‘Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time,’ while only 61% of the public agrees, according to a new report (PDF, p. 37) from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Asked which comes closer to their view, ‘Humans and other living things have evolved over time’ or ‘Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,’ 97% of scientists responding chose the former option, as opposed to only 2% choosing the latter option; 61% of the public responding chose the former option, as opposed to 31% choosing the latter option.
maybe …
but not the one’s bought by big tobacco, big pharma, big anything else …
not the ones doing work that can get funded as opposed to work that is needed …
not the ones more interested in tenure than discovery …
not the ones so locked into the “scientific method” that they lose whole swathes of human reality, particularly the presence of the subjective …
not the ones wedded so tightly to a model that they simply refuse to believe that anything else can even exist …
not the ones for whom the saying was invented, “science proceeds on the basis of funerals” …
and consider that in some ways, science is the new religion, and it needs a richard dawkins to poke some holes in its belief structure …
enjoy, gregory lent
*sigh*
I so vividly remember watching one debate last year with all the GOP nominees, I think there were 9 or 10 of them. The question of evolution came up, and the panel was asked, who doesn’t believe in evolution, and three hands shot up, proudly. I am pretty sure the idiots in question were Brownback, Hunter, and Huckabee.
Those numbers are embarrassing for the USA. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that about 1/3 of the country are morons who believe in emotionally comforting fairy tales.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/naming-someone-who-hates-public-school
As a teacher we also have to stop promoting these maniacs being in charge of educating people or being charge of policy.
It’s not so much “listen to scientists” (although I agree) as much as, respect the fact that various people dedicate themselves to knowing a lot about things like space, evolution, medicine, the law, etc.
The GOP’s constant attacks on books and learning has led to the actual former president saying evolution was “just a theory.”
We don’t have to be worshipful and buy into everything any scientist every says, but we need to respect education and academic credentials when it comes to making public policy decisions. Some wing-nut Senator with a degree in accounting telling us global warming is a hoax is not the equivalent of a climatologist telling us it isn’t.
Sorry wing-nuts, but evolutionary biologists know more about the development of humans than you do, and a degree from Liberty University is not equivalent to one from a solid, accredited state university, not to mention Harvard.
Hate to argue semantics with you Jaim, since I completely believe in evolution, but isn’t it a theory? (A theory with overwhelming evidence in its favor vis-a-vis any others, but a theory nonetheless.)
‘Hate to argue semantics with you Jaim, since I completely believe in evolution, but isn’t it a theory? (A theory with overwhelming evidence in its favor vis-a-vis any others, but a theory nonetheless.)’
It’s a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory, but I don’t hear Conservatives arguing against the reality of gravity, presumably because it doesn’t contradict the ‘teachings’ of a two thousand year old sleeping pill known as the Bible.
Just because something is a theory doesn’t mean it’s “not true” (like gravity).
It just speaks to the war on science and fact waged by the GOP for decades now.
To put it another way, gravity and evolution are both theories, and they are both completely true since they are verifiable through evidence and experimentation.
Of course, if evidence came to light that disproved either theory, we’d have to go back to the chalkboard. But establishing “universities” like Liberty isn’t an attempt to refute the truth as much as it’s an attempt to derail the truth and create confusion.
I want to know what 2% of scientists agree that man has existed in its current form since the beginning of time. I’m shocked the number is that fucking high.
But seriously though. Science. It works, bitches.
If religion were only delusion – so be it – BUT religion is ignorance and superstition and the “more” religious one is the more ignorant, superstitious and deluded you are.
Americans are fu*king idiots – at least 61% are – compare that number to ANY other country in the Western World and you will see how appallingly ignorant you are as a nation. It’s NOT FUNNY – your country is certifiable.
Oh well, at least you’ve got your 11 nuclear carrier battle groups – bearing in mind that China and Russia BETWEEN THEM have none, zip, nada, zilch. Your priorities are so screwed.
The theory of gravity is only about 400 years old, with Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity coming about 70 years ago. General Relativity doesn’t work in quantum mechanics, which requires a different theory for gravity.
