How many Republicans attended a March for Science today?

Not "as a whole" Just as a matter of policy

BTW, we were talking about Higher Education. The rest is an interesting topic, but it's probably better not to "muddy" the thread.

Not really. They (and I mean policy-makers) go against real science when they feel it hurts an industry that supports their re-election. Global Warming is just one example. I can't think of a worse "defenders" of science than right-wing politicians The right actually has a long track-record of supporting pseudo-science and denying real science. Smoking, denial that HIV cause AIDS, anti-vaccination, ... So right wing politicians might convince many of their followers who would be behind them anyway, that they defend Science. But nobody else...

Yeah. The conspiracy-theory never fails, of course. Only thing is that if that were true, instead of just saying it, you would be providing evidence, other than the word of Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly. Because it would be a scandal, not in the political world (where a scandal is fabricated every 30 seconds), but in the scientific world.

But, of course, for the sake of partisanship, you may be willing to include scientists who have nothing to do with global warming (chemists, theoretical physicists, biologists, psychologists,...) in this "conspiracy" of yours, right? Because you already need to include in it publishers of peer-reviewed magazines, whose livelihood does not depend on Global Warming, but on their own prestige.

A scientist "goes to another scientist to ask for peer review"

Ok.. Here you make my point very clearly. Now, please here me out. this is not meant to be an insult. It's just a simple verifiable fact. I have said for a long time that the main reason why the right denies science is because they don't understand how the scientific process works. And, again, it's not meant as an insult. But right-wingers just don't realize that they are, in fact, science-deniers. This is just a description which anybody who has even a broad understanding of the scientific process knows is accurate.

How about the votes in the Science educated "class".? Which is the only one relevant in a discussion about science. I remember a poll that concluded that only about 6% of scientists were Republicans. If that's really relevant to you somehow, you might want to look up the updated statistics. But let me tell you this. In Salamanca, Spain, you'll find one of the world's oldest universities. Carved in stone at the entrance for applicants and new students is the phrase in latin "Quod natura non dat, Salmantica non praestat" In other words: "What nature doesn't give, Salamanca doesn't provide"

 

Policies aimed at upper middle class who really do not need assistance but who are great at playing the victim role and insisting on subsidies whilst poorer income people struggle and families get locked into a poverty cycle

Stopped reading at the first sentence of this rubbish

So - which side of the political fence are most of the climate deniers sitting on?

 

Global Warming denial for starters. The only people who deny the fact that the burning of fossil fuels is causing the earth to warm and all the consequences of that are conservatives - even though evidence is everywhere.

Republican tax cuts are an exercise in non-intellectualism. Back when Reagan first claimed that by cutting taxes the economy would grow at such an extent that the lost tax revenues would be more than made up and all boats would rise, Republican voters cheered him on. However those of us with a mathematical mind quickly realized that Reaganomics and the whole of the modern Republican economic plans and policies can only work if the economy grows at a rate that is far beyond realistic expectations. Back in the 1980s it was predicted that Republican economic ideology would, by now, cause the very economic problems that we are now facing.

I might add that several times over the Republican House has passed resolutions denying both evolution and global warming.

 

Really, the Democrats have "always been the ones that has brought rights to more and more people"????!!!!
This is historically and factually wrong.

• The democratic party was founded by Andrew Jackson in 1828, who was as much of an anti liberal as they come.
• It was the party that condoned and actively tried to keep slavery in the U.S.A,
• all the democrats in congress at the time of the civil war left to join the confederates with the exception of Andrew Johnson
• It was democrats who founded the KKK when former confederate General and democrat Nathan Bedford Forest started it
• It was the democrats who used the KKK to keep blacks from voting in the south and the north
• It was the democrats such as Woodrow Wilson who actively had showings of Birth of a Nation in the white house on multiple occasions and said that it was his favorite movie.
• It was the democrats who started the eugenics program that inspired Nazi Germany's Eugenics program by creating planned parenthood. A organization that was created by Margaret Sanger to kill Minority and disabled babies.
• It was the democrats who during the new deal era, FDR used deals with the KKK to get the new deal initiative passed at the expense of minorities.
• It was the democrats who used the great society initiative under Lindon Johnson to keep blacks and minorities under their thumbs and as I recall LBJ said and I quote, " I'll be having those ******s voting democrat for 200 years.

