Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pew Poll: 6 Percent Of Scientists Are Republican  
User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3682 times:

Pew Research came out with a poll recently discussing issues of science and technology in the US, and comparing the results from a general sample of the US population with a sample from the membership of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the nation's largest general scientific society. The results of the political affiliation question were interesting, I thought. The general public is 35 percent Democrat, 34 percent Independent, and 23 percent Republican. Scientists, on the other hand, are 55 percent Democrat, 32 percent Independent, and only 6 percent Republican.

Similarly, a full 52 percent of scientists consider themselves liberal, compared to just 20 percent of the general public. On the conservative side, where the general public scores 37 percent, just 9 percent of scientists label themselves as such.

I'm reminded of the Stephen Colbert quote about truth having a well-known liberal bias.  Smile But more seriously, Republicans, this is what happens when your party associates with those who deny that life evolved through natural processes (87 percent of scientists agree) and that human activity is warming the earth (84 percent of scientists agree). Bash scientists enough, and they'll take their ball and go home.

http://people-press.org/report/528/


Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19500 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3588 times:

Science has a long history of battling denial, whether it was gravity, basics of solar system mechanics, evolution, relativity, or quantum mechanics.

The "Republicans" of whom you speak have always existed. Sometimes they were called the Catholic Church. At other times they were called various governments.

This doesn't make Republicans bad. But it does not bode well for the platform of the party to express views that turn off so many scientists.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3586 times:



Quoting Yellowstone (Thread starter):
Similarly, a full 52 percent of scientists consider themselves liberal, compared to just 20 percent of the general public. On the conservative side, where the general public scores 37 percent, just 9 percent of scientists label themselves as such.

Well, doesn't this show how these guys are really out of step with the rest of the country? These types of numbers are similar to those of College Professors, who don't live in the real world, either.


User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9901 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3582 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Well, doesn't this show how these guys are really out of step with the rest of the country? These types of numbers are similar to those of College Professors, who don't live in the real world, either.

Or it could mean that the "rest of the country" is out of step with science, and the numerous scientific (and other) advances that are produced by college faculty research.

I'm not sure why the scientific community should be in step with the rest of the country, as such. Science is about asking questions and investigating the answers. We shouldn't limit the questions they can ask.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39825 posts, RR: 74
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3554 times:



Quoting Yellowstone (Thread starter):

My guess is that there were more Republican scientist 70 years ago when most of their party's strength was in the North. Back then you had a lot more educated intellectuals in the Republican party. Today it's been reduced to a fundamentalist Christian extremist party and their strength now is the Deep South. Basically the Republicans today are the old Southern Dixiecrats of yesteryear.
You won't find scientist in the backwoods of the south. Science is often at odds with their interpretations of their Bible. Challenging and questioning the Bible would mean getting struck down by lightning and going to hell.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Well, doesn't this show how these guys are really out of step with the rest of the country?

"Out of step" in the sense that most people in the rest of the country can't solve complex equations in Physics, Advanced math, Chemistry and Biology so in that sense, you are right that they are "out of step".
I am glad there are scientist out there that can figure this stuff out. Humankind has benefited tremendously from their findings.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 3):
Or it could mean that the "rest of the country" is out of step with science, and the numerous scientific (and other) advances that are produced by college faculty research.

 checkmark 

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 3):
I'm not sure why the scientific community should be in step with the rest of the country, as such. Science is about asking questions and investigating the answers. We shouldn't limit the questions they can ask.

 checkmark 

The Republicans would rather us just listen and follow what Pastors & bosses tell us to do.

Quoting Yellowstone (Thread starter):
and only 6 percent Republican.

...and my guess is that these are the scientist that;
1) just want a tax break, or
2) Fake scientist from BJU, Oral Roberts or Liberty that are really anti-scientist that try to claim that Creationism is scientific.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21552 posts, RR: 55
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3541 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Well, doesn't this show how these guys are really out of step with the rest of the country?

Yeah, because what we really want is to have scientists devoting their resources to proving things that most of the country think are true.  Yeah sure

Science isn't supposed to be popular.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19500 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3506 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 5):

Science isn't supposed to be popular.