The evidence that gravity exists is from indirect observation. No one has ever seen a graviton (a massless particle which would still affect objects around it), and probably never will as it would be almost impossible to detect it over some other object. There are currently projects looking for gravitational waves, but they are yet to directly observe a gravitational wave. And of course there is the search for dark matter, which is required to make the whole theory of gravity work.
Of course this doesn’t mean that gravity doesn’t exist and what we’re seeing is actually the result of everything constantly expanding, but gravity is a theory subject to constant change.
So, the 61% who agree with the 97% of scientists are fucking idiots?
“The theory of gravity is only about 400 years old, with Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity coming about 70 years ago. General Relativity doesn’t work in quantum mechanics, which requires a different theory for gravity.”
True enough. If you’re a physics professor, then the theory of gravity starts to have some issues on the quantum level. If you’re a regular Joe, Newtonian physics will generally work just fine. Same with evolution. For all intents and purposes, it is true. Are there gaps in the data? Certainly. This doesn’t mean we have to throw the whole theory out the window.
“The evidence that gravity exists is from indirect observation.”
Nobody has ever seen a cancer cell with the naked eye, either. But doctors can still try and cure it using plenty of other “indirect observations.” It’s still an observation, and it’s still based on a series of other indirect observations. Trying to use that as a scare phrase or something? If we had to limit our theories to what we could directly experience with our limited human senses, we’d still be living in caves. (Like Osama bin Laden, although there are lots of parallels between radical muslim fundamentalism and what we see in the American Christian right — hatred of science, hatred of education, etc.)
Theories are, by definition, subject to change. This doesn’t mean everybody gets to have their own theory. Evolution and gravity are both true until proven false which might happen some day, but hasn’t yet. And they won’t be proven false as much as they’ll be shown to have a limited explanatory capacity, and replaced with a new paradigm (a la Kuhn).
“I want to know what 2% of scientists agree that man has existed in its current form since the beginning of time. I’m shocked the number is that fucking high.”
It only says “scientists,” it doesn’t specify their field. There are fields that don’t involve expertise in biology, astronomy or geology.
“It’s a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory”
Actually, both gravity and evolution are facts which can be observed whenever you drop an apple or observe how colonies of insects become resistant to DDT over time, etc.
The “theories” of gravity and evolution are the scientific versions of these facts, explaining them in sufficient detail that their operation can be understood and tested. When gaps appear in the theories (e.g. the move from Newton to Einstein in gravity), the facts don’t go away – they just get explained better.
On the other hand, religion explains nothing beyond “God did it – nothing to see – move along”, and tends to blind people to the facts behind the scientific “theories”.
‘Actually, both gravity and evolution are facts which can be observed whenever you drop an apple or observe how colonies of insects become resistant to DDT over time, etc.’
That was my point Rhys.
Evolution does not, nor need it, explain the origin of life, let alone human life. Fundamentalism was a response to the Theory of Evolution, not the other way ’round.
The idea that change is progressive is totally theoretical and unproven. What no one can prove, for example, is that the next “improvement” on the evoluntionary scale after reptiles (dinosaurs) is mammals — we might be an “error”.
So, yes, natural selection via adaptation is relatively observable and speciation is, too.
‘We might be an error.’
Which is what I think upsets fundamentalists in their perception of evolution – that humans are just the result of random mutations. As I understand it, there’s one school of thought that is willing to except evolution in the case of ‘lower’ species, but still holds that the creation of mankind had to be the result of a deliberate act of a supreme being.
Yes , that theory says that God has influenced evolution so that 1) Humans were inevitable, and were 2) Endowed by Him with souls (i.e., “created in His own image”). It is called the Special Theory of Evolution, if I remember my high school religion classes correctly.
If religion were only delusion – so be it – BUT religion is ignorance and superstition and the “more” religious one is the more ignorant, superstitious and deluded you are.
Statements like these are hostile and provocative,and appear to be deliberately designed to be so.
If “We don’t have to be worshipful and buy into everything any scientist every says, but we [do] need to respect education and academic credentials when it comes to making public policy decisions”, then we also need to be respectful of religion.
