Who's more anti-science? Republicans or Democrats?

[William Wallace]

I'm moderating a discussion this week on that topic. I would have said the republicans a week ago, but I'm not so sure now. I know several of you have scientific backgrounds, so perhaps you could offer a few comments over there.

[Chino]

I don't think either side is "anti-science". Regardless of political views, no one can argue that science is no longer important. I think both sides are equal in regards to refusing to acknowledge science as an explanation to the origin of life and why certain things happen. I think it boils down to people wanting to be able to feel like they always have hope. Regardless of a situation, if people can pray, there is some kind of cushion in the back of their mind to dampen the blow of hardship or tragedy. No one seems to want to come to the realization that some bad shit just happens by chance and we have to deal with it in whatever way we can.

For example, Rick Perry's day of prayer... Even though nothing came out of it, thousands of people felt better about the fact that there is a chance of a deity helping them instead of just coming to the sad realization that we are (at least for a while) completely fucked as country.

My aunt and uncle's family are very religious. My aunt is a republican and my uncle is a democrat. Last week, both of their statuses, as well as cousins, said "on our currency are the words 'in god we trust', it is because of this forgotten trust that our country is where it is today" . I'm not saying everyone in politics has thoughts this extreme, but many do to some degree.


I do like the fact that Obama makes an effort to promote education, mainly science. However, I don't think it is the science you are referring to. He is still very religious and closes each speech with "god bless America".  That phrase has always driven me nuts for some reason, and not just because I am not a man of faith. One, we are a country built on religious freedom, many citizens think the god he is referring to is a load of BS. Two, it always comes off as a little selfish to me. America's well being is all part of an overall global balance of diversity. Shouldn't he be saying something like "god bless humanity" or "god bless everyone"?


Kind of a side note.

It makes me really sad that the American people would not vote for someone simply because they don't believe that God created man in his/her image. I don't even think it goes that far. Many Americans would not vote for someone just because they lack faith in general. I know several Catholics that will vote Romney simply because he believes in something, even if they think it he is wrong. I would love to see a president get elected, do an amazing job in office, and at the end of his terms say "oh, by the way, I've been an atheist this whole time"

[rumborak]

There certainly are notable exceptions; but on the whole Republicans are clearly more anti-science, and openly so. I don't think there's much point for discussion on that.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

There certainly are notable exceptions; but on the whole Republicans are clearly more anti-science, and openly so. I don't think there's much point for discussion on that.

rumborak

Why?

[rumborak]

Why are they more anti-science? Or why is there not much point in discussing it?

The former: Because the GOP harbors most of hardcore religious adherents, and they are usually directly at odds with a lot of scientific progress. They also ideologically oppose most nationally enacted regulations, and many policy suggestions coming from scientific progress call for those things.
The latter: Because of the former.

rumborak

[bosk1]

I don't think either side is "anti-science".

[William Wallace]

I don't think either side is "anti-science".

Why?

[William Wallace]

Why are they more anti-science? Or why is there not much point in discussing it?

The former: Because the GOP harbors most of hardcore religious adherents, and they are usually directly at odds with a lot of scientific progress. They also ideologically oppose most nationally enacted regulations, and many policy suggestions coming from scientific progress call for those things.
The latter: Because of the former.

rumborak

Like I said, I wouldn't have disagreed with you a few days ago. But it seems for every example of a republican talking out of his/her ass on science, there's another of a democrat doing it just as well. 

[rumborak]

There's a difference between talking out of your ass regarding science subjects and denying the conclusions of science. While I'm sure the percentage of people talking out their asses isn't too different between Dems and Reps, I think Dems are more willing to accept the conclusions other knowledgeable people have arrived at.

rumborak

[lordxizor]

I agree with Rumborak. The Republicans in general seem more anti-science than Democrats, but both sides will ignore science when it's convenient for them. I can't recall off hand any Democrats trying to legislate anti-science laws, but IIRC Republicans have tried to put disclaimers in textbooks about evolution and seem almost universally against legislation to help prevent global warming.

I think the real problem is a lack of understanding of science by Americans in general. I am in no way an expert in all things scientific, but at least I know that a theory isn't just some guy's crazy idea.

[William Wallace]

There's a difference between talking out of your ass regarding science subjects and denying the conclusions of science. While I'm sure the percentage of people talking out their asses isn't too different between Dems and Reps, I think Dems are more willing to accept the conclusions other knowledgeable people have arrived at.

rumborak

Alright, when I used ass talking to describe the situation, I assumed we all understood that  meant denying "the conclusions other knowledgeable people have arrived at." Vaccine paranoia, GMO denial, animal research and many more examples illustrate that there's an equal amount of suck to go around.

