# Oh, I get it.  Because "science" has gotten too "Liberal"



## rdean (Feb 11, 2011)

Right wingers insist that it's not possible that only 6% of scientists are "Republican".

The reasons:

1.  It can't be.

2.  It's not possible.

3.  Science has become too liberal.

4.  Republican scientists are afraid to be "outed".

5.  Republican scientists only work in "industry".

6.  Republican scientists aren't "political".

When I point out that 97% of scientists believe in the Theory of Evolution, then that means only 3% of Republican scientists believe in "mystical creation".

With numbers this dismal, do Republicans think they can take a leadership position in education or science?  

Which is why this is in the "humor" section.  Because it's a "joke" to think there are more than 6%.


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 11, 2011)

anyone who denies sceince would not likely seek it as a field.

The right has pushed themselves out of the scientific fields with their failed ideas.


----------



## rdean (Feb 11, 2011)

Which is why it, pardon the word, "mystifies" me.  What right winger would want to become a scientist and become ostracized by the right wing community?


----------



## rdean (Feb 11, 2011)

Republicans are going after scientific research.

UPDATE 3-U.S. House Republicans push energy, science cuts | Reuters

A 30 percent cut to the Energy Department's Office of Science, which funds basic scientific research.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 11, 2011)

The only way to have pure science is to keep out religions and politics.


----------



## Tank (Feb 11, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> anyone who denies sceince would not likely seek it as a field.
> 
> The right has pushed themselves out of the scientific fields with their failed ideas.



Less then 5% of scientists are black and hispanic.


----------



## rdean (Feb 11, 2011)

Tank said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > anyone who denies sceince would not likely seek it as a field.
> ...



Which is hilarious:

40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal

"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

Over at least the past decade, the federal S&E workforce has become more diverse, with increasing numbers and percentages of women and minorities. Women's share of the federal S&E workforce rose from 21% in 2000 to 27% in 2009. *The share of minorities (Asians, blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians)rose from 18% in 2000 to 22% in 2009, with Asians at 9%; blacks, 8%; Hispanics, 4%*; and American Indians, 1%

Laboratory Equipment - S&E Workplace Becoming Increasingly Diverse

Looks like blacks and hispanics are more than double the number you pulled out your butt.

Actually, it's possible they are "double" the mere 6% of Republicans.   Maybe that's why they have black and Hispanic and gay and women organizations of "science", but none I could find of Republicans.  Maybe there aren't enough Republican scientists to start one?  Oops!


----------



## Tank (Feb 11, 2011)

Black people 'less intelligent' scientist claims:

 One of the world&#8217;s most respected scientists is embroiled in an extraordinary row after claiming that black people are less intelligent than white people. 

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in discovering the structure of DNA, has provoked outrage with his comments, made ahead of his arrival in Britain today. 

Black people 'less intelligent' scientist claims - Times Online


----------



## Samson (Feb 11, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> anyone who denies sceince would not likely seek it as a field.
> 
> The right has pushed themselves out of the scientific fields with their failed ideas.



Would you please learn to spell "science?"

CRIKIE!!


----------



## rdean (Feb 11, 2011)

Tank said:


> Black people 'less intelligent' scientist claims:
> 
> One of the worlds most respected scientists is embroiled in an extraordinary row after claiming that black people are less intelligent than white people.
> 
> ...



Which is odd since black people are the FIRST people.

Tools may offer clues to earlier migration from Africa

USATODAY.com


----------



## Dr.House (Feb 11, 2011)

94% of scientists think rdean is a fuckstain....


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2011)

rdean said:


> Right wingers insist that it's not possible that only 6% of scientists are "Republican".
> 
> The reasons:
> 
> ...



Did I upset you again? The US population is approximately 20% liberal  and 40% conservative. Let me see if I can explain the math to you. It is  statistically impossible to take any random sampling of that population  and end up with only 6% conservatives. If you knew anything about math you would know that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> anyone who denies sceince would not likely seek it as a field.
> 
> The right has pushed themselves out of the scientific fields with their failed ideas.



You reject reality, yet you insist on commenting on it.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 11, 2011)

negged for rdeaning


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2011)

rdean said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > Black people 'less intelligent' scientist claims:
> ...



Hey genius.

Just because mankind originated in Africa that does not mean that they were black at the time.