Remember, most of the people that escaped the Old World for the new were not coming here to express their views on non-Euclidean geometry.
Right winger “Frank DiSalle”: “Fundamentalism was a response to the Theory of Evolution, not the other way ’round.”
False.
“Fundamentalism” existed long before the Theory of Evolution came around.
And who suggested that the Theory of Evolution was a “response” to Fundamentalism?
Cons think you’re unpatriotic if you don’t take the Bible literally
I’ve always seen religion as a cultural exercise first. Any explanatory power it might seek to have is subservient to its cultural role, and it ought to be looked upon as such.
I have a friend who doesn’t believe in evolution, and I tried to convince him otherwise before I realized it doesn’t make a lot of practical difference in his life whether he believes in abiogenesis or the dust-and-rib theory. It just doesn’t. If bagging on Darwin is a prereq for being in his preferred social group, then so be it.
Now if we on the left could stop sniping at religion to no good end, I wonder how many of those church-goers would actually be on our side…
My apologies, “Frank DiSalle”, you are clearly referring to the Fundamentalist Christian movement of the late 19th century and early 20th century which did come after the Theory of Evolution and was in part motivated by the Theory of Evolution.
I was mistakenly thinking of fundamentalism in the sense of extreme religious beliefs, something which has always existed in human history.
Picked this up off the Great Orange Satan, a statistical breakdown of scientists and their views on various matters.
Apparently 55% of scientists define themselves as Democrats, and 6% as Republicans. (See chart about 3/4 of the way down the page.) There are a lot of other interesting statistics on the page, but that one jumps out because of the remarkable disparity.
Frank, please explain the 9/1 ratio of D to R among scientists. There must be good news for McCain buried in these numbers.
From Britannica:
“… Fundamentalism, combined late 19th-century premillennialism with more or less rationalistic defenses of biblical inerrancy. It took its name from a sequence of tracts called The Fundamentals that were issued between 1910 and 1915 in the United States, and the movement became institutionalized in 1919 and 1920, as Fundamentalism became a formal and militant party in denominational conflict in the United States.
The most obvious causes for the rise of Fundamentalism were the spread of Darwinian evolutionary theory and its acceptance in the more liberal parts of the Protestant churches as well as the higher criticism of the Bible….”
Most scientists are good socialists. They live in socialist societies (tenured university jobs), and at some point don’t have to produce anything of value to maintain their employment.
Democrats believe in the nanny state and big government, two prerequisites to the scientists continuing to enjoy their current situations.
This is not all a bad thing, as a lot of good science can come from this environment. But it does explain the difference. Of course my more cynical colleagues will simply suggest that the scientist has been steeped in the cauldron of liberalism through years in the Academy, and anyone who wasn’t liberal was run out.
When you get to physicians and surgeons, you will find quite a few more republicans, though the numbers probably still skew left. For the simple reason that physicians have to survive in the public sector, and realize which political party is most likely to be hands off and allow them to practice.
No I don’t.
Most scientists are good socialists. They live in socialist societies (tenured university jobs), and at some point don’t have to produce anything of value to maintain their employment.
Most scientists would recognize this as an anecdotal claim with no data to back it up. By this account, scientists who do not have tenure would be more evenly split, but I don’t see the data anywhere.
When you get to physicians and surgeons, you will find quite a few more republicans,
A physician who does research is a scientist. A physician who does not do research is a professional, but not a scientist by the accepted definition of the word. Can you break down your “data” to show how actual researchers among medical professionals v. practitioners break down by party affiliation? If you can reach that far up your descending colon.
Having made the claim that “most” scientists are protected by tenure, please break that down to show us what percentage (over 50%) are tenured v. those who are not so we can interpret the results more accurately. There are a ton of scientists employed in jobs where they would be fired if they didn’t do good work for, say Bell Laboratories or NASA.
A Democratic scientist, by this account, was a Republican until he got tenure. How does that work?
As usual, the good dr. usual projects his own venal and selfish worldview onto everybody else, which certainly explains why he is a republican rather than a democrat.
