agnostic or atheist and their rational thought processes cannot accept that the earth is only 6000 years old.
If the GOP were more moderate, it would probably have more card carrying scientists. - rocknog, on 07/10/2009, -11/+144ZOMG! Finally! Proof that science is a liberal conspiracy!
In all seriousness, it makes sense to me, because it seems Republicans routinely mock the very principles of scientific research. I don't know if it's because of their wacky religious base or whatever, but they're constantly mocking studies, questioning the value of any research that doesn't produce immediate financial gain, etc. And it's not just the controversial things like global warming and stem cell research, either. I still remember when Sarah Palin ridiculed the notion of studying the genetics of fruit flies, despite the fact that the research directly applicable to better understanding our own genetics. They get up in arms whenever it's discovered something we do may potentially have unforeseen negative consequences (as if there's no way anything we do could ever potentially cause anything bad), they howl when new research discovers evidence which refutes previous research... Seems like no matter what field you're in, Republicans are going to be openly hostile to you if you're a scientist. - brucealmighty, on 07/10/2009, -16/+142Republicans report that 93% of them do not believe in statistics or scientific methods, while the other 25% of them are still undecided......
- StaticThunder, on 07/10/2009, -27/+135Who needs science? Everything we need to know is in the Bible.
/s - fleyinberdy, on 07/10/2009, -14/+91And some of us who are still Republican simply haven't changed our political affiliations yet.
- Drahkir, on 07/11/2009, -9/+81So does the truth.
- sigmaman2, on 07/11/2009, -6/+66SCIENCE: Observe, Research, Hypothesize, Test, Draw Conclusion. If true, Publish. If false, change hypothesis and begin again.
RELIGION: Believe.
POLITICS: Persuade.
Some people just like to do things the easy way. - drjimm, on 07/10/2009, -12/+72I think the republican base is more concerned with a set of beliefs (government bad,religion good, US better than others, etc) These are like religious dogma, not subject to investigation or challenge. During the election you saw many people believing Obama was a Muslim, wasn't born in US, was a terrorist and now is a communist or socialist. This cannot be refuted because they are not fact based.
The nativeist, anti-intellectual trend in this country comes from a deep distrust of experts, and a unchallenged faith in sources like Fox news and Rush who feed the populace with self reinforcing points of view that do not depend on "facts"
A good , or even a bad, scientist cannot work that way. Assumptions are to be challenged and tested. In some ways to be a good journalist one also has to be fact based. Thus the "liberal" media.
Unfortunately the true believers have gotten control of the Republican party. - 8347, on 07/11/2009, -10/+66What's even more interesting is that 39% are neither Republican or Democrat. Sounds like we have some smart scientists that realize both parties are run by corrupt idiots!
- DiscoLando, on 07/11/2009, -15/+70This just in - 6% of scientists are Republicans, 55% are Democrats, and 39% are intelligent and rational enough to think on their own.
- wtrwlkr, on 07/11/2009, -4/+55Like me. I'm a registered Republican. But have I agreed with ANYTHING the party stood for in the last 5 years or so? Hell to the ***** no.
- inactive, on 07/11/2009, -14/+63All that "book learnin'" is hard!
- NorthMass, on 07/11/2009, -16/+65I'm a Republican and I dislike Bush greatly and I support libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul only. Using your logic though I am just a partisan neocon, which shows that your logic is too generalizing and fails.
- purpledoc, on 07/11/2009, -10/+54Yeah and those 6% work at the Institute for Creation Research.
- DrKnowitall, on 07/11/2009, -5/+485 years? More like 30. Since Reagan the party has been heading in the wrong direction and all they keep saying is how they should be more like Reagan.
- inactive, on 07/11/2009, -1/+42"retarted" with a "t" ?
- zeth006, on 07/11/2009, -2/+42Simple. The Department of Energy's head is a Physics Nobel Prize winner.
Nice to see Obama had the grits to choose people with brains to fill at least a few posts. - browwiw, on 07/11/2009, -10/+49What's this, you say? Smart people don't associate themselves with dumb people? Well, I never!
- Darkhacker, on 07/11/2009, -4/+43Ron Paul isn't a scientist nor does he believe in evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw - Firstdaughter, on 07/11/2009, -4/+41I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear. I meant that federal funding was cut from supporting stem cell research and that it was illegal to create any more embryonic stem cell lines other than what already existed. Most people just shorten it down to calling it a ban on stem cell research since there is very little privately funded research going on anywhere in the US in ANY field.
- UnpossibIe, on 07/11/2009, -6/+42Accredited scientists have two fatal flaws that will destroy them politically.
1. They tend to tell the truth and expect their opponents to be truthfull, regardless of what their personal view is.
2. They prefer to have evidence and tests to show their side, which we all know all you need to do is swear allegiance to a magic man in the sky. - SteveMTyler, on 07/11/2009, -10/+44I just want to know what field that 6% is in.
I'm guessing astrology. - soez, on 07/11/2009, -2/+36Whoosh!
- Semblance, on 07/11/2009, -17/+51Makes sense since most Republicans today are ***** insane anti-science Taliban types.