----------



## rdean (Feb 12, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Tank said:
> ...



And you guys call me a fool?  Ha ha ha ha ho ho ho ha ha tee hee giggle giggle (small burp) - now wiping tears from eyes.

Thanks, I needed that.


----------



## rdean (Feb 12, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Right wingers insist that it's not possible that only 6% of scientists are "Republican".
> ...



Uh huh, sure.  Explain why that is.

You guys agree with PEW when it's something you "agree with".  When it's not, you call it "statistically impossible" - which in Republican speak means, "I don't care what the evidence is, I refuse to believe it because I don't want to".  In the mean time, don't you have an abortion to stop?  School lunches for poor children to "phase out"?  An oil company to apologize to?


----------



## California Girl (Feb 12, 2011)

Rdean's problem is that he cannot comprehend really basic stuff like.... science is apolitical. No scientist should be so ingrained in any political view that he allows those opinions (because that's what politics is... opinion) to influence the results of any scientific study. 

By the evidence provided by rdean, research suggests that he is a partisan hack who is absolutely clueless about science.


----------



## Samson (Feb 12, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Rdean's problem is that he cannot comprehend really basic stuff like.... science is apolitical. No scientist should be so ingrained in any political view that he allows those opinions (because that's what politics is... opinion) to influence the results of any scientific study.
> 
> By the evidence provided by rdean, research suggests that he is a partisan hack who is absolutely clueless about science.





*REALLY!!*






Oh right, now I remember why I ignore his posts


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 12, 2011)

Its the right who seek out the few scientists who are paid to talk crap about GW and claim they are right over the vast majority of the scientific community.

Its the right who USE science.

How funny you dont see that CG


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 12, 2011)

rdean said:


> Right wingers insist that it's not possible that only 6% of scientists are "Republican".
> 
> The reasons:
> 
> 1.   blah...blah...blah.



So the scientific source for your 6% number is....invented in your brain?

Not very suprising.


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 12, 2011)

Instead of insulting why not go get the numbers and prove him wrong?


----------



## rdean (Feb 12, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Right wingers insist that it's not possible that only 6% of scientists are "Republican".
> ...



Yea, prove me wrong.

You can start here:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp...+only+6%+republican&pbx=1&fp=95f91f9d446252a4


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 12, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> Instead of insulting why not go get the numbers and prove him wrong?



He came up with the number. He is obliged to support the assertion.


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 12, 2011)

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Overview - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

if you cared enough to research you would find he is right


----------



## rdean (Feb 12, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Rdean's problem is that he cannot comprehend really basic stuff like.... science is apolitical. No scientist should be so ingrained in any political view that he allows those opinions (because that's what politics is... opinion) to influence the results of any scientific study.
> 
> By the evidence provided by rdean, research suggests that he is a partisan hack who is absolutely clueless about science.



Actually, the reason scientists even bother with cross country peer review is to limit the influence of culture on their research.

With right wingers, they already have all the answers they need.  That's why they don't need such things as "data, research, study or even education".


----------



## rdean (Feb 12, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Instead of insulting why not go get the numbers and prove him wrong?
> ...



It's OK, no apology necessary.


----------



## California Girl (Feb 12, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> Its the right who seek out the few scientists who are paid to talk crap about GW and claim they are right over the vast majority of the scientific community.
> 
> Its the right who USE science.
> 
> How funny you dont see that CG



Both sides USE science, you total moron. Science is beyond political views and should not be influenced by politics. It's the left with their use of GW to promote political agendas that I object to, not the science. Of course, one does need to have some political and scientific integrity to understand that. Since you - and rdean - lack both, I do not expect you to understand it.


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 12, 2011)

Is it any wonder anyone interested in science would not want to be a part ofd the rights failed ideas?

Part of the rights whole gig is insulting anyone who is well educated and claiming they are corrupt and elitists if they understand science.


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 12, 2011)

rdean said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



The Huffington Post?   You have to do better than that. 

They just sold out to the crypto-fascists at AOLTimeWarner.

You want us to trust fascists?


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 12, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Its the right who seek out the few scientists who are paid to talk crap about GW and claim they are right over the vast majority of the scientific community.
> ...



You are right to a point, the left uses real science to guide their decisions and the right uses fringe science to hang onto their failed ideas.

I dont mind using real science to make decisions, in fact that is the smart thing to do.