Now if we on the left could stop sniping at religion to no good end, I wonder how many of those church-goers would actually be on our side…
Agreed, Parthenon. Never would have guessed that Pope Benedict was more of a socialist than I was, but look at his latest encyclical.
However, when fundamentalists start messing with the public education system, pushing crap science into our classrooms, we need to speak up because that’s our future we’re talking about.
“News” “Reference” : You are learning. When you can snatch the pebble from my hand, you will be ready to leave the monastery.
Actually, to clear something up. “Evolution” is both theory and fact. The fact part is that things evolve — this is indisputable. The theory part is that natural selection is the driver for things to evolve, though this has been observed and backed up with overwhelming numbers of findings, either through the fossil record or genetics.
The cause of the Klan was the Emancipation Proclamation.
“Frank DiSalle”: “When you can snatch the pebble from my hand, you will be ready to leave the monastery.”
There is no pebble in your hand, “Frank DiSalle”, look and see.
The pebble is in my hand.
The difference between “the Pope” (Catholics) and liberal Democrats is not that we are entreated to do good works, but that we are not forced to do them.
As Walter E. Williams said: “… I believe that reaching into one’s own pockets to help his fellow man is both laudable and praiseworthy. Reaching into another’s pockets to help his fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation … “
The difference between “the Pope” (Catholics) and liberal Democrats is not that we are entreated to do good works, but that we are not forced to do them.
Yes, but if six thousand years of civilization have taught us anything it is that under the completely voluntary method too many will elect not to pay their fair share of the cost of living in a safe, just and equitable society. Something that the popes have long tacitly admitted by, for instance, imposing and collecting taxes in the Papal States.
(of course if the popes had seen fit to do without the extra twenty to thirty gold-fringed chasubles, they might have been able to reduce the tax rates).
Have you ever looked at the L Curve, “Frank DiSalle”?
http://LCurve.org
There’s an associated video that describes income distribution in the United States that graphical depicts the Monarchical-type imbalance of power that right wingers support.
When you watch and listen to the video, keep in mind that THE VAST WEALTH OF A PERSON LIKE BILL GATES RELIES ON GOVERNMENT POWER.
Without the GOVERNMENT (which in America is controlled by the Citizenry), the limited monopolistic power that Bill Gates enriches himself from wouldn’t exist.
When right wingers talk about ’shrinking the size of government’ I sometimes respond, “Okay, let’s first eliminate patent and copyright law.”
After all, the only reason patents and copyrights exist is because the massive power of a large intrusive government dictates it.
Right wingers LOVE large government that forces people to do what serves corporations.
The problem is not that “evolution is a theory.” It is when that idea gets misconstrued as “evolution is only a theory.” The general public has no idea what a scientific theory is. (Rhys had an excellent explanation.)
And while its all well and good to let the fundamentalists keep their own world-view about creation as it suits them, the problem comes when they then try to force their world view into the science classroom. The “science” of creationism is no such thing, and allowing them to dilute the science curriculum in the schools can only lead to even worse scientific literacy in this country.
But , “News” “Reference” , you tore the rice paper, on the way out.
I am not pretending that we can eliminate government – even the Federal Government.
But to pretend that the Federal Government makes possible the production of wealth, or even protects its production is absolute nonsense. Also, I care not a whit for the income disparity between the rich and the poor. I don’t recall any tax increase since I began to receive a government benefit (December 1970) that benefited me directly. I do not recall any benefit accruing to me as a result of pulling out of Vietnam; leaving Lebanon, Somalia, or any other place (such as Gulf War I) we “withdrew” because a war was a “drain on our economy”.
In fact, I remember one year during the Carter administration, when my my withholding was substantially increased. Because I was not attentive, I expected an increased refund. For the first time in my life, I almost owed money at filing time, due to an obscene increase in F.I.C.A.
Most people don’t listen to scientists, they listen to journalism majors with weak science backrounds reporting on crystalized snapshots of scientific findings. More often than not the reporters have no real grasp of that which they report on, understand none of the nuances, and have little backround or understanding of the different ideas swirling around the topic of discussion.
