DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: rumborak on March 30, 2012, 11:17:20 AM
-
https://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/29/10911111-study-tracks-how-conservatives-lost-their-faith-in-science
(https://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=boyleE7962676-C47B-6203-0FFD-7BF43EC67CF9.jpg&width=500)
Interesting article. Not exactly mind-blowingly surprising though as I think everybody has had that impression as of late.
rumborak
-
In other news, sky still blue, water still wet. :lol
-
I have a hard time believing that moderates don't trust in science.
-
That actually strikes me as weird too I have to say. That at some point conservatives' trust in science was higher than moderates' trust...
rumborak
-
Without looking at the article (at work, will check it later), I can say that is one hell of a broad generalization. Plus it's from MSNBC.
-
Being a conservative (believing in personal responsibility, limited government,GOD and a Strong National Defense) what is the criteria to 'believe' in science? I 'believe' in science and find no issue with Science and God co-existing in my beliefs. Is that the point of the study? To say 'conservatives' favor God over study or is it more general?
Edit:
that is one hell of a broad generalization. Plus it's from MSNBC.
Nevermind......
-
.. if you would click the link you would see that this is a publication in 'the American Sociological Review' not a study done by MSNBC.
-
.. if you would click the link you would see that this is a publication in 'the American Sociological Review' not a study done by MSNBC.
But that would totally require me to try and learn for myself..... :omg:
-
.. if you would click the link you would see that this is a publication in 'the American Sociological Review' not a study done by MSNBC.
.. if you read my post, you'd see it what I said was without clicking on the link.
-
I know
-
If it's accurate to any degree that graph says a lot about humans.
-
I'm pretty surprised about the moderates myself. You'd expect them to be, well, in between.
I'd also like to see the data going back to about the late 40s, since that's really when Americans started getting really invested in technological advancement.
-
Without looking at the article (at work, will check it later), I can say that is one hell of a broad generalization. Plus it's from MSNBC.
You can speak about the whole, without talking specifically about any individual part.
And says it's an overview of society, in general, or at least supposed to be, then it's of course supposed to be a "broad generalization." It's not a fallacy though, becuase the logic for the statement is not fallacious, it's scientific.
-
You just have to wonder about its accuracy. You'd have to see the questions that were asked and such.
-
Not sure why anyone is confused that moderates are somewhat low. The terms "conservative" "liberal" and "moderate" have to do with political view, and have nothing to do with their scientific intellect or knowledge base. Some people could classify themselves as politically moderate and still be dumb as shit.
-
I still wonder how certain questions were phrased. Because I don't buy into the Big Bang, evolution (at least as far as "where we came from") or gravity. Doesn't mean I write off science completely. I understand water freezes and melts.
-
I still wonder how certain questions were phrased. Because I don't buy into the Big Bang, evolution (at least as far as "where we came from") or gravity. Doesn't mean I write off science completely. I understand water freezes and melts.
Then you'd fall under the whole "People don't trust science" or whatever title.
-
So, I don't believe in two theories, so I get lumped into "don't trust science"? I call bullshit. Science is more than two theories.
-
What do you believe in?
-
So, I don't believe in two theories, so I get lumped into "don't trust science"? I call bullshit. Science is more than two theories.
The classic definition of Science is Evolution, Big bang and Gravity. Everything falls under Science Fiction.
-
So, I don't believe in two theories, so I get lumped into "don't trust science"? I call bullshit. Science is more than two theories.
The classic definition of Science is Evolution, Big bang and Gravity. Everything falls under Science Fiction.
I believe in the concept of natural selection ("survival of the fittest"), but I don't believe that as to where we came from. I didn't realize chemistry and physics were "fiction".
-
Chemistry and physics don't exist.
Also, "survival of the fittest" is a terrible way to describe it. As is natural selection. There is no force selecting anyone, and it doesn't matter how "fit" you are. It should be Survival of the most Adaptable.
-
:facepalm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
I'm done, now. Didn't realize I couldn't use the correct terminology.
-
It is the correct term. But it also is misleading and causes people to misunderstand what it really is. I've met lots of people who thought it meant that the strongest people survive.
-
It is the correct term. But it also is misleading and causes people to misunderstand what it really is. I've met lots of people who thought it meant that the strongest people survive.
