Republicans are the anti-science party, unless we're talking about any of the following things the left believes that are anti-science: Beepocalypse, Biofuels, Black Conspiracy Theology, Carpool lanes, Corporate Personhood & Citizens United, Evolution and Creation, Gender Wage Gap, Gender is a choice, Global Cooling Scare, Green Energy, Keynes, Leftonomics, Life Begins at..., Light Rail, Nuclear Energy, Organic food fraud, Paranormal beliefs, Peak Oil Theory, Plastic Bag Bans, Recycling, Science and Religion, Secondhand Drinking, Secondhand Smoke, Smoking, Smoking and Healthcare costs, Straw Bans, The Population Bomb, Unintended Consequences, War on Science, Wind Power, and so on. The right isn't immune to being anti-science, it's just that democrats/left/media pretends they are better, when the informed know that as a group, they definitely are worse. Of course I treat individuals as individuals and not a group, but any democrat/leftist individual that broad brushes conservatives for being anti-science is demonstrating hyper-selective blinders (hypocrisy).
Facts before fantasy.
|It's so hard for the superior liberals to have an intellectual discussion with the other side, because conservatives, religion and Republicans are so illogical and anti-science that they can't be reasoned with. The right would replace science with superstition (aka Religion), so you can't trust them. The left wants progress, and the way to get it is to scare the masses into believing that if they don't change NOW, something bad will happen (usually the end of the world or civilization). They're either behind, or at least support, most of the big scares and conspiracy theories, because fear sells their agenda.
|Democrats exceeds Republicans on being anti-science on the following topics: Beepocalypse, Biofuels, Black Conspiracy Theology, Carpool lanes, Corporate Personhood & Citizens United, Evolution and Creation, Gender Wage Gap, Gender is a choice, Global Cooling Scare, Green Energy, Keynes, Leftonomics, Life Begins at..., Light Rail, Nuclear Energy, Organic food fraud, Paranormal beliefs, Peak Oil Theory, Plastic Bag Bans, Recycling, Science and Religion, Secondhand Drinking, Secondhand Smoke, Smoking, Smoking and Healthcare costs, Straw Bans, The Population Bomb, Unintended Consequences, War on Science, Wind Power, and much more.
Much of the real PR fight is about funding, politics and control. What do you get when you cross science and politics? A: Politics. Putting the politicians in control of science funding (running funding from the Federal government), is politicizing science. And most of the attacks over being "anti-science" is actually a proxy war for those against the waste and fraud that's rampant in our science "research", that Democrats/media support, and the right and public opposes. If you care about science, you should be on the Republican's side to stop incentivizing the politicization of science, and leave science alone.
- 1 Details
- 1.1 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
- 1.2 , , , , , , , , , , , and so on.
- 1.3 • • • • • • • • • • • • •
- 1.4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
- 1.5 • • • • • • • • •
- 1.6 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
- 1.7 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
- 1.8 Alternate Reality • The Left Lies • Thought Crime : Alternate History • Inequality • Leftonomics • Alternate Liberty • Alternate People • Alternate Science
The media, uninformed and partisans (but I repeat myself), often like to pull up the old disproven canard that the Republicans are anti-Science party, and that the Democrats are pro-Science. Which only demonstrates the bias or blindspots of the myth-pasters. There's pro and anti-science people on both sides of the aisle, and if anything, polls and common sense show that if Democrats/Left aren't the stronger anti-science believers in numbers, they're by far the more vocal about their disbeliefs.
Beepocalypse - There was this huge scam (perpetuated by the left) for many years that bees were dying, and it was going to be the end us of all, because bees were so important to the ecosystem. Colony Collapse Disorder was sensationalized as the greatest threat to humanity since Nuclear weapons. A decade later, nothing had happened and most had forgotten the media's sensationalism. But the informed remembered, and learned from the mistake.
Biofuels - Biofuels are an anti-science flam-flam on the gullible, usually done by the left (though some farmers who like subsidies are fans too). The idea is to take land that you could be using to feed people (either directly or feeding animals we eat), and convert it and valuable water resources into growing fuel instead. You turn calories in petroleum alternatives, like alcohol or vegetable oil, into car or power-plant food. This works, but it is not efficient, often more polluting than fossil fuels. And why use it if you have perfectly good and cheap toxic waste in the ground? You can pump it out, refine it, and burn it instead for a fraction the cost (which is why you need to subsidize it to make it viable). Just leave the food for people. Since it costs lots of money, and requires regulation and subsidies to work, the left has always been a fan.