While on the other side of the political spectrum. the Republicans did exactly none of that. So please continue to enlighten me, a person who specializes in history and philosophy, how the democrats have always been a symbol for freedom and liberalism in America. I can't wait to hear your response.

 

Read any climate change thread on this forum

Overwhelmingly the deniers are right wing

Overwhelmingly the deniers who are responding constantly claim tertiary education if not advanced tertiary degrees (i.e. I have a PHD in climate science from Yale) whilst demonstrating an abysmal lack of basic understanding of academic processes (ok so I exaggerated about the PHD bit)

Overwhelmingly they show a disdain of science principles whilst using a computer on the internet

Overwhelmingly they indulge in conspiracy theory thinking

 

Is there a point there less than 50 years old???

 

yeah how about the fact the democrats use this veil of caring and looking out for the little guy historically and even today, not to help people but to harm people. The Democratic party is anti constitutionalist, anti freedom of speech, militant towards people that disagree with them, racist towards whites, and sexist towards men as recent events have shown. Also how about the fact that they still support a racist and hateful organization that was made to kill mentally disabled, physically disabled, and minority babies and yet they still support it. But they are the anti racist party...hmmm I sense some inconsistencies. As an Autistic male I find it insulting, not just to me but to everyone, that the democratic party actively goes around claiming that they are for people like me, when they support a group that was founded to kill people like me and still does it through abortions.

 

What part of that is science???

Teaching children about sex education is not about teaching masturbation IT IS about teaching safety. And should be done from a scientific (medical) viewpoint

But this is typical of right wing hyperbole one person somewhere sometime, who is not even in a position to cause this to happen, makes a suggestion and the right blow it up out of all proportion and run around doing a Chicken Little

 

If taxes do not impact human behavior, why do Liberals espouse taxes intended to reduce certain activities, such as smoking, large sodas, etc.? Are they not having it both ways, to deny human behavior is impacted by some taxes, but not by others?

Is it not history denial, to say that tax cuts do not lead to more economic growth? When Reagan dramatically cut taxes in 1982, revenues to the government was doubled by 1988. How does this fit with the concept of cutting taxes reduces revenue?

 

Your "veil of caring" is sick. Republicans have assaulted every effort made to improve care without that care being contingent on wealth. There isn't any moral high ground in that aspect of what Republicans stand for.

As for abortion, please remember that NO American opposes reducing the number of abortions. And, I agree that the reasons used for abortion are sometimes not legitimate.

But, the issue surrounds the approach, with folks like me opposed to using the power of the state through laws to step into the doctor's office and dictate care. I do believe there ARE legitimate reasons and I very definitely believe that those reasons can be deeply personal.

Let's remember that there are other first world countries that have achieved lower abortion rates than ours without using the unacceptable legal approach demanded by far too many Republicans.

 

Look I am not a republican. I am a libertarian as I have said in past threads. But I am sick and tired of the democrats acting like they are these saints that have done no wrong and do no wrong. This is a lie.

 

A century ago Marxism was probably considered a very "progressive" ideology. Not any more.

I don't know that much about Soros, but I very much doubt that one of the richest persons in the world is a Marxist willing to give his billions for the good of the community. I don't know of a single notable marxist in this country. I know a handful in other countries. But here... I don't think they are any. And if there are, they are doing a very poor job because marxism demands that they make a lot of noise with the ideology. And they aren't. So I'm pretty confident that there are about as many people devoted to Marx as there are who are devoted to the god Thor,

 

Also, I am a libertarian, but abortion is an issue I disagree with libertarians on. As far as I'm concerned, abortion in most cases is murder and I do not condone murder of any kind whether it's from the government in the form of a needle or an abortion, or if it's in the form of a knife or a gun.

