Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll

WTF????? for the love of god that's a rant not a reply.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think I have already answered your question. In a democracy you do not always get what you want. I think you are carrying your rights to an extreme. And what you think is a right, may in fact not be a right. We are living together as a people. You can always choose to leave this society and find one more to your liking. But in this society, we are bound by the Consititution and our law.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have a point here?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i think it is a matter of preference. seemingly the republican would be more apt to seek a career in business or legal field. here you have a more linear mode of operation- you go from poin A to point B.

Now an artist goes from point A to point B but takes many detours along the way. So he will go from A then take a break, look around see if there is an alternate route to point B. if he finds that route he may take it, that route can be a dead end or it can be a whole new experience- this is known as the unknown.

So then we can conclude that often time artists would be associated with democrat or iow's liberal. but in the larger scheme of things it is merely another way of thinking or specifically approaching the destination ie. point B. Science is pretty much the same thing. i see no difference...what is known to what is unknown. Now yust because it is unknown does not make it wrong. Here we have what is known as the comfort zone. In the comfort zone i can tell you what will happen and there are no surprises, if i do this the outcome will be this. in science we can summarize as- if i do this what will happen? how should i know what will happen. and thats why they call it science. OR they can call it art before it is science.

thats basically it. i presented it in its

 

Most dedicated scientists attempt to aim for Neutrality when it comes to politics, apart from when it either undermines their own goals or undermines the foundations of ethics that have been developed over the years.

I'm sure most scientists realise that they are a technocratic voice that people turn to when they themselves don't know the full details of the subject matter, so what is required of them is enough moral fibre to consider ethics.

Unfortunately there is always corruption and some are unethical just because the pay cheque is bigger. However in being unethical there entire profession/career hinges on not being found out, should they be found to be misleading people then they can kiss that career goodbye.

It should also be noted that in most cases awards like the Nobel Prize are more likely to be given to ethical and liberally minded scientists, so you could suggest there is reason why to be more liberal if as a scientist you are interested in such a lifetime achievement.

 

I was replying to your "actually I came across a study that said the reason their are more liberals in academia is because the liberal mind set's values make that a more appealing career than the conservative mind set."

Thus I was commenting that it is not surprising, because all one has to do to be a democrat is emot. That was the fuck. Not a rant, but a statement explaining why imo academia is filled with democrat.

 

I was going to respond, but seriously why waste time. You ignore the important points. Focus on minute statements and try to twist them to claim intellectual superiority and then gloat about it.

You are an idiot. Ban me for flaming, but I ain't taking it back.

So how about I show what my point was?

You: Yes I would like to know how one teaches a liberal version of chemistry or physics.

Me: "I don't know about chemistry or physics? However, what about global warming and its causes?

I should think it obvious my point. You are presuming that global warming is indisputable, it isn't. Therefore, the teaching of global warming could be said to be a "liberal version" of science.

Please tell me how much I am avoiding the issue and making strawman arguments, by citing the definitions of such.

Talk about avoiding the issue.

 

I was not avoiding an issue. I wanted you to spell out your issues with global warming. There essentially is no arguement about global warming the science is clear and overwhelming. Even if you subscribe to the ditto head version of global warming which is not supported with science and or fact, it is clear the climate is getting warmer and global warming needs to be addresssd.

Ice sheets, glaciers around the world are not melting because the climate is getting colder I assure you.

The science is very clear on global warming and the climate is getting warmer. The only ones trying to interject politics into the science are those who are supported in someway by industry which would be adversely impacted in correcting the problem...something like the cigarrette industry fighting warning labels on cigarette packages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

 

What do you mean by "the teaching of global warming"?

Teaching about climate and atmospheric gasses and so forth is not a "liberal version" of anything,in the normal vocabulary.

Are you claiming that there are aspects of the physical world that are "liberal"? Puts a whole new spin on Colbert's observation that reality has a liberal bias, that does.

As far as "indisputable" - little in science is indisputable. Science is one dispute after another. If you can't teach about the disputable, you aren't going to be teaching much science.

 

That global warming involves specific sciences is indisputable. That it (gw) is a fact is not.

Like anything else, one can manipulate things to get the results they want and that includes teaching the factors and outcomes of global warming.

 

I suppose you are going to tell us the ice sheets are melting because it is getting colder?

 

what is emot?

 

How am I carrying the concept of rights to an extreme? What individual rights do you think we have and why?

 

You have the rights that are defined in the law. My impression is that you want the "rights" you want regardless of what the law says or does not say.

 

So when the law required black people to go to separate schools and drink from different water fountains they should just accepted this instead of demanding their rights regardless of what the law said?

People who accept this definition of rights are every tyrant's wet dream.

 

You are free to pursue changing laws where you see they are wrong. Your comparison using the issue of slavery just does not hold water in this case. Your major issues are with taxation not with personaly liberty. For you I think it is hard to draw the line between freedom of association and tax law. They are apples and oranges.

 

But people who fight to change the law are demanding their rights regardless of what the law says. According to you, this is bad (at least when non-liberals do it, anyway).

What are you talking about, regarding freedom of association and tax law?

 

You do not have the right to change a law on whim. There is a process that must be followed to change laws. As long as you follow the proces, you are free to change the laws.

I never said changing laws is a bad idea. Lord knows there are a lot of laws I would like to change. There are lots of governement actions I have issues with, but that does not give me a right to violate the law.

Again just because you think you have right does not mean you do. It has to fit within the context and body of the law.

 

My bad. It should have read emote.

 

What you said was, "You have the rights that are defined in the law. My impression is that you want the "rights" you want regardless of what the law says or does not say."

Anybody who works to change the law - by voting, civil disobedience or other means - is demanding the rights they want regardless of what the law says. Black people who refused to obey segregation laws are, in principle, doing the same thing as people who refuse to obey unjust laws regarding taxation or gun control, for example.

Do you have a low opinion of people who held sit-ins at segregated lunch counters? Trespassing on private property isn't the specified process for changing laws, after all.

How about Rosa Parks?