And to be a scientist, you need a certain mindset. You have NO idea what you're going to discover. You might stumble across the next penicillin or electron, or you might simply work your life in a quiet lab publishing your findings as a footnote in scientific history.

It'd be far simpler if it were easier to "prove" things. When it comes to theories about life and the Universe as a whole, we don't have a lot of comparison, so we have to go with what we've got.

It's not like that. People want the scientists to never be wrong, to never discover new evidence. That's not science. That's dogma.


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3506 times:



Quoting Superfly (Reply 4):
...and my guess is that these are the scientist that;
1) just want a tax break, or
2) Fake scientist from BJU, Oral Roberts or Liberty that are really anti-scientist that try to claim that Creationism is scientific.

Or they're the remnants of the group of intelligent Republicans you mention at the beginning of your post.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 4):
I am glad there are scientist out there that can figure this stuff out. Humankind has benefited tremendously from their findings.

It's not just what science has discovered, but the scientific mode of thinking in general. You don't have to be a trained academic scientist to apply the basic principle of evaluating claims based on the gathering of empirical evidence.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2038 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3506 times:

I think most of you are missing, or conveniently omitting, one important factor that weighs into the political affiliations of almost every organized group of individuals on planet Earth:

 dollarsign   dollarsign   dollarsign 

Last time I checked, the Democrats have promised to be far more financially committed to the Scientific community as of late. On the other hand, the Republicans are more concerned about other certain existing industries that could benefit from a handout or two (or 3 or 4, etc.). Therefore, the American Association for the Advancement of Science might be more inclined to sway opinion in the favor of the Democrats.

As for these guys:

Quoting Yellowstone (Thread starter):
32 percent Independent

They probably don't give a crap about the bureaucratic BS.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3498 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
And to be a scientist, you need a certain mindset. You have NO idea what you're going to discover. You might stumble across the next penicillin or electron, or you might simply work your life in a quiet lab publishing your findings as a footnote in scientific history.

Reminds me of a bit of history I was reading about on Wikipedia. Throughout the 1800s and early 1900s, one of the main targets of chemists was the synthesis of quinine (finally achieved in 1944 by Woodward and Doering). In 1856, an 18-year-old chemistry student was told by his chemistry professor to try a few experiments that might lead to a synthesis of quinine. He planned to start with a compound called N-allyl toluidine (C10 H13 N), under the logic that two molecules of that plus one and a half molecules of oxygen (O2) would give one molecule of quinine (C20 H24 N2 O2) plus a molecule of water (H2 O). This, as we know today, is horrible chemistry, as it completely ignores the connectivity of the atoms. No chemist would ever go about a synthesis in that fashion anymore. However, this kid didn't know any better, so he ran the reaction, and wound up with a bunch of black crap in the bottom of his flask--an all-too-common occurrence in experimental chemistry. When he went to wash his flask with ethanol, he found something interesting...

The black crap? Mauveine, the first ever synthetic dye. The chemistry student? William Perkin, who built on his discovery to invent the field of industrial chemistry.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 8):
Last time I checked, the Democrats have promised to be far more financially committed to the Scientific community as of late. On the other hand, the Republicans are more concerned about other certain existing industries that could benefit from a handout or two (or 3 or 4, etc.)

That doesn't answer the question of why Democrats are more willing to fund scientific research than Republicans.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3978 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3485 times:



Quoting Yellowstone (Thread starter):
those who deny that life evolved through natural processes (87 percent of scientists agree)

More shocking than that: you actually mean 13% of "scientists" DON'T?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 4):
...and my guess is that these are the scientist that;
1) just want a tax break, or
2) Fake scientist from BJU, Oral Roberts or Liberty that are really anti-scientist that try to claim that Creationism is scientific.

3) Have actually worked in the real world instead of just mooching off academia all their lives and know how hard it is to make a buck.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 9):
That doesn't answer the question of why Democrats are more willing to fund scientific research than Republicans.

Because they don't care who is going to pay for it later?



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4383 posts, RR: 29
Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3481 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):

Well, doesn't this show how these guys are really out of step with the rest of the country? These types of numbers are similar to those of College Professors, who don't live in the real world, either.