 

thus not the Democrat party.

Up until recently I'd agree. The Democrats seem to be taking the opposite role. Using law to force their will on the people.

I disagree. Democrats are trying to make the government the only option. And thus taking away liberties.

Government's job isn't to help people. That isn't liberalism that's authoritarianism.

 

Let us not forget that this forum, like every other political forum in the United States is rife with conservative posters bashing science that doesn't agree with their beliefs, making highly fabricated scenarios about science, scientists, and their motives that just can't be supported by empirical evidence, and discrediting education at every turn. When I hear yer average Republican voter speak about higher education, it is almost as if they are mad, that others are so much more intelligent then they are - often grasping at the illusion of the all too common common sense. It may be that Republicans win precisely because they have figured out how to exploit that jealousy.

I'm a physicist who has had a career in product development and design on the cutting edge of technological development. This whole idea of science having become politicized and anti-intellectual down right rolling on the ground laughable. You obviously have no inside experience. Think about this. If my goal is to discover a property of nature that I can exploit for the betterment of a product or process, why would I let anything other than empirical evidence guide me? To do otherwise would result in an unusable, thus un-sellable product.

None-the-less scientists and the intelligentsia in general tend to lean far more liberal than any other group in America, and the world for that matter. It has never been the case that science was taken over by liberals. Rather it is the case that those individuals who are most drawn to the physical sciences are the people who make liberals liberal. That is scientists, and other intellectuals, are among the leaders of liberal thought.

Every center if innovation in America is in a liberal oases. That is because the innovators tend to be, overwhelmingly, liberal. It has been that way since the time of Benjamin Franklin.

The continuously repeating story of American history has been liberals leading the way with new ideas and products while conservatives do every thing they can to impede progress. Liberals pull the country two steps forwards, conservatives pull us one step back. Little by little be progress.

Don't believe me? Do an internet search. You'll see that every center of innovation is in a Democratic district and and that the leaders of high tech companies tend to be liberal leaning. Even in Texas, the center for innovation and intellectual thought is in very liberal Austin.

 

I think you didn't read what you are responding to. I'm asking level-headed Republicans (who, in my view, are implicitly on the right) if they attended the march. Unless "level-headed" has a meaning I am unfamiliar with.

 

Yes... Of course. There are many who use these marches to let go of all inhibitions. But the purpose of the marches were to ask (or demand) government support for science.

I know there are people on the left who believe there are flying saucers who exceed the speed of light and can travel between the stars in seconds.

But Science is a method. Why would the method work for other areas, and not for climatology?

You simply can't pick and choose. It's the same method for everybody. Either it works or it doesn't.

If you can show a sizable body of evidence based on peer-reviewed publications that demonstrate that, and very few (or none) concluding the contrary, then it would be Science denial.

 

I don't see this statement as applying to anything I've said. Please explain, perhaps with a case in point.

The fundamental problem with your logic here is that all situations are not identical. One must consider the full economic picture at the time. Reducing the top income tax rate isn't going to leave us in the same situation as it did Reagan's economy where the top rate was twice that. Also, Reagan's cuts have been somewhat overstated as cutting the top rate was back filled by dramatically lowering the limit on who pays the top rate while payroll tax increased - again shifting taxes toward the lower end. Shifting taxes to the lower end of the scale is a strategy that has pretty much run its course, I think.

As for Laffer, one major question concerning the Laffer curve is where we are on the curve. Please note that the Laffer curve has significant portions where revenue is reduced by lowering taxes.

Another is that Laffer suggests the taxable base will change due to the tax rate. So, for example, we see executives taking income in ways that move their income to the least taxable means, while payroll tax (the primary tax on lower income wage earners) remains the same or higher as Republicans demand. Of course, that's not the only example.