- Disgod, on 07/10/2009, -0/+34Republicans really don't get how important science is, do they?
Scientific research is the basis of our technology, and most publicly funded research is into things which the private industry could care less about, but often times just by doing the research for its own ends we've created great technologies which probably wouldn't have been developed. For instance CERN and the LHC had to develop a new type of internet to transfer the terabytes of data the LHC is going to be producing while it is running around the world at a fast rate to many Universities. This technology may potentially have huge implications for commercialized development. The development, building, and running of the Space shuttles and NASA has resulted in countless pieces of technology which has become of huge economic importance. You never know where a certain line of inquiry will take you, and often times that line of inquiry might seem to be of no importance.
James Burke's three series "Connections" perfectly illustrate this by showing how the proverbial butterfly flap of technological innovation ends up creating an important technological breakthrough. Just a note, the three series are from the 80s and 90s, but they are still massively interesting. There is also a show on The Science Channel "Weird Connections" which follows a similar pattern, but in a much less interesting format than "Connections". - legs1, on 07/10/2009, -0/+33I have found that students shy away from the sciences simply because they are less than motivated. A BS in molecular biology requires commitment and intelligence. Some students rather breeze through college than spend countless weekends in the library.
- Mejari, on 07/11/2009, -2/+34The best people we could have in government are the ones who do not make good "politicians"
- HimThatSpeaks, on 07/11/2009, -71/+102Requirement to be a republican:
1. Be stupid and lack logical reasoning
2. Deny anything that makes sense
3. Criticize and whine about Obama while forgetting the failures of Bush
4. The list can go on and on and on. And it doesn't get better either. - filolif, on 07/11/2009, -13/+43you = buried as dumb
- TheDougem, on 07/11/2009, -35/+63Congratulations Diggers on yet another thread bashing republicans and conservatives as moronic simpletons. Continue to alienate people and smugly pat yourselves on the back as you keep driving the partisan wedge deeper.
- rocknog, on 07/10/2009, -2/+30I used to think so, but ultimately, I foresee that as potentially being the death of religion, if religion doesn't get with the program. We constantly see science and religion clashing, and maybe it somewhat undermines the validity of science, but I think more, young people are seeing that though religion keeps challenging science, science can repeatedly demonstrate its validity. I think this may partially explain the increase in agnostics and atheists in recent years. I mean, for instance, religion challenges science on evolution, but it's painfully clear that evolution is correct. Granted, religion does come with a certain amount of brainwashing, but I think there are at least some out there who see this and go "Well, religion keeps saying that evolution is wrong, but clearly evolution is the process by which we got here. If they're wrong about that, what else are they wrong about?"
Some churches, it seems have recognized this and embraced evolution. I think that given enough time, churches that don't will eventually go extinct. - DirtPile, on 07/11/2009, -3/+30pew pew pew!
- ultar6, on 07/11/2009, -6/+33You're right in one sense - reality doesn't have a liberal bias.
Instead, liberals have a reality bias. MOST of the people studying reality have this same bias.
SOME people find this reality to be very inconvenient. - inactive, on 07/11/2009, -12/+38How is HimThatSpeaks getting dugg up? Everyone knows this is a generalization of the worst kind. The groupthink here is astounding.
- DirtyVicar, on 07/11/2009, -1/+27Science = the quest for knowledge. The icing here is that many big Republican businessowner types wouldn't be rich in the first place if it were not for the technological discoveries and advances made by scientists.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/10/2009, -22/+48"...how can we get scientists into government positions?"
That's a great idea in theory, but I'm afraid that we'd run into a problem best illustrated by the following xkcd comic... http://xkcd.com/592/ - PopcornDave, on 07/11/2009, -4/+29No, the 39% are smart enough to realize that positions and thinking, much like science, evolves over time and to pigeonhole yourself either politically or scientifically is ridiculous.
- SystemicThought, on 07/11/2009, -4/+29If Republicans disagreed with everything I said, I'd take the other side as well.
- trolleyfan, on 07/11/2009, -5/+28They've met him enough to know he's a creationist...iow "an idiot"...
- wtrwlkr, on 07/11/2009, -2/+25Sorry, I should have clarified. I meant that 5 years ago I actually AGREED with Reagan/Bush era Republican policies. I've since changed my political philosophy to more closely align with reality.
- DankBuddz, on 07/11/2009, -12/+35You're dumb.
- SOS84, on 07/11/2009, -41/+63Scientist = not stupid
Republican = pants on head retarted
nuff said. - GorfTron, on 07/11/2009, -4/+23Conservatives have a business-at-all-costs bias.
- pintomp3, on 07/11/2009, -2/+21Damn elitists!
- joculator, on 07/11/2009, -6/+25expect that number to to fall even more. The GOP platform is a complete failure.
- Disgod, on 07/10/2009, -3/+22I don't know whether to digg you or bury you. I can't tell if it is a joke or a serious statement. If serious, the irony of your statement must elude you.
- pintomp3, on 07/11/2009, -2/+20The part that creates stuff like the internet?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 681 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is