[rumborak]

That's a fair statement. When the question is "who is *more* anti-science" I think the only honest answer is GOP. There's a reason why scientists are predominantly Dems.

rumborak

[yeshaberto]

I don't think either side is "anti-science".

Why?

it is human nature to interpret science according to pre-conceived beliefs.  wisdom compares science with pre-conceived beliefs to determine which is correct.  I would say that since both republicans and democrats are humans and fall under this human nature, they are equal in being anti-science when it goes against their pre-conceived notions. 
undoubtedly, though, current science tends to agree with the pre-conceived notions of democrats, hence they seem to be pro-science and vice versa. 

[El Barto]

I'm not really up for crafting a solid argument,  but I'll throw some observations out there. 

Academics tend to line up pretty solidly behind the democrats (a longstanding bitch of the Republicans).  Seems a safe bet that's where a great deal of scientific research comes from.  This applies to other nations, as well,  since they're by default leftward in our political spectrum.

We've been seeing for a few years now how the Republicans seek to reinterpret scientific results via the Texas State Board of Education (who are indirectly responsible for most of this nation's school text books).  Evolution is the obvious issue,  but there are plenty of others.

Honestly,  I don't see this as a Republican vs. Democrat issue,  insomuch as it's a zealot vs mainstream religion issue.  The correlation is just that the zealots tend to flock to the GOP.

edit:  following a damn fine post by Yeshua.

[Implode]

Honestly,  I don't see this as a Republican vs. Democrat issue,  insomuch as it's a zealot vs mainstream religion issue.  The correlation is just that the zealots tend to flock to the GOP.

I'm completely with Barto on this one.

[kirksnosehair]

Honestly,  I don't see this as a Republican vs. Democrat issue,  insomuch as it's a zealot vs mainstream religion issue.  The correlation is just that the zealots tend to flock to the GOP.

I'm completely with Barto on this one.

+1

[William Wallace]

Honestly,  I don't see this as a Republican vs. Democrat issue,  insomuch as it's a zealot vs mainstream religion issue.  The correlation is just that the zealots tend to flock to the GOP.

I'm completely with Barto on this one.

+1

- 2. I win.

[kirksnosehair]

 

[yorost]

I don't think either side is "anti-science".

Why?

The abundance of money the US government throws at science?  US grants are all over the science world.

[Implode]

Honestly,  I don't see this as a Republican vs. Democrat issue,  insomuch as it's a zealot vs mainstream religion issue.  The correlation is just that the zealots tend to flock to the GOP.

I'm completely with Barto on this one.

+1

- 2. I win.

3 - 2 = 1

We win.

[El Barto]

Honestly,  I don't see this as a Republican vs. Democrat issue,  insomuch as it's a zealot vs mainstream religion issue.  The correlation is just that the zealots tend to flock to the GOP.

I'm completely with Barto on this one.

+1

- 2. I win.

Curious which part you disagree with.   

[William Wallace]

Honestly,  I don't see this as a Republican vs. Democrat issue,  insomuch as it's a zealot vs mainstream religion issue.  The correlation is just that the zealots tend to flock to the GOP.

I'm completely with Barto on this one.

+1

- 2. I win.

Curious which part you disagree with.   

Not much of it. I just saw an opportunity to be a smart ass.

[kirksnosehair]

that's what I thought, which was why I laughed 

[Super Dude]

I can't really argue with anything that's been said here. Republicans are probably more wary of scientific conclusions and policy recommendations, but politically both sides of the spectrum (and I'm talking public officials, not necessarily their followers) do still keep up the appearance of law-abiding Christians and "God bless the USA," probably for lip service more than anything.

[snapple]

rumborak and others,

I do feel sorry that this is how you see most Republicans. It's far from the truth. It's a shame that all media outlets tend to latch onto those who are that way. It's often misguided and untrue.

I, for one, have no problem with science at all. I think the ethics behind some scientific shit is questionable, but not the science itself (I hope that makes sense).

[Super Dude]

rumborak and others,

I do feel sorry that this is how you see most Republicans. It's far from the truth. It's a shame that all media outlets tend to latch onto those who are that way. It's often misguided and untrue.

I, for one, have no problem with science at all. I think the ethics behind some scientific shit is questionable, but not the science itself (I hope that makes sense).