Black Conspiracy Theology -
Carpool lanes - These monstrosities cost California $2.5B+, to get a 20% capacity loss, which increases pollution, a decrease in carpooling, and 50%+ increased injuries (both accident frequency and severity). It turns out a high speed lane right next to a parking lot increases accidents and injury on entry/exit, and not allowing drivers to use the entire road only decreases traffic flow from optimum. Supporting them is anti-environment, anti-economics and anti-science.
Corporate Personhood & Citizens United -
Evolution and Creation - The theory of evolution still has some holes, but I generally believe in it (and don't believe in the everything was created in 4004 b.c.). But that doesn't mean I feel the need to pretend that I really know what's going on, or that I've done the carbon dating myself to prove it. Thus I leave room for others beliefs. But the secular left generally mocks the religious (which they call "Conservatives/Republicans) and their antiquated beliefs.... but what do they believe? Over half of Democrats (54%) believe in divine creation or guided evolution. Only 37% of Democrats believe that humans naturally evolved (10% don't know). Republicans are 68%/21% (w/11% don't know), so a little difference, but not that much, at all. While I don't care what others believe, I do care about sanctimonious hypocrisy.
Gender Wage Gap -
Gender is a choice -
While calling people by their preferred pronoun gives respect to a person with a psychological malady (Gender Dysphoria), we can't really change our sex. We can butcher our genitals to look like the other, and take hormones, and have intercourse with the whomever we want -- but we can't change our chromosomes, bone/muscle density, some physiology (height and even brain structure). While I choose to play along, and love the individual (no matter their malady), demanding that I (or others) deny reality is hate and intolerance. Demanding that we pretend men and women don't have physiological difference at the pro-athlete level is anti-science and out of touch with reality.
Global Cooling Scare - The left/media/polemics of today will pretend this didn't exist, or it was just a few outlets that were claiming it, and there was no science or momentum behind it. That's a lie. Paul R. Ehrlich, Watermelon environmentalist of the 1960's, not only wrote the discredited The Population Bomb, but he also started another Tragedy of the commons based chicken little disaster: the Global Cooling Scare. In 1968 he claimed fossil fuels had raised CO2 levels 15% which was causing clouds to block out the sun and causing the global cooling they had been observing (a minute fraction of a degree). He was wrong, warming had caused CO2 to go up (not fossil fuels), and it wasn't causing the cooling. But all the watermelon sources bought in: NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA, NYT, Science, CIA, and so on. We needed big government authoritarianism to fix it, or we we're doomed. This was all the rage until something bad happened... and they realized that despite the 40 year drop in temperatures (due to mans minuscule contribution to CO2), that we were actually warming again. Reverse engines, nothing to see here. Time for the next theory/excuse why we needed centralized Marxism to cure what ails us: this time it was Global Warming. (And when that paused, they changed the term to Climate Change: so that they could use up or down trends as an excuse to prove themselves right).
Green Energy - The left believes in Green Energy: that it exists, it's cheaper, and could provide all our power needs, if we just embraced it. The facts (Science) says that Solar and Wind is unreliable, space inefficient and highly expensive if you remember to add in the costs of over-capacity, backup plants, and storage (for when they aren't working). The cheap and reliable forms of Green Energy are: Nuclear, Hydroelectric and Geothermal: but the left hates those and has resisted the adoption of real green energy solutions.
Keynes - John Maynard Keynes was a microeconomist that got a few things right in the little picture, and got virtually everything wrong in the big picture. His macroeconomic theories have been long disproven. But since the collectivists prefers comforting lies to uncomfortable truths, they ignore Science and History and believe in unicorns and Keynesianism.
Leftonomics - There's real economics, and the left's version (Leftonomics) -- they have very little in common. Real economics is about observing what is, and learning from it. Leftonomics is about ignoring what is, and believing whatever cultural Marxism has taught you and that you wish was true. Usually some variant of America/Capitalism is bad, and government authoritarianism would be better.
Life Begins at... - Science says life begins at conception... or at least something like heartbeat, brainwaves or viability. It certainly begins significantly before birth or where abortion activists put it. But that doesn't mean (to me) that's when a human being should get all rights and privileges conferred on them. Something like 1/3rd of pregnancies end in miscarriage, likely more if you include ones where women didn't even know they were pregnant -- so there's some grey areas. I'm not on either extreme that thinks it's just a parasitic clump of cells until the final seconds of birth, nor that it's a sentient being from the merging of the first two cells and before implantation. I fall where the majority do, that abortion should be allowed in the first trimester, but at viability it's getting too murder-ish for me.