As for worrying about fundamentalists polluting public education spare some concern for the misinformation that well meaning but ignorant education majors spread to their little charges. Politiclly correct “scientific” theories that are used do indoctrinate students in subjects ranging from economics, science, and environmentalism to politics and history are at least as damaginging as stories regarding historic religious beliefs.
Right winger “Frank DiSalle’s” nonsense: “But to pretend that the Federal Government makes possible the production of wealth, or even protects its production is absolute nonsense.”
False.
Without patents and copyrights granted and enforced by the Federal Government much of “production of wealth” that currently exists would disappear.
Bill Gates’s fortune only exists because the Federal Government, through US, the Citizenry, grants him limited monopolies on copyright and patents.
(How much simpler can this be broken down for right wingers to understand?)
Actually Bill Gates fortune only exists because of an extremely deep understanding of computers, keen insight, and aggressive marketing. He was an extremely bright nerdy kid who came from a family with money and instinctively used that part of his upbringing to successfully create one of the dominent companies on the globe. Other equally bright nerdy kids did not fare as well in a commercial sense.
The evidence that gravity exists is from indirect observation. No one has ever seen a graviton
Now I have seen it all. SFC B is actually arguing AGAINST gravity simply because liberals are pro-gravity.
Is this what we’ve become?
Without patents and copyrights granted and enforced by the Federal Government Microsoft wouldn’t be a dominant corporation.
Period.
That’s not to suggest that Bill Gates isn’t a brilliant business person, but without GOVERNMENT granted monopolies, Bill Gates’s vast fortune wouldn’t exist.
So, the 61% who agree with the 97% of scientists are fucking idiots?
No, the 61% are fucking idiots for letting the 39% who agree with 3% of scientists make the rules.
And you are telling me that the protection afforded by Copyright and Patent Law is worth 25 – 35% of your income as a retainer , plus whatever you pay attorneys and court fees for infringement cases?
So it would be legitimate to send in the Army if any US industry operating in a foreign country were threatened with nationalization? After all, they paid taxes for protection of their property rights, didn’t they?
And, tell me, who paid for this valuable service prior to 1913?
What a bunch of malarkey!
What ever services were provided by the Government in FY 1914 were the same as the services provided in FY 1913.
Kinda reminds me of “We’ll only charge a Toll on this Bridge until it’s paid for”.
Right winger “Frank DiSalle” asks “who paid for this valuable service prior to 1913?”
As I understand it, much of the government used to be paid with through tariffs.
But then the importers, foreign corporations, and their tools the right wingers struck down the American citizenry’s tariffs and now most of America’s manufacturing base is owned by Totalitarian China.
Right wingers “Frank DiSalle” and “Amused Observer” still don’t understand the basic government power of granting and enforcing monopolistic copyrights and patents and how that government power creates wealth.
Perhaps a scientist who has invented and patented something that made them wealthy could explain it to them (in small words).
(Even some State Government University’s allow the scientists who patent inventions to retain a portion of the wealth created by that patented creation.)
Now if we on the left could stop sniping at religion to no good end, I wonder how many of those church-goers would actually be on our side…
Good point, Parthy. Gonna have to think on that a spell.
Jesus Christ was/is a Liberal.
Spread the Word…
Actually Bill Gates fortune only exists because of an extremely deep understanding of computers
That’s a bit of a stretch. Gates himself didn’t do much coding beyond BASIC and early versions of DOS. But I’ll grant you the keen insight (into the marketplace) and aggressive marketing.
Politiclly correct “scientific” theories that are used do indoctrinate students in subjects ranging from economics, science, and environmentalism to politics and history are at least as damaginging as stories regarding historic religious beliefs.
Examples, please?
My kids are currently in the public school system, and I don’t think you know jack about what goes on there.
True, but you can look through a microscope and see them. That is direct observation. You’re looking at the damned thing. Indirect observation is when you’re not seeing something directly (say, dark matter) and instead looking at how it is effecting other objects.
Probably about as many minorities who would side with the right if they would reduce the hating.