Granted, but I think the bolded part is precisely the problem. I'm assuming that when you say that, you're referring to how science translates into policy? Things like teaching evolution, climate change and renewable energy, stuff related to swine flu prevention, etc.

[hefdaddy42]

It's a shame that all media outlets tend to latch onto those who are that way.

The ones who are that way are the only ones who ever make the news. 

[Dr. DTVT]

Democrats are more apt to fund science discovery projects, whereas Republicans are more apt to fund applied science projects.  Neither is anti-science, there is just a small contingent of Republicans (hardcore fundimentalist religious types) don't like some of the science discovery type projects - namely stem cell research.

[snapple]

Democrats are more apt to fund science discovery projects, whereas Republicans are more apt to fund applied science projects.  Neither is anti-science, there is just a small contingent of Republicans (hardcore fundimentalist religious types) don't like some of the science discovery type projects - namely stem cell research.

using aborted fetuses*

[Sigz]

Democrats are more apt to fund science discovery projects, whereas Republicans are more apt to fund applied science projects.  Neither is anti-science, there is just a small contingent of Republicans (hardcore fundimentalist religious types) don't like some of the science discovery type projects - namely stem cell research.

using aborted fetuses*

Not to sidetrack the thread, but I've never understood the opposition to using aborted fetuses for research. Like, they're not being aborted specifically for the research, so how is it any different to organ donorship?

[Super Dude]

This embryonic clay
Wrapped in fierce debate
Would be thrown away
Or otherwise discarded

 

[snapple]

This embryonic clay
Wrapped in fierce debate
Would be thrown away
Or otherwise discarded

 

Are you justified?
Are you justified?
Are you justified in taking
Life to save life
Life to save life
 

[kirksnosehair]

Over the weekend, my wife and I had dinner with some people we know who work at Harvard University.  One of them is a Professor of Sociology and the other runs a laboratory where they are doing some cancer research on rodents.  This topic is always a hot topic with them and since I had seen it here, I brought this up during dinner.  I usually steer clear of politics with my friends unless I know they are of the same opinion as me, not because I don't want or like my opinions challenged, but because I think there's a lot of potential for blowing up a good friendship when you bring politics or religion into it....

Anyway, I asked the question, straight up, just the way it's asked in the subject line of the OP:  Who's more anti-science?  Republicans or Democrats?

The both said, pretty much unequivocally, that Republicans are more anti-science.  They clarified by saying that Republican "Administrations" were more anti-science, and then they both recited some pretty solid budgetary evidence in support of their arguments.  Basically, when we've had Democrats in power, the flow of funding to their work has been much more steady and reliable, whereas when we've had Republicans in power, the flow of funding is almost always under threat of suspension.

[tofee35]

The both said, pretty much unequivocally, that Republicans are more anti-science.  They clarified by saying that Republican "Administrations" were more anti-science, and then they both recited some pretty solid budgetary evidence in support of their arguments.  Basically, when we've had Democrats in power, the flow of funding to their work has been much more steady and reliable, whereas when we've had Republicans in power, the flow of funding is almost always under threat of suspension.

I've always wondered about this. I mean, I think that each party has more power than the administration that is in place representing the party. For example, if we have a Republican administration with some Liberal views on Stem Cell, party pressure against it would more than likely sway the administration the other way. I think that reason is partly why there are similar party actions taken from administration to administration.

[snapple]

Over the weekend, my wife and I had dinner with some people we know who work at Harvard University.  One of them is a Professor of Sociology and the other runs a laboratory where they are doing some cancer research on rodents.  This topic is always a hot topic with them and since I had seen it here, I brought this up during dinner.  I usually steer clear of politics with my friends unless I know they are of the same opinion as me, not because I don't want or like my opinions challenged, but because I think there's a lot of potential for blowing up a good friendship when you bring politics or religion into it....

Anyway, I asked the question, straight up, just the way it's asked in the subject line of the OP:  Who's more anti-science?  Republicans or Democrats?

The both said, pretty much unequivocally, that Republicans are more anti-science.  They clarified by saying that Republican "Administrations" were more anti-science, and then they both recited some pretty solid budgetary evidence in support of their arguments.  Basically, when we've had Democrats in power, the flow of funding to their work has been much more steady and reliable, whereas when we've had Republicans in power, the flow of funding is almost always under threat of suspension.

Barry, keep in mind where you live. MA is one of the most liberal states in the Union.