Light Rail - In a vacuum, Light rail sounds great: trains are efficient, comfortable, and just fun. But we don't live in a vacuum. In the real world (a) they cost billions that could be better spent on roads/busses, so that hurts fares and the poor (b) they are less convenient than busses with fewer stops/routes means more time to get door-to-door (for most people) (c) more mass to stop and start, fewer riders and cutting through traffic (more traffic/idle time) results in more pollution (d) they pull riders from more efficient busses (not cars) and thus increase pollution even more. So other than it cost more, serves fewer people, hurts the poor, requires state subsidies (loses money), and increases pollution, they're a great idea. Supporting them is anti-environment, anti-economics and anti-science.
Nuclear Energy - Nuclear power is one of the safest and greenest form of energy on the planet: and the environmentalist left has always opposed it. The left got over 120 reactors blocked or cancelled in the U.S. so we stayed on fossil fuels and coal for that power instead. That was not about the environment, and it was anti-Science.
Organic food fraud - Is Organic food better for you or the environment? It depends. Usually it replaces controlled chemical dosages (medicines for plant, soil and pests) with organic herbal remedies. Some work, some don't. For some crops it doesn't matter, for some it does. Generally, it takes more land to get the same yield, which means worse for the environment and you have to ship it further (or it costs more, so people shift to worse alternatives). So while it's a win on a few things, it's a loss on others, and not a clear win overall. The biggest champions of are suffering from Dunning-Kruger (aka self-delusion, Progressivism / Cultural Marxism, and so on).
Paranormal beliefs - What do Astrology, UFOs, Ghosts have in common? Twice as many Democrats believe in them as Republicans. 50% more believe in: reincarnation, fortune telling, the Bermuda Triangle, spiritual energy. (Usually this is like 20% of republicans and more like 30-40% of Democrats). The point is not to mock anyone else's beliefs/experiences -- but the left/media often claims that they are the party of science (despite all evidence to the contrary), and things like this just cement that they are far less so than conservatives/Republicans.
Peak Oil Theory - In the mid 50’s M King Hubbert plotted out oil production, and said we would peak in the U.S. between 1965 and 1970, and in the world by 1986, so we needed to give government control to save us. Globally, advances in discovery, has resulted in at least 2050 until we expect to supply peak, 70 years or so after we were supposed to be doomed -- assuming no further advancements are made. And demand peak (for oil based energy) may already be on the decline, well before we ever consumed all the supply.
Plastic Bag Bans - Plastic Bag Bans are Anti-Science so the left loves them. Here's what we know: paper bags are worse, many people just buy their own plastic bags (which are thicker and worse), and if you replace plastic bags with cloth bags, then you increase diseases/illness (it is shown that food born illnesses went up after bag bans). It takes between 131 - 20,000 uses of cloth bags before you hit environemntal break-even on a single cloth bag (double that if you recycle them). But to reduce disease, you're supposed to wash them after every use: which means that they use more energy than plastic, and die after ≈50 washes so can never hit environmental break-even. So going to reusable bags is bad for the environment, it's bad for people (sickness), and it's bad for liberty: which is why the left loves it so. It teaches conformity over common sense.
Recycling - Recycling is not the panacea that some think it is, it is about teaching the gullible to follow without question, while increasing pollution, waste, taxes, and government control over our lives. That's not conspiracy, these are just facts. But still the gullible trained proles follow out of ignorance or virtue signaling as a demonstration of symbolism over substance -- they put their agenda above science.
Science and Religion - The lines between Science and Religion are becoming blurred. Especially the left's Alternate Science. When you mix Science and Politics, you get politics. When you mix Science and strong political beliefs, you get a religion. Science is skepticism and questioning, Fascism is consensus. When science stops being about doubt and skepticism and is about conformity and crushing anyone questioning the consensus, that's not science any more. So science through the lens of an agenda, becomes that agenda.
Secondhand Drinking - As if the threats of secondhand smoking weren't enough moral preening to rationalize hectoring everyone around you for their lack of virtues, along comes secondhand drinking (which harms 53M Americans). I shit thee not. How long until that gets the left to champion bringing back prohibition?