Oh really, do tell us what the 'real world' is...  Yeah sure



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8956 posts, RR: 40
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3480 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 10):

Interesting post. This is an interesting interview with Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, about the company's/industry's political leanings (largely composed of scientists and engineers, of course):

http://www.foxbusiness.com/search-re...20828759/google-ceo-one-on-one.htm

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. . . government out of business/bedroom. . .largely more libertarian

(though he is an Obama supporter)

[Edited 2009-07-10 20:10:13]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29792 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3445 times:

Considering that most scientists have to leech off the public dole to finance their research and lifestyles, it isn't surprising that they lean to the party that gives them public funds.

If they where any good they would be in the private sector.

No doubt the privately employed scientists tend to run more republican.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4383 posts, RR: 29
Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3441 times:



Quoting L-188 (Reply 13):

If they where any good they would be in the private sector.

No doubt the privately employed scientists tend to run more republican.

Anything to back that up, or just the usual?



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3284 posts, RR: 44
Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3440 times:



Quoting L-188 (Reply 13):
If they where any good they would be in the private sector.

Is this to imply that scientists that benefit from public funds (like, for example, high profile scientists at public research institutions across the U.S.), are not good scientists?

Quoting L-188 (Reply 13):
No doubt the privately employed scientists tend to run more republican.

No doubt? And your basing that solely off the fact that they aren't receiving public funds (even though they probably are, actually...lots of public grant money to be had)? Pretty ridiculous assertion.

Have you considered it might be because one of the two political parties (I'll give you a hint: not REPUBLICAN) has embraced science as an important part of our existence, and has determined that is a good foundation from which to launch policy, while the other hasn't?

 twocents 

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3429 times:



Quoting Pyrex (Reply 10):
3) Have actually worked in the real world instead of just mooching off academia all their lives and know how hard it is to make a buck.

Do you have any idea what a scientist's life is like? I work in a lab, and I'd guess the grad students there probably work 65 or 70 hours a week in lab. My professor probably spends about that amount of time there as well, not counting travel, conferences, intellectual work at home, etc.

Just because scientists work with their brains rather than their hands doesn't mean their work is any less hard.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 10):
More shocking than that: you actually mean 13% of "scientists" DON'T?

I think that the question was worded such that that 13 percent could include those who believe that evolution exists, but that it is steered by God rather than arising from random mutation and natural selection. For comparison, only 32 percent of the general public agreed with the statement on evolution.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 10):
Because they don't care who is going to pay for it later?

I'm thinking it's more because liberals look forward, and anticipate that scientific research will bring about future benefits for mankind. Scientific progress pays for itself many times over, if you're willing to be a bit patient.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3978 posts, RR: 28
Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3392 times:



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 16):
Just because scientists work with their brains rather than their hands doesn't mean their work is any less hard.

I didn't say they didn't work hard. I just said they never had to see returns on the money invested in their work so think money just falls off a tree. And I am not making this up, by the way, I know plenty of scientists in academia who think government's obligation is just to fund the particular piece of research they are doing no matter what and then just shudder at the thought of someone taking that technology and making a product that actually turns a profit.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3389 times:



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 3):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Well, doesn't this show how these guys are really out of step with the rest of the country? These types of numbers are similar to those of College Professors, who don't live in the real world, either.

Or it could mean that the "rest of the country" is out of step with science, and the numerous scientific (and other) advances that are produced by college faculty research.

You have got to be kidding. Is that the answer you spent any time on thinking about?

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 3):
I'm not sure why the scientific community should be in step with the rest of the country, as such. Science is about asking questions and investigating the answers. We shouldn't limit the questions they can ask.

Now, that one is well thought out. I agree that scientists shouldn't limit the questions they can ask. But, when you allow your own personal politics to get in the way of your research, then your research is slanted towards that position.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 4):
My guess is that there were more Republican scientist 70 years ago when most of their party's strength was in the North. Back then you had a lot more educated intellectuals in the Republican party. Today it's been reduced to a fundamentalist Christian extremist party and their strength now is the Deep South. Basically the Republicans today are the old Southern Dixiecrats of yesteryear.
You won't find scientist in the backwoods of the south. Science is often at odds with their interpretations of their Bible. Challenging and questioning the Bible would mean getting struck down by lightning and going to hell.