It’s been a while since you looked at the curriculum of a public school hasn’t it? Whatever crap science has been pushed into classrooms by the religious-types is more than offset by the crap science and disciplines pushed in by progressives. When I was in high school in TX back in the early 90s we had an entire 6 week period devoted to the science of recycling. Not the science involved in how recycling works by breaking down recyclables or anything related to say chemistry, logistics, economics, or the physics of recyclables. Instead it was the actual “science” of how important it is to recycle. It was like an episode of Captain Planet expanded to two and a half months, being taught to high school sophomores and juniors. I’d be willing to bet that no one who would be identified as an independent or a conservative had anything to do with designing the coursework for the social science classes we had to choose from. About the only sop given to conservatives was the fact we learned about abstinance as a form of birth control along with condoms and pills and such. And this was in Texas. No impartial observer could possibly look at the curriculum of most public schools in America and think that conservatives had anything to do with designing the classwork.
In my opinion this emphasis on learning so many soft sciences, focusing so much on social issues, and other lessons better learned from parents and family, cheapens the education of the children going through school. Add in the recent emphasis on teaching to pass standardized testing and it becomes an unholy combination of focusing on emotions and non-critical thought. I think this has resulted in what you see in studies like this.
I doubt any of the people involved in designing the classwork children receive in school would imagine that it would result in students who are more likely to believe that God, Vishnu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster created Man anywhere between 2000 to 6000 years ago. However I think the counter-intuitive results we see displayed in a survey like this are the inevitable result of what is beigh taught in school. There is so much noise in school right now that the learning signal is simply lost to all but the most dedicated students.
Here is some simple math for you Repack
The AAAS (which is where the the study was taken) had 486 fellows in 2008. Based on their own affiliation list, less than 8% were non-university jobs. Your logic is otherwise specious, as I didn’t say that EVERYONE with tenure was a socialist, just that those with tenure certainly enjoy the socialist lifestyle more than the rest of us.
My data about physicians is certainly not scientific. But seeing as I have been one for more than 20 years, and have worked at major medical centers around the world in that time, my observations are certainly more valid than an itinerant piano mover who used to build BMX bikes.
Conservation and recycling used to be a conservative ideal. But that was before modern day “conservatives” completely sold out.
Now the conservative ideal of conservation and recycling (a central component in the conservation of resources) is completely owned by “liberals”.
The Christian ideal of being Stewards of God’s Gift of Creation is also completely owned by “liberals”.
Examples, please?
At the risk of rising AO from his/her lair, Friedman and the Chicago School.
I doubt any of the people involved in designing the classwork children receive in school would imagine that it would result in students who are more likely to believe that God, Vishnu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster created Man anywhere between 2000 to 6000 years ago.
Not if Rick Perry gets his way.
When did I argue against gravity? I pointed out that the science behind gravity isn’t as settled as earlier commenters implied. The Theory of Gravity is one that is very much in flux and subject to changes as science improves. I don’t see how it’s “anti-gravity” for me to respond to someone saying that “gravity is a settled fact that is just called a theory” by pointing out that much of what we know about gravity doesn’t mesh with what we observe in the universe unless there is some as-of-yet detected force or material involved.
SFC B,
this emphasis on learning so many soft sciences, focusing so much on social issues, and other lessons better learned from parents and family, cheapens the education of the children going through school. Add in the recent emphasis on teaching to pass standardized testing and it becomes an unholy combination of focusing on emotions and non-critical thought.
I agree, but I’m not sure that it is driven by a political agenda. The hard sciences have been, for lack of a better word, “dumbed down” to such a point that you get tripe like you experienced taught as Earth Science. Part of it is the lack of qualified teachers, part of it is an unwillingness on the part of the student (due to lack of expectations?) to do anything “hard.” There is this pervasive idea in this country that science and math are hard, and that most people “can’t do them.”
Which is poppy-cock, at least at the middle and high school level.
FWIW, my oldest is entering 5th grade, and so far we’re fairly pleased that he seems to be getting a basic, fundamental education. The emphasis on testing, sadly, is another matter.