Which is exactly what we were discussing. Wait, it wasn't. Which is proving to me that this is a waste of my time to discuss. I realize that I got all "uppity" over the semantics of the study. I've taken biology classes. I understand what the concept is. Shit, I even said I like the idea. I don't necessarily equate the word "fittest" to "strongest" or "most physically fit". And, it really pains me that I can't give an alternative definition to "fittest" or "fit" that doesn't relate to one's physical quality. I blame the beer.
But, what I can do is much better. While there are others on here that post things I flat out disagree with, I can honestly say what you're posting is so far beyond absurd it's actually humorous. First of all - how doesn't "chemistry" exist? Are you, again, arguing semantics? Last I checked, there were ways to create compounds, cause exothermic and endothermic reactions and so on. Same applies to physics. I absolutely refuse to waste my time arguing with someone who argues semantics over something like this. Especially on a message board. It doesn't add to the quality of discussion.
-
Sorry this got so drawn out. I made the mistake of making half of my post a joke, and half serious.
I was kidding about the definition of science. In fact the only thing I said that was serious was the evolution bit. The rest was all me kidding around.
-
Sorry this got so drawn out. I made the mistake of making half of my post a joke, and half serious.
I was kidding about the definition of science. In fact the only thing I said that was serious was the evolution bit. The rest was all me kidding around.
Given your posts, it's near impossible to tell (for me). It didn't even come off as Devil's advocate. I apologize for my tone. It just seemed like "is this guy really this much of an asshole?"
edit: and the science thing you were joking about did to me make a bit of sense. I mean, in the way that science is most likely meant in the study, but isn't presented as such. which is why I gave your posts any validity.
-
Sorry this got so drawn out. I made the mistake of making half of my post a joke, and half serious.
I was kidding about the definition of science. In fact the only thing I said that was serious was the evolution bit. The rest was all me kidding around.
Given your posts, it's near impossible to tell (for me). It didn't even come off as Devil's advocate. I apologize for my tone. It just seemed like "is this guy really this much of an asshole?"
That's my sense of humor. Sorry. I'll make sure not to joke around with you, no worries.
-
Sorry this got so drawn out. I made the mistake of making half of my post a joke, and half serious.
I was kidding about the definition of science. In fact the only thing I said that was serious was the evolution bit. The rest was all me kidding around.
Given your posts, it's near impossible to tell (for me). It didn't even come off as Devil's advocate. I apologize for my tone. It just seemed like "is this guy really this much of an asshole?"
That's my sense of humor. Sorry. I'll make sure not to joke around with you, no worries.
I just wonder if this was the appropriate place/time to do that? Remember, this is the Internet and it isn't always easy to tell.
-
lol, he was clearly joking.
And, didn't you let this little nugget dominate like a whole page of discussion, what, a day or two ago?
Military might is a Cold War measurement. All the Patriot missiles didn't help against 9/11.
rumborak
The little guys can't really militarily beat us. The big guys have to face the nukes.
What is China going to do? Ask us to pay them back?
We run this town.
-
lol, he was clearly joking.
I blame the beer.
I also do not know Adami very well.
-
Snapple,
as a personal book recommendation, I suggest "Your inner fish". Phenomenal book.
rumborak
-
Here's a good way to measure whether or not you "trust science":
Q: Do you think the scientific method is the most reliable tool for investigating the natural world/universe?
I'd argue if you don't "buy" into evolution you would reject that claim, as you prefer a faith-based (most of the time, anyways) alternative to the central theory of a major scientific discipline.
-
I trust science. However, I don't trust people.
-
I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could post an opinion on THE INTERNET from A COMPUTER and not have any trust in science.
-
I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could post an opinion on THE INTERNET from A COMPUTER and not have any trust in science.
Please, we all know that computer wizards hold these babies together with cyber magic.
-
I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could post an opinion on THE INTERNET from A COMPUTER and not have any trust in science.
Please, we all know that computer wizards hold these babies together with cyber magic.
Your logic... I got nothing to beat this.
-
:tup
-
I think it's fair to keep some skepticism regarding certain claims made by science, without knowing and seeing for yourself how and why it's "true". I don't think it's quite fair to compare global warming theory to electronic and computer theory, as there's no direct experience of something which uses global warming theory to prove to you that theory is fully adequate. Any theory which creates a tool has much more credibility and power.
