Most scientists in this country are Democrats. That's a problem.

  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    Aug 05, 2012 6:03 PM GMT


    Most scientists in this country are Democrats. That's a problem.


    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/12/lab_politics.html

    I don't see how you can get more scientists to become Republicans when so many of the Republicans, including party leadership, choose to ignore science. Maybe it would help if scientists made a point to register as independent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2012 6:06 PM GMT
    Democrats are creative, intelligent, innovative, progressive, forward-thinking and open-minded individuals.

    So unless we want out society to regress back to the pre-Industrial Revolution days, then yeah bring on the Republican scientists
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Aug 05, 2012 6:36 PM GMT
    Scientists tend to be intelligent....
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Aug 05, 2012 7:42 PM GMT
    I don't agree with the author. There's no need to actively recruit would-be scientists based on their political affiliation.

    That won't stop the right wing extremists from making ridiculous claims about the scientific community.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Aug 05, 2012 7:50 PM GMT
    creature saidI don't agree with the author. There's no need to actively recruit would-be scientists based on their political affiliation.

    That won't stop the right wing extremists from making ridiculous claims about the scientific community.


    This is exactly how I feel about log cabin republicans. What is the point of being a pro gay republican when lunatics are running the asylum?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2012 7:54 PM GMT
    Seems like the argument is that having more Republicans in science would reduce the chance of Republican politicians campaigning against science for political & ideological purposes. But it occurs to me all that Republican scientists would do is corrupt the science to match their political ideology.

    Because that's a fundamental difference between how Democrats and Republicans think, which explains the disparity of Republican numbers in scientific fields. Dems follow logic and facts, and so are drawn to the pure intellectualism of science. Whereas Republicans follow prejudices and ideology, and so are drawn to politics and religion.

    So that Republicans should stay away from science, as they're apparently doing, lest they pervert it like they've done to politics & religion.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Aug 06, 2012 12:39 AM GMT
    Is that surprising? That Scientists tend to be Democrats?

    How on earth can you go to College then go on to Graduate School and then head into your field of study while being hindered by the mindset of being republican?
    It doesn't make sense

    When you let you mind go free ..... and think for YOURSELF you tend to be a Democrat

    What do you think most artists are? Writers? Journalists? Teachers?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 06, 2012 12:41 AM GMT
    Art_Deco saidSeems like the argument is that having more Republicans in science would reduce the chance of Republican politicians campaigning against science for political & ideological purposes. But it occurs to me all that Republican scientists would do is corrupt the science to match their political ideology.

    Because that's a fundamental difference between how Democrats and Republicans think, which explains the disparity of Republican numbers in scientific fields. Dems follow logic and facts, and so are drawn to the pure intellectualism of science. Whereas Republicans follow prejudices and ideology, and so are drawn to politics and religion.

    So that Republicans should stay away from science, as they're apparently doing, lest they pervert it like they've done to politics & religion.





    you nailed why left wing is hard to get elected - we argue on logic while the other sides have tended to the more visceral appeal.

    The reasonable person presents logic and assumes an intelligent listener understands and is trying to assemble data into a coherent whole - which requires thinking on the part of the listener

    The propagandist knows the lazier are content not to think but accept what FEELS right. (Hence the propagandist prefers to whip the audience into an emotional fever -- when we are frightened we follow willingly anyone who presents an authoritative presence wihout much thinking.)

    The right wing has embraced this tactic with a vengeance.



    So a leftie wants people calm when talking logic; the other side wants people angry and not thinkng.



    Hence tactics like proliferation of sock accounts to troll and inflame and shut down all reasonable conversation on RJ rehashing discredited talking points over and over under new sock puppet names.

    As Shatner famously deadpanned on SNL

    "Get a life!" icon_lol.gif


    I suspect they are the guys who got laughed at in school - rather than risk being mocked by the other kids because they cannot keep up intellectually, they take refuge in trolling.

    That way their shortcomings can be the fault of others' intolerance, or bullying.






  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Aug 06, 2012 2:10 AM GMT
    College-educated people heavily favor the Democratic Party, so any field that requires a higher education is going to be more Democratic than Republican.

    In regard to science specifically, the GOP is the party that consistently says they don't believe in science, so why the hell would scientists be Republicans?
    Remember, every GOP presidential candidate pledged that they do not believe in evolution, which is the foundation of all biological sciences.
    Republicans also pressure schools to replace the teaching of science with religious myths.

    You can hardly blame the scientists for rejecting the party of willful ignorance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 06, 2012 6:07 PM GMT
    My experience is that there used to be a sizable no. of republican physicists (at least among the older generations).

    What happened?

    I) Republican policy is to defund science.
    2) mass suppression of science in the climate change debate.
    3) derogatory and obnoxious remarks about science, the educated and the value of education.

    Scientists absolutely hate being told what to do by religious nutcases... And that is where we find the republican party today.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Aug 06, 2012 6:13 PM GMT
    Good news... glad to hear.

    icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 06, 2012 7:14 PM GMT
    HndsmKansan saidGood news... glad to hear.

    icon_cool.gif


    I'm not so sure it is good news. If you consider that really every bit of our modern economy is underpinned by scientific progress, is it "good" that one of our two political parties is so hell bent on returning us to the middle ages?
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Aug 06, 2012 9:12 PM GMT
    LiberalDroneOne said
    Art_Deco saidSeems like the argument is that having more Republicans in science would reduce the chance of Republican politicians campaigning against science for political & ideological purposes. But it occurs to me all that Republican scientists would do is corrupt the science to match their political ideology.

    Because that's a fundamental difference between how Democrats and Republicans think, which explains the disparity of Republican numbers in scientific fields. Dems follow logic and facts, and so are drawn to the pure intellectualism of science. Whereas Republicans follow prejudices and ideology, and so are drawn to politics and religion.

    So that Republicans should stay away from science, as they're apparently doing, lest they pervert it like they've done to politics & religion.


    You're all a bunch of idiots if you believe stuff like what Deco posted. Or is this all some kind of joke?


    I think Deco has a point. If they're trying to skew science to fit their ideaology then it's actually more like science fiction.