“News” “Reference” You can beat that dead horse until it rises from the dead, or you can face facts: You are up against the “mashed potatoes” fallacy: 95% of criminals ate mashed potatoes as children; 99% of inmates on death row ate mashed potatoes as children. Therefore, mashed potatoes cause crime. Another example: driving on the right prevents most head – on collisions.
Copyright protection and patent protection are not a special provision of US Government, or the Federal Government; they are a common function of all governments. They are a consequence of basic order and civilization, and do not make commerce any more or less prosperous, than seas make whaling prosperous.
So let’s move along here, and come up with something that government actually does that makes business operate more efficiently, that makes products cheaper or more accessible to the needy. Is there anything the government does, that private industry doesn’t do better, including fight wars or deliver the mail?
@SFC:
Indeed, if I recall, gravity is the one misfit that won’t fit into attempts at the theory of everything and spits out answers like ‘infinity’ when physicists try to work it in.
However, at risk of sounding pedantic, that the equations work in nearly all situations seems to imply that ‘very much in flux’ is probably an exaggeration. Just as quantum mechanics refined Einstein, somebody will come along and refine it again.
That’s one of those things I hope I live long enough to see worked out.
Good point, Parthy. Gonna have to think on that a spell.
Classical religious positions have always seemed more liberal to me. I think the woman’s right to choose would still be a sticking point. But even on that I wonder how many church-goers would say ‘it’s between you and God.’
As to Wilbur’s point earlier, avoiding needless ragging on religion of course doesn’t extend to inclusion of intelligent design in science class.
Just strikes me as contrariness for contrariety’s sake. I think we can all safely agree that gravity exists. do we know everything about it? No.
I’m going to take a bold stand and come out against gravity:
I am against gravity.
I work against gravity every day.
There is no gravity, n.r. — the world sucks.
I do, however, support teaching civics and teaching basic government in school.
Talking to people who pontificate about our government who have never read the Constitution is mind-numbing.
Take for example this ignorant statement by right winger “Frank DiSalle”:
“Copyright protection and patent protection are not a special provision of US Government, or the Federal Government; they are a common function of all governments.”
False.
Copyright is a special provision of some governments and specifically a special provision of the US Federal Government.
Would you like me to explain this to you, “Frank”, or would you like to do your own homework and come back to the class and pretend you always knew what you’ll discover if you follow the clues?
Frank, I’ve only gotten through your first two comments on this thread, but I needed to jump down here and tell you that you’re 100%, completely wrong. COMPLETELY wrong.
Frank, you really need to update that Myspace picture of you…oh, wait…nevermind.
Gravity has a liberal bias.
Right winger “Frank DiSalle”: “come up with something that government actually does that makes business operate more efficiently
Republican President Eisenhower’s socialist expansion of America’s National Highway System allows businesses to operate significantly more efficiently.
America’s early investment in building railroads significantly helped businesses operate more efficiently.
Try moving your lumber cross country without a railroad or National Highway.
I love AO’s comment about Bill Gates. It’s fairly common knowledge that the guy who used to rummage thru the dumpster behind his school’s computing science center for code, made frequent use of FUD (Linux), shortcuts (Tim Paterson), manipulative strongarming (MSDOS), patches (anything Windows), and highly marketed crap like Bing (the same old MSN search engine made prettier). The “best and brightest” are often ruthless con-men.
Christopher Langan (”World’s Smartest Man”), claims that ID has merit. There should be a prize for anybody who can condense his CTMU into something more normal folks can understand.
Right winger “Frank DiSalle”: “come up with something that government actually does that” helps businesses make “products cheaper”.
Government investments in technology that have helped businesses is a LONG list but this one is too easy:
Government built dams and government backed nuclear power plants both provide cheap electricity that allows businesses to make “products cheaper”.
Nuclear energy technology was created by the US government as an offshoot of the government run Manhattan Project.
Government scientists have contributed incredible advances in technology that have made both individuals and our nation vast fortunes.
Why do right wingers hate investing in America?
Oliver: “Gravity has a liberal bias.”
Because truth is such a downer?