-
I agree. Blind faith in anything is silly. I think being skeptical of science is what makes science, science. (This sounds so Bill Nye). Science is supposed to be scrutinized.
-
What about climatology? It's not like there's some entirely new field that's meant to validate climate change, it's a conclusion arrived at through an already fairly reliable field: climatology.
-
I'm going to sound totally ignorant here, but where do the polls come from that determine these trends? I understand that Gallup is an organization that holds these polls. But, who fills them out? How does this graph represent anything substantial considering the polls are totally random. I don't think I've ever participated. I don't know anybody that has ever mentioned it. I'm sorry to derail the thread a bit, but I'm trying to understand why they're so trusted.
-
THIS JUST IN:
DTF trust of Gallup polls in steady decline
-
I'm going to sound totally ignorant here, but where do the polls come from that determine these trends? I understand that Gallup is an organization that holds these polls. But, who fills them out? How does this graph represent anything substantial considering the polls are totally random. I don't think I've ever participated. I don't know anybody that has ever mentioned it. I'm sorry to derail the thread a bit, but I'm trying to understand why they're so trusted.
It's a fairly sizable sample actually. I used to know all the science that went into political field research and surveys and whatnot, so I used to be able to tell you how Gallup was legit. Sorry. :lol
-
I'm going to sound totally ignorant here, but where do the polls come from that determine these trends? I understand that Gallup is an organization that holds these polls. But, who fills them out? How does this graph represent anything substantial considering the polls are totally random. I don't think I've ever participated. I don't know anybody that has ever mentioned it. I'm sorry to derail the thread a bit, but I'm trying to understand why they're so trusted.
Actually, it's because the samples are random that you're able to draw conclusions from the sample. If the people were selected by hand, you wouldn't be able to draw any conclusions from the data whatsoever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28statistics%29
I agree that the question about "trusting science" is worded poorly. Obviously the scientific method isn't what's at debate here. "Science" is almost certainly a euphemism for evolution.
-
I'm going to sound totally ignorant here, but where do the polls come from that determine these trends? I understand that Gallup is an organization that holds these polls. But, who fills them out? How does this graph represent anything substantial considering the polls are totally random. I don't think I've ever participated. I don't know anybody that has ever mentioned it. I'm sorry to derail the thread a bit, but I'm trying to understand why they're so trusted.
Actually, it's because the samples are random that you're able to draw conclusions from the sample. If the people were selected by hand, you wouldn't be able to draw any conclusions from the data whatsoever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28statistics%29
I agree that the question about "trusting science" is worded poorly. Obviously the scientific method isn't what's at debate here. "Science" is almost certainly a euphemism for evolution.
Which is problematic, considering "evolution" is perhaps one of the most powerful and studied theories in history. We also have direct observations of evolution, including macro-evolution, occurring.
-
Yeah, I think climate change and evolution are the biggest cause for conservative's opposition to science. Which to me mostly shows the power of propaganda tbh. The perception has been successfully planted in many conservatives that their lifestyle is under active attack, and that science has become a tool of that attack. From there, it's not a big step to distrust the tool itself.
rumborak
-
It's a real bummer that because conservatives are threatened by evolution, they attack science as a whole. This whole "teach the controversy" thing is really weakening our science curricula, and American children weren't doing particularly well on the science front anyway.
I was thinking about this today: why do many conservatives systematically deny climate change? Is there even a reason?
-
I think the reason is fairly, obvious, isn't it? The only reasonable counter-action to climate change is a concerted, country-wide effort, with fairly strong constraints on businesses regarding emissions. It's a plain political decision to oppose that, because that kind of approach is "Democrat" territory.
You can bet that if climate change was best countered by lowering taxes, the GOP would embrace any scientific paper regarding climate change.
rumborak
-
I think the reason is fairly, obvious, isn't it? The only reasonable counter-action to climate change is a concerted, country-wide effort, with fairly strong constraints on businesses regarding emissions. It's a plain political decision to oppose that, because that kind of approach is "Democrat" territory.
You can bet that if climate change was best countered by lowering taxes, the GOP would embrace any scientific paper regarding climate change.
rumborak
-
That's what I figured, but that seemed to me to be too vain of an issue to destroy the earth over.
-
Yeah you'd think it would be, right? It really disappoints me how people can just turn a blind eye to it and say, "But the economy!"