Using fringe science to battle REAL science for political purposses is what the right does.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Feb 12, 2011)

rdean is impervious to facts. He even embarrasses the liberals around here as well.

We have a game going, everytime rdean mentions 6% scientists, the board takes a shot.

We all constantly teeter on the brink of alcohol poisoning.


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 12, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...




So explain for the board the implications of non-linear dynamic models.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Feb 12, 2011)

Oh yeah, truthmatters is an embarrassment to the liberals around here as well.

She's better than rdean, but thats like saying Terry Schiavo is smarter than the frozen head of Walt Disney.


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 12, 2011)

Sometimes, people just never get the memo.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Feb 12, 2011)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/113009-usmb-drinking-game.html


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 12, 2011)

When you try to pretend that fringe science is more dependable than what the majority of people in the scientific field think then you are using science for political purposes.

It is what the right has been doing for decades.


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 12, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> When you try to pretend that fringe science is more dependable than what the majority of people in the scientific field think then you are using science for political purposes.



When you try to characterise real science as fringe science, then you are using science for political purposes.


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 12, 2011)

The scientists your side touts as the ONES who are right are the fringe of the field.

That IS using science for political purposes.

The day the right accepts what the scienctific world really thinks we may make some progess.


----------



## Tank (Feb 12, 2011)

Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians as a group were 23 percent of the U.S. population but only 6 percent of the total science and engineering labor force. [29] Blacks and Hispanics were each about 3 percent, and American Indians were less than 1 percent of scientists and engineers

Chapter 5: Minority Scientists and Engineers


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 12, 2011)

Because there are still racists like you tank


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 12, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> The scientists your side touts ....



There is no side to science.

You are a newbie to this debate.


----------



## Tank (Feb 12, 2011)

rdean said:


> Laboratory Equipment - S&E Workplace Becoming Increasingly Diverse
> 
> Looks like blacks and hispanics are more than double the number you pulled out your butt.
> 
> Actually, it's possible they are "double" the mere 6% of Republicans.   Maybe that's why they have black and Hispanic and gay and women organizations of "science", but none I could find of Republicans.  Maybe there aren't enough Republican scientists to start one?  Oops!


This is the percent of how many scientist work for the federal government, these are affirmitive action scientists.

 It's like bragging about how many blacks work at the post office.


----------



## rdean (Feb 12, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Its the right who seek out the few scientists who are paid to talk crap about GW and claim they are right over the vast majority of the scientific community.
> ...



I'm sure you want to take that statement back.

Science is NOT beyond politics and it should never be.  Should scientists merge ape and human genes to make a "better worker"?  Or a "better athlete"?  Should science clone people to harvest their organs?  Science has to be guided by human morals.

The problem is right wingers get their morals out of a book that teaches them to hate gays and put women in their place and supports slavery.  They have no morals beyond what they read out of a book written by primitives thousands of years ago.


----------



## rdean (Feb 12, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Actually, my viewpoint is that science is a two way street.  Knowledge from science should be used to make informed decisions, however, some science needs to be guided by ethics, and ethics are strictly human.


----------



## rdean (Feb 12, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > The scientists your side touts ....
> ...



Oh yes there is.  Science can be the most dangerous thing on earth and requires serious human guidance.

I can't believe both right and left are missing this very important issue.


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 12, 2011)

rdean said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Learning about the human environment is a dangerous thing.

I think we should all be stupid.


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 12, 2011)

science is not dangerous but mans inability to use the knowledge for mutual good instead of personal gain is dangerous.

Which is why it so evil to play with science for political reasons.

Accept science instead of trying to drag it along to your political advantage.


----------



## Samson (Feb 12, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> Its the right who USE science.








And "the left" does *not* USE science


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2011)

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I know that Wikipedia states that everyone had darker skins like it is an accepted fact, but that is not quite true. Paleontology tells us that our earliest ancestors were actually pretty hairy. I would also like to point out that Africa is full of people who are not black, and that some of them have been there since civilization began.


----------



## Sadismyname (Feb 12, 2011)

There is so much liberal use of the word liberal these days it makes me wonder why the -ral is used in the spelling


----------



## AllieBaba (Feb 12, 2011)

Dumbest. Thread. Ever.