May God have mercy on your soul, my son. I am so sorry that southern big cities (Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, Atlanta, Nashville, Memphis, Oklahoma City, etc.) are not as "sophisticated" as San Francisco is.

BTW, did you know that Texas A&M, Georgia Tech, TCU, and Baylor (oh no, Christian schools) crank out just as many scinentists as MIT and CalTech does?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 4):
"Out of step" in the sense that most people in the rest of the country can't solve complex equations in Physics, Advanced math, Chemistry and Biology so in that sense, you are right that they are "out of step".
I am glad there are scientist out there that can figure this stuff out. Humankind has benefited tremendously from their findings.

Nor can a scientist do the things I have done in my life time without training. BTW, I can do Advanced Math, and understand Physics, but that doesn't make me a scientist. All scientists were trained to do what they do, just like everyone else, including you, my friend.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 4):
The Republicans would rather us just listen and follow what Pastors & bosses tell us to do.

As opposed to blindly following union thugs, and not questioning the "wisedome" of all politicians.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 4):
Quoting Yellowstone (Thread starter):
and only 6 percent Republican.

...and my guess is that these are the scientist that;
1) just want a tax break, or
2) Fake scientist from BJU, Oral Roberts or Liberty that are really anti-scientist that try to claim that Creationism is scientific.

You know this as fact, how? Prove it.

Could it be these scientists see a funding sourse and that is why they are mostly Democrat/liberal?

Always follow the money. That will usually get you your answer to almost anything.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 11):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):

Well, doesn't this show how these guys are really out of step with the rest of the country? These types of numbers are similar to those of College Professors, who don't live in the real world, either.

Oh really, do tell us what the 'real world' is...

It is nothing like what you learned in college, maybe it is best you ask your Dad those questions. You may be to young to understand it yourself..


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3367 times:



Quoting Pyrex (Reply 17):
I just said they never had to see returns on the money invested in their work so think money just falls off a tree.

Not quite true, at least in my experience with chemistry. The more results you get and papers you publish, the more likely you are to get a) tenure and b) future grants. Plus, many if not most scientists think that knowledge is valuable in and of itself, even if it one can't buy or sell it. That may account for your scientist friends who object to their discoveries being used to make a profit--they want the knowledge they create to benefit all mankind, not just those who can afford it.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
But, when you allow your own personal politics to get in the way of your research, then your research is slanted towards that position.

I am not sure how olefin metathesis, or Darwinian evolution, or particle physics, or any of countless other scientific topics can be affected by political views. There are a few scientific topics that have become politicized, but the vast majority aren't.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
It is nothing like what you learned in college, maybe it is best you ask your Dad those questions. You may be to young to understand it yourself..

Enough with the ageist crap, KC. If there's something incorrect with his views, tell him what it is. The fact that you have to resort to "oh, well, you wouldn't understand" shows me that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
BTW, did you know that Texas A&M, Georgia Tech, TCU, and Baylor (oh no, Christian schools) crank out just as many scinentists as MIT and CalTech does?

Let's look at the US News and World Report rankings, shall we? In each science field, here's the top-ranked Southern schools:
Chemistry: Texas, #12; UNC Chapel Hill, #16; Texas A&M, #22
Physics: Texas, #16; Duke, #29; Rice, #29
Biology: Duke, #12; Texas Southwestern Medical Center, #21; Texas, #23
Mathematics: Texas, #14; Duke, #21, Rice, #28
Computer Science: Georgia Tech, #9; Texas, #9; Duke, #20
Earth Sciences: Texas, #9; Rice, #25; Virginia Tech, #28

So yes, there are science programs at Southern universities, but for the most part they're not top tier programs. Texas seems to head the list, but Austin is well known as a liberal pocket within the state. And with the exception of Georgia Tech, none of the schools listed above is in the Deep South.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3343 times:

Ahh ya they just claim to be scientist to get the free grant money ,,, hand outs !! Big grin

I would tend to agree with this only from my collegiate experience... the professors and academia were majority liberal. Inside their world ..where it is all idealistic and seems to make sense in the debate class . The problem comes in when you have to make a living.