There won't be an economy to make excuses over if we allow BAU (business as usual).
-
I don't believe that climate change is caused by man. I don't think anything we've seen in our lifetimes has shown us climate change that has been directly affected by man. The Earth changes, and I don't think what humans have done is as large as some people say.
-
I don't believe that climate change is caused by man. I don't think anything we've seen in our lifetimes has shown us climate change that has been directly affected by man. The Earth changes, and I don't think what humans have done is as large as some people say.
If you want, I can provide plenty of reasons why you're mistaken in the Official Climate Change thread.
-
I don't believe that climate change is caused by man. I don't think anything we've seen in our lifetimes has shown us climate change that has been directly affected by man. The Earth changes, and I don't think what humans have done is as large as some people say.
If you want, I can provide plenty of reasons why you're mistaken in the Official Climate Change thread.
And I can provide plenty more outside of the thread as well, including one that was even acknowledged by ExxonMobil and BP.
-
What anyone "believes" is, frankly, irrelevant with respect to the facts. If one takes an honest and objective look at the actual facts that have been compiled on the science of climatology, it is practically impossible not to conclude that human activity -especially the burning of fossil fuels- is having an impact on the earth's climate. That is an unmitigated fact that is pretty much on par with other similar unmitigated facts such as water being wet.
What is still difficult to determine and requiring further study, however, is the degree to which human activity is impacting the climate. There is certainly room for some debate there.
-
Right. Humans have done things like put a hole in the ozone layer and whatnot. But how much of the change is directly caused by humans is not proven fact. It is not a fact that we are causing the next ice age and according to facts they used to throw around, NYC should be under water within 5 years because of the ice caps melting.
-
The fact that statisticians were wrong about NY being underwater doesn't have anything to do with whether we're causing climate change whatsoever. That's a statistical error.
-
All I know, is that the Earth's climate is in constant change. I'd be more scared if it stopped changing I think. I'm not saying I'm against cleaning up the air. I'm all for it. But I still think claims of global warming caused by humans is exaggerated. I'm actually not interested in debating this topic though, so I'm just going to end here.
-
Alright. Just pointing out that "I heard NYC was going to be underwater by now, and it's not, so humans must not be having an impact on the climate" is not a valid argument.
-
Derp, nvm.
-
Anyway
I have mostly Conservative ideals and I trust Science based on my limited knowledge of it. I don't trust the people that exploit the politics of it, though. People in general don't care to research reliable sources on scientific theories. They rely on what they read in headlines or see on the news. Based on that, you have yoyos exploiting what they see but don't actually know. Which is why I'll reserve my ignorance and do some hard research myself.
-
Anyway
I have mostly Conservative ideals and I trust Science based on my limited knowledge of it. I don't trust the people that exploit the politics of it, though. People in general don't care to research reliable sources on scientific theories. They rely on what they read in headlines or see on the news. Based on that, you have yoyos exploiting what they see but don't actually know. Which is why I'll reserve my ignorance and do some hard research myself.
Ah, love that terminology, man. :tup I'm a witt myself, as is probably obvious by now.
-
Anyway
I have mostly Conservative ideals and I trust Science based on my limited knowledge of it. I don't trust the people that exploit the politics of it, though. People in general don't care to research reliable sources on scientific theories. They rely on what they read in headlines or see on the news. Based on that, you have yoyos exploiting what they see but don't actually know. Which is why I'll reserve my ignorance and do some hard research myself.
Ah, love that terminology, man. :tup I'm a witt myself, as is probably obvious by now.
Oh and I want to be clear that I don't mean anybody on this forum is exploiting anything they don't know. From what i see, you're all really well informed. It's like some of you have a PhD in general knowledge. I feel like I'd have to learn the encyclopedia to dispute any arguments on this side of the forum.
-
Oh, I was purely referring to the fact you used YOYO to refer to people of more conservative lean. Didn't mean to implicate you of anything. :P
-
Oh, I was purely referring to the fact you used YOYO to refer to people of more conservative lean. Didn't mean to implicate you of anything. :P
To be fair, he used yoyo in context of anyone who just reads headlines that support their bias. Not just conservative leaning people or just liberal people.
-
Yep, whoops, sorry 'bout that.
-
Sorry Super Dude, I didn't even mean to quote your post. I was just clearing up mine a bit.
-
No worries. :tup