----------



## Intense (Feb 12, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> science is not dangerous but mans inability to use the knowledge for mutual good instead of personal gain is dangerous.
> 
> Which is why it so evil to play with science for political reasons.
> 
> Accept science instead of trying to drag it along to your political advantage.



I think you have that confused with Good V.S. Evil Sparky.


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 12, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Dumbest. Thread. Ever.



That is a very high hurdle. US foreign policy is dumber than this.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2011)

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I never just agree with surveys, I just see them as data points. You are the one that picks and chooses what to believe and what to reject, hence your outright rejection of the Pew Research Center survey that shows that Democrats are more likely to believe Jesus will return by 2050 than Republicans.

As for explaining the math. Let us say that you have a drawer full of 100 unmatched socks, and half of them are white, and the other half are black. How many socks would you have to pull out to be sure you had a single pair of socks that matched if you had no light at all?

The correct answer to that is 3, which is obvious if you think about it. There would be no way to pull out 3 socks without having at least 2 of them match. Now we get a little trickier. Suppose you want to have a pair of white socks, how many socks would you have to pull out to be statistically sure that you had a pair of white socks?

Think about this for a bit. If I wanted to be absolutely certain that I had a single pair of white socks I would have to pull out 52 socks, because it is theoretically possible that I could actually reach into that drawer and randomly select 50 black socks. However, if I wanted to actually pull out 50 black socks in the dark I would have to pull out all of the socks, because it would be statistically impossible to pull out 50 black socks.

Personally, I would pull out 6 socks, and be confident that at least two of them were white. If I was having a run of especially bad luck I might go for 10, but it approaches statistical zero that I could pull out that many and not get a single pair of the color I want.

The same thing works with people and sampling them. Approximately 35.4% of the US population identifies themselves as Republican, 35% identify themselves as Democratic, and the remaining group is made of up decline to state, independent, or something else. 

That Pew poll you like so much shows a much different political distribution. Instead of being roughly evenly divided among the three groups, scientists are overwhelmingly Democratic. Even if you want to argue that republicans are inherently anti science, you still have to explain the fact that they outnumber independents/other by such a large margin. In fact, independents are almost exactly where they would be in a normal sampling of the population, but Democrats are occur at twice the statistical rate, and Republicans occur at a 6th of the normal rate.

This is statistically impossible.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> Its the right who seek out the few scientists who are paid to talk crap about GW and claim they are right over the vast majority of the scientific community.
> 
> Its the right who USE science.
> 
> How funny you dont see that CG



So, when the left ignored common sense and science to attack Toyota, that was not them using science. When the left ignores common sense and science to argue that power lines cause cancer that is not them using science. When Al Gore says the Artic Ice Sheet will melt by 2035, ignoring both common sense and science, he is not using science.

Politics and science do not mix, period. You continually ignore the fact that both sides use politics, and science, for their own ends.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2011)

rdean said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Rdean's problem is that he cannot comprehend really basic stuff like.... science is apolitical. No scientist should be so ingrained in any political view that he allows those opinions (because that's what politics is... opinion) to influence the results of any scientific study.
> ...



I hate to break it to you, but the only science that has to worry about culture influencing its findings is so adamantly liberal that it is way to late for them to worry about it.

Don't worry about it though,m the situation will correct itself eventually.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2011)

rdean said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



There is your problem rdean. There is a significant difference between politics and ethics. or morality. What you are talking about is ethics, not politics.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2011)

rdean said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Are you saying that the book was written by something that was not human?


----------



## rdean (Feb 13, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Morality and ethics are not the same thing.  Republicans consider themselves very moral yet have zero ethics.  It's why they can vote for a Speaker of the House who passes out bribes or apologize to BP or make a women give birth but suggest starving the child is "OK".


----------



## rdean (Feb 13, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Socks weren't surveyed.  Also, the survey's were "weighed". (sigh)


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2011)

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Really? No Democrat considers himself moral? How much ethics do they have? Is there some type of scale I can use to judge ethical standards?  If Charly Rangel. Maxine Waters, and Sanford Bishop are 10s, being Democrats, where would I put the freshman Republicans who are refusing to take government health care and refusing to back down from the promise to trim $100 billion from the budget?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2011)

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



The survey was not weighed. It was an entirely voluntary online poll of a single organization that focuses on academics.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Feb 13, 2011)

I wonder if it hurts to be this stupid...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2011)

It certainly hurts my brain to read his posts.


----------