I had professors who were communists. They were good people but looking at communism "on paper" so to speak they agreed completely with its promise of the commune taking care of everyone. To a academic it is obvious that it is the best possible way .. all of the dots line up. The scientific formula does not equate to free market ideas ..it is full of risks and it is not something that can be debated easily.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9901 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3289 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
You have got to be kidding. Is that the answer you spent any time on thinking about?

Ah, so you can make a statement like that, but I can't! Good to know.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
But, when you allow your own personal politics to get in the way of your research, then your research is slanted towards that position.

Where was it mentioned that personal politics was getting in the way of research?

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 17):

I didn't say they didn't work hard. I just said they never had to see returns on the money invested in their work so think money just falls off a tree. And I am not making this up, by the way, I know plenty of scientists in academia who think government's obligation is just to fund the particular piece of research they are doing no matter what and then just shudder at the thought of someone taking that technology and making a product that actually turns a profit.

Scientists at universities and such have to fund their projects (same as companies do). They happen to get the money by applying for grants and such. The government provides some grants. What exactly is the problem there? The scientists are just being opportunistic, same as any good capitalist.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3284 posts, RR: 44
Reply 22, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3283 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
Texas A&M

One of the aforementioned PUBLIC research institutions. Politically, it is a conservative university, but not a Christian school.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
Georgia Tech

Another public school.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
oh no, Christian schools

And to be affiliated with a Christian denomination means what, exactly? There are lots of Christian-affiliated schools that lean left, and in many cases, way left.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 20):
Inside their world ..where it is all idealistic and seems to make sense in the debate class . The problem comes in when you have to make a living.

That's two people...check that, three, in this thread now saying professors and scientists don't live in the real world. Last time I checked, scientists were every bit in the real world as you, Pyrex, and KC135TopBoom. Working hard day in, day out, to support their family and have a decent living.

You guys act like money is just thrown at scientists, without any work. I'd go so far as to venture none of y'all have spent ANY time in a scientific research lab, to see scientists busting their asses to write a research proposal, that requires days, often weeks, of work with absolutely no guarantee of receiving a dime. So, unfortunately for you guys, it's not the luxury life you think it is.

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39825 posts, RR: 74
Reply 23, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3246 times:



Quoting L-188 (Reply 13):
Considering that most scientists have to leech off the public dole to finance their research and lifestyles, it isn't surprising that they lean to the party that gives them public funds.

Actually they aren't "mooching" off the government. Our government funds research so we can continue to be on the leading edge in technology, medicine, etc.
Otherwise, we'd be a backwards theocracy much like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.


Keep in mind, it was a Republican that wanted to establish a federal Department of Science. That was former Congressman Robert Walker (R-PA). He retired from Congress in 1996. He was one of the last breed of northeastern Republicans that were fiscally conservative but in favor of scientific research. He left the congress that was under the leadership of Gingrich/DeLay/Army/Lott/Nickels... all from the south and very right-wing.

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 22):
Last time I checked, scientists were every bit in the real world as you, Pyrex, and KC135TopBoom. Working hard day in, day out, to support their family and have a decent living.

 checkmark 
Very true.
I had a roommate who did scientific research down at Stanford University. She certainly wasn't rich if she had to share a house with me and two others.

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 22):
You guys act like money is just thrown at scientists, without any work. I'd go so far as to venture none of y'all have spent ANY time in a scientific research lab, to see scientists busting their asses to write a research proposal, that requires days, often weeks, of work with absolutely no guarantee of receiving a dime. So, unfortunately for you guys, it's not the luxury life you think it is.

Again, very true!
She'd work very long hours and sometimes slept overnight at the lab. Pay was very low considering the hard work they do.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for scientist and the work they do. I certainly couldn't do it or adjust my life to do that sort of research.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 19):
Texas seems to head the list, but Austin is well known as a liberal pocket within the state. And with the exception of Georgia Tech, none of the schools listed above is in the Deep South.

Very true.
Also worth noting, Georgia Tech is in Atlanta which is very Democratic.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
May God have mercy on your soul, my son.