 

I'll beg to differ on your assessment.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/25/politics/david-duke-donald-trump-immigration/index.html

 

I'm glad to see you are consistent.

However, not everyone agrees with you on abortion. For example, I can't agree with the government requiring that conceptions due to rape and incest be carried to term. And, Republican bills on abortion have tended to favor allowing the woman to die as an alternative - requiring such law to be overthrown by our Supreme Court. And, I see that as absolutely unacceptable government intervention.

The facts in these cases are only available to the woman and in some cases the doctor - not the federal or state prosecutor.

 

Let's get real. This is a march of Liberals in lab coats. There were no calls for government support of the science of economics, sociology, psychology, or biology. Since those sciences are counter to the Liberal worldview, they don't count. Liberals are the true science deniers. The backbone of science is skepticism and facts. But, Liberals don't want to debate anything, they want you to do away with your facts and skepticism. "The science of climate is decided" even though the scientists disagree on the repercussions of climate change.

 

It's not like you have offered a credible argument. Rather you have drawn a line in the sand - shallow as it may be.

While I won't attempt to wade through years of indoctrination I'd like to point out that if one looks at all the countries in the world and compares their economic structures one finds a striking pattern. In those countries where the government does most for the benefit of the people, even with higher taxes, those people have the highest living standards and longer healthier lives. In those countries where the government does little or nothing to support the people that those people, even with few or no taxes, have a lower standard of living and shorter lives.

 

We are discussing science; is it not fair game to bring in other sciences to make the point that the right is not the only side that denies science?

The wealthy factually took on a bigger tax burden under Reagan, due to the elimination of the ridiculous tax shelters present under Carter. More of the revenue paid to the government was paid by the wealthy, than before the Reagan tax cuts. You are engaging in belief of myths and fantasy.

Don't fall for that difference in rate game. Like I said before, nobody was actually paying 70%. Factually zero people ever paid that. They had loop holes that rivaled any roller coaster ever built. They were all done away with but, guess what? They're baaaaack! These pesky congressmen just keep chipping away, year after year, selling their power to the highest bidder, in exchange for tax exemptions. Tax deductions are the currency of corruption in Washington. Were I king for a day, I would ban all deductions and shift the revenue from any that are poverty based, to direct payments to the poor.

The single greatest idea that His Royal Cheeto has proposed, is a tax plan that will fit on a note card. It will never happen of course. But wouldn't it be a great thing, if everyone just paid what they owe, and everyone could trust that their neighbors did too? The perception that the wealthy don't pay taxes is nearly as bad as the reality that they don't.

Also, you don't need the Laffer Curve to make the point that the single greatest way to grow the economy, is to put more money in to it. The Laffer Curve merely pointed out that the cuts did not need to be "paid for", and would not reduce revenue to the government. Given that revenue doubled in merely 6 years, it's safe to say Laffer was right.

 

See the highlighted parts. You can not be more wrong. Biologists are perhaps the most liberal group in the world, actually, in many ways, drivers of liberal thought. Richard Dawkins is a biologist. Actually you sound as if you have been getting your information from right wing sources and have no real world experience as to liberals or science. That is why it is so counterproductive to get one's news from right wing sources.

 

Many of the views of the left regarding transgender-ism are counter to biology and psychology. Many of the views of the left regarding tax policy are counter to basic economics. Many of the views of the left regarding human incentive are counter to sociology. My point, is that "science denial" resides on both sides, depending on the topic.

I don't "get my views from" anywhere. They are my own, they cross the aisle in many places, and they sometimes change when presented a better argument. Anyone whose views sit only one side, no matter which one, isn't making up their own opinions. People who think one side is right about everything, are engaging in tribalism.

Also, when you cite the credentials of others, you are basically saying you can't support your ideas on your own, and you are blindly accepting what you were told to accept.