Secondhand Smoke - Since the left's war on smokers wasn't working fast enough (despite exaggerations and fear mongering), and they had used Junk Science against smoking, they could also use Junk Science (the EPA's now debunked "study" on secondhand smoke) to warn the public about the dangers of Secondhand Smoke. (Later, the fakers seriously tried adding 3rd hand smoke -- that if you touched residue in a smokers house, you could die). I don't like smoking, first or second hand, but remember Japan? Japanese men are some of the heaviest smokers in the world (with some of the longest life expectancies), and since they live in smaller dwelling than most, their wives and daughters are subjected to secondhand smoke in more frequency and intensity. The results? They have the best life expectancy of any Women in the world. Diet, lifestyle, and genes matter far more. So stop the rationalizations -- some people don't like smoking, and so are making junk-science excuses for their attacks and hatred. We know this because places that banned it for years/decades had no difference in death or disease rates: so the issue of public health has been debunked.
Smoking and Healthcare costs - An argument used to justify anti-smoking laws was that smoking increases healthcare costs -- as if that meant that it was OK for the government to then tell you what you can do with your body as a cost savings measure. Yea, exterminating people at 30 saves healthcare dollars as well, so what? We don't need Logan's Run. On top of that, the whole idea was faked. Canada did a study that found that the lifetime costs of smokers healthcare was far less than the average, which makes sense to the non-mouth breathers.
- Most healthcare costs are in the last few years of life.
- Smokers die quicker (on average) -- meaning they cost less over their lives!
Straw Bans - Few things demonstrate ignorance based virtue signaling, with counter-productive consequences like Straw Bans. So naturally places like California are leading the charge (SF is even banning cocktail sticks): this is Anti-Science. Remember the basics: 10 rivers (8 in Asia, the other 2 in Africa) are responsible for 95% of the plastic pollution in the Oceans. 5% is split between the continents of Europe, North America, South America, and Australia. Brazil is the worst country among the rest (the U.S. is 20th). Straws in the U.S., with high estimates is something like 0.002% of the problem. So if straws were 100 times bigger problem in the U.S. than they actually are, it would still round to 0 and statistically irrelevant. So virtue signaling is not only distracting from bigger problems, it teaches contempt for the law.
The Population Bomb - When the 1960’s happened the hippie collectivist environmentalists started their watermelon movement (green on the outside, red on the inside). They had nothing logical to support their fear mongering, so they just went with the long disproven falsehood of Tragedy of the commons, again. First Garrett Hardin regurgitated the Tragedy of the commons, despite the fact that it was disproven 160 years before he wrote it. Then Ehrlich did a shallow, plagiaristic, pessimistic derivative of Hardin and Malthus, entitled "The Population Bomb", basically saying that if you didn’t give government all your money and rights, so they could enact compulsory population control, then there would be mass starvations and war in the 1970s and 1980s that would destroy civilization. Of course it didn't happen, but many on the left seems it will, soon, and believe in over-population is a problem. As far as we know the carrying capacity of the earth far expands with technology and exceeds population growth (so is infinite) -- and current projections are that we'll peak in population in a couple more generations (well below any imaginary ceiling), as currently the worlds population could fit in Texas. Only science deniers think overpopulation is a serious capacity problem.
Unintended Consequences -
War on Science -
Wind Power -
What's even worse, is when you look inside each movement, there's some moderates/reasonable views, and some extreme/unreasonable ones -- and conservatives (Republicans) tend to be the less extreme and more conservative in those beliefs too. Of course that's not always, but in general, I've had conversation with both sides -- and the left tends to appeal to emotions, and the right tends to appeal to logic/arguments a bit more, and that means I can argue with a conservative more reasonably, and odds are, their arguments are better formed. So it's not just about the issue, but how you argue and think about the issues. The left was called bleeding-heart and knee-jerk for reasons: appeals to emotion and demand for action before understanding is anti-science, and works better on the left than the right.
If you want to know who is anti-science, just watch how they respond to data that they don't like. Do they attack the presenter, or consider it? Do they block people with different views, or welcome them? Refusing to change their view, despite evidence isn't unique to a party, but there's a reason why there's more older conservatives than younger ones: if they can learn and grow, they shift parties.
People love to focus on how smart we are, and what we know. And that's fine and all. I love what we do know. But to keep one humble, it helps if you remember that there's stuff out there that we don't really know, some we understand what happens but not why it happens, and some stuff we may never really understand. A lot of this is just stuff we can't test, so can't understand. Some is stuff we can test, but still don't understand. The scientific method is great and all, but some things might be bigger than us. I'm OK with that. I'm just not OK with pretending we know things that we really don't. more...