Does that mean I am at risk for getting struck by lightning?  Silly

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
I am so sorry that southern big cities (Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, Atlanta, Nashville, Memphis, Oklahoma City, etc.) are not as "sophisticated" as San Francisco is.

Interesting you chose the 'cities' in the south that lean Democratic. The south is more rural than the north. It's no secret that the south does not have a culture of education. The most elite Universities are in the north. Particularly New England. Read more about that in reply #19.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
BTW, I can do Advanced Math, and understand Physics, but that doesn't make me a scientist.

I am learning that myself and I am not trying to be a scientist. I do know that some of their research may require some advance math & science. I was just giving an example.
Keep in mind, many people are able to compartmentalize their brains. Meaning that they can be a genius in some areas but can be completely clueless in others. There are some doctors and lawyers that are very smart but chose to belong to religions that have ridiculous far-fetched beliefs. Hell I avoid driving in Berkeley because those smart students & faculty seem traumatized by traffic signals and moving vehicles. Worst of all, they don't look both ways before they J-walk which is very dangerous.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
As opposed to blindly following union thugs

What science union are you speaking of?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
, and not questioning the "wisedome" of all politicians.

Scientist routinely find things that may conflict with politics.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
You know this as fact, how? Prove it.

If you re-read my post, I prefaced my statement with "....and my guess is that..."
Just a "guess" and I gave a good reason from the very get-go which is a fact.
Go ahead a re-read.  Smile



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19500 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3236 times:



Quoting L-188 (Reply 13):
Considering that most scientists have to leech off the public dole to finance their research and lifestyles, it isn't surprising that they lean to the party that gives them public funds.

If they where any good they would be in the private sector.

The private sector used to fund basic research. Bell Laboratories was an example.

However, if I want to do a study on the effect of a certain diet on a given disease, who is going to fund that? The private sector? Who will make money off the findings? That's why government funding is necessary. When it comes to technological advancement, the private sector is fantastic. When it comes to the search for truth, well...the private sector is lacking.


25 FlyDeltaJets87 : Clearly Math was not the strong point of this study. The options were: Republican Democrat Independent Other/None For the Public: Republican: 23% Dem
26 Falcon84 : And conservatism is about keeping the future from appearing faster, by it's very nature. Conservatism, by it's very nature, doesn't like to ask quest
27 FlyDeltaJets87 : Which would explain why most of the liberals I know are only open minded to your views if they happen to agree with theirs, and thus doesn't make the
28 Falcon84 : Actually, by nature, liberalism is more open-minded, period, than conservatism, FDJ. You'll find some on the fringes-on both sides-completely closed
29 N867DA : GT has plenty of conservative students and faculty. I'd say we're a pretty mixed campus politically, though as a voting precinct GT has a Democratic
30 Superfly : I respect you too FlyDeltaJets87. I wasn't referring to you personally and I know there are lots of smart southerners as well. I even point that out
31 Falcon84 : Based on basic ideology, I think it makes sense. Liberals, by the nature of the ideology, question the status quo more, while conservatism tries to p
32 DocLightning : Where'd YOU go to college? At my institution, our President had been in the Hitler Youth (he was 6-8) but I've never come across a Communist professo
33 Vikkyvik : I'd have to say that most of the studies I've ever seen did not add up to 100%. Look at any presidential election. For example, a brief search tells
34 Ual777 : Bashing the south again? Thats rediculous. Wrong. INNER-city Atlanta is very democratic, while the outlying suburbs are very republican. If you look
35 Superfly : Yep. Which is where Georgia Tech is located.
36 Ual777 : What does that have to do with it? Its near the hood so its a democratic leaning university??
37 Superfly : No. You need to re-read my earlier post.
38 Ual777 : I read your post. Inner-city Atlanta is democratic. However, outside of the city (i.e. the suburbs) it is very republican. People commute into the ci
39 Superfly : Duh, everybody knows that. Not sure what you are getting so defensive about. I just simply gave examples as to why Scientist lean Democratic in this
40 MD11Engineer : Most basic research is being done at government funded institutions (universities, organsations like NASA, CERN, ESA, DESY etc.). Very few companies s
41 N229NW : Ah, yes, I remember when I was but a youth and a young fellow named Galileo was so out of step with the country's opinions that he thought the sun we
42 Klaus : And not everybody wants to disclose his/her political convictions in a poll at all, hence a number of people missing from these categories (even "Oth
43 KC135TopBoom : How about Global warming caused by man, and stem cell research? Both of these scintific areas have scinentists that are pro and con on the subject. H
44 Baroque : I doubt if he has. Here is one who does not. And off hand I cannot think of many others in the private sector who do. In the good old days many of th
45 KC135TopBoom : Some scientists do a good job without the help of the GOP. You mean like this?
46 FlyDeltaJets87 : Because "Other/None" was included in this study. Meaning that if the Democrat, Independent, and Republican didn't add up to 100%, then the "Other/Non
47 Allrite : It really irritates me when people claim that scientists don't live in the real world. Science is about have to dealing with the physical "laws" (cons
48 N867DA : Ever left a question blank in a survey? Of course, this entire poll is to stroke the ego of a certain party/political ideology...and this is from a D
49 Klaus : Volunteers in the military generally have an elevated tolerance for and affinity to authoritarian structures, so they almost always tend towards cons
50 Yellowstone : That is true when you look at undergraduate education - the information you're being taught is pretty much the same wherever you go, so smaller schoo
51 AGM100 : The gentleman I was thinking of did not "preach" communism. I just happened to write a thesis about the war in central America going on at that time.
52 Pyrex : That is still not producing a tangible return on investment, i.e. money out greater than money in on the long run. I can make a publishable paper on
53 UAL777 : I get defensive because the analysis is wrong and you are insinuating that people in the south are uneducated which is simply not true.
54 Baroque : Quite right you would not want someone like I Newton cluttering up the place. Added to which I have it on good authority that his theory of gravity i
55 PPVRA : You do realize that the liberalism/conservatism ideas are largely upside down in the US, right? In most of the planet, liberalizing means reducing go
56 Superfly : You are over-reacting. What I stated was fact and should not be viewed as insulting to any particular region. Let me simplify it just a little bit mo
57 Post contains links L-188 : No, she didn't. Several of the alleged book hadn't even been written when she was Mayor of Wasilla, which pretty much debunks that rumor. http://www.
58 Superfly : " target=_blank>http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin...s.asp Doesn't changed the fact that she trying to use her power to ban books. The fact that sh
59 UAL777 : I don't have a party. I am a disenfranchised fiscal conservative and a social moderate.
60 Post contains links and images NWOrientDC10 : This is why I am going to post response here. In so many words, William Perkins did an unconventional thing and made a discovery. Sometimes thinking
61 Superfly : I can totally respect that. I love to work on cars myself. Read post #23 were I stated; "Hell I avoid driving in Berkeley because those smart student
62 TheCol : Because the status quo of the former administration (pumping money into Wall St.) wasn't working out. Therefore, trying something new (like funding n
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Just How Big Of A Tosser Are You? posted Mon Sep 24 2007 20:15:04 by BananaBoY
What Kind Of Shoes Are You Wearing? posted Sun Aug 19 2007 21:22:41 by Walter747
I Want To Know Where The Bad Parts Of Berlin Are? posted Wed Jul 18 2007 05:19:36 by PWM2TXLHopper
U.S: Only 40 Percent Of Baghdad Controlled posted Sun Jun 17 2007 06:44:43 by Falcon84
Poll: Status Of Your Support For Bush posted Sat Jun 16 2007 02:04:05 by ConcordeBoy
Test: What Breed Of Dog Are You? posted Thu May 11 2006 16:27:30 by BMIFlyer
For The Record, The People Of Nola Are Idiots posted Sun Apr 23 2006 13:07:55 by MSYtristar
What Kind Of Patient Are You? posted Mon Jan 30 2006 05:29:07 by Jafa39
What Type Of Aircraft Are You? posted Fri Jan 27 2006 04:09:14 by CurtisMan
What Type Of Drunk Are You? posted Tue Jan 24 2006 20:14:47 by BR076