Right winger “Frank DiSalle”: “So let’s move along here, and come up with something that government actually does that makes business operate more efficiently, that makes products cheaper or more accessible to the needy.
The government created Internet and government funding of public libraries.
The government created Internet helps businesses operate significantly more efficiently which contributes to making products cheaper.
The Internet also makes communications more accessible to the needy.
A homeless person with a free e-mail account can often access that e-mail from any government funded public library in the country.
Government funded libraries often make many otherwise unaffordable services accessible to the needy (daily news papers, expensive books, encyclopedias, reference books…).
I’ve even been to a government paid library that had a special cubicle where they made accessible the daily newspaper’s coupon pages along with a pair of scissors so the “needy” could cut out coupons (offered by private businesses to encourage business).
Private businesses got the commerce they were seeking from those coupons and the “needy” were helped by being able to buy their products more cheaply.
And government helped everyone.
Win. Win.
And win.
There’s no risk of being pendantic. I’m taking it to an extreme to say “very much in flux”. However my point is that a very fundamental force necessary to understand how our universe works is not fully understood, and to make the physics match the observations requires some huge assumptions about the matter that makes up most of the matter in the universe. These assumptions are provable, and lots of people are working on proving them, but if they are unable to do so it might have huge repurcussions for how we understand how we got to where we are. That doesn’t mean the answer is a bearded guy in the sky or a noodley appendage, but it might mean some serious rethinking about how we got to where we are.
How about philosophy class?
Duros, I’m being criticized for being contrary for the sake of it in a thread where NR is active?
SQ, it might have been lazy of me to imply that it is an overt political agenda. I seriously doubt some nefarious cabal of progressives is rubbing their hands in glee as their agenda is forced into the open and sponge-like minds of America’s youth. I think the actual mechanism for the “dumbing down” is far more insidious. Mixing the noble desire to make everyone “better” through a “well-rounded” education and clinging to the need to quantify progress in this goal will create a society of liberal arts majors.
*SHUDDER*
It’s not even that. It’s a lack of quality teachers in fields which need a quality teacher. For example, as much as I love history, it’s not a hard subject to teach. The difference between an “average” history teacher and a “good” one is probably miniscule. However the difference between what a “good” geometry teacher and an “average” one will do is huge. Thanks to a number of anti-market factors the quality of the teacher and the difficulty of the field they teach doesn’t get factored into pay scales. Public schools are incapable of luring the best teachers to them because they can’t pay them enough.
I wonder how much of that isn’t actually the result of how school has changed over the years. I know the school district I went to growing up has eliminated a number of the vocational classes like metal-working and automotive. They were just too expensive to keep. The result is that students who would normally gravitate towards a hand-on education are instead forced into classes that simply don’t interest them and taking the path of least resistance.
I’ve never understood why the right wing isn’t willing to pay more for teachers (and expect more as part of a condition for the higher pay).
Perhaps I’m wrong but I’ve always seen a significant part of both Japan’s and Germany’s success as being directly attributable to the respect and the good pay that those countries provide to their public teachers.
It’s good for the country in myriad ways, but particularly excellent in contributing to economic success, technological superiority, as well as the dual benefits of providing everyone an opportunity and makes sure that the most capable aren’t missed.
Cumulatively that adds to national strength and national pride.
And yet again, those conservative values are completely owned by the left.
I pass. If everything ever done by a government employee constitutes a government contribution to commerce, then there is nothing that evades the long tentacles of the government octopus.
It just so happens that I was reading yet again a brief history of the development of the World Wide Web as opposed to that of the Internet The Invisible Web – Chris Sherman and Gary Price. For your perusal: Check this Internet Timeline and see if you can find where the Government invented the Internet.
Next you’ll tell me that we wouldn’t have been able to communicate effectively without USPS Postage Stamps, or Tang.
The Government funds public libraries ? Since when ? Do you mean the local community ? Well, of course! The books aren’t free. Where I live, the Public Library positions are State Civil Service jobs. Is that what you mean ?
The Library I grew up was a “Carnegie Library“, the building paid for by Andrew Carnegie.
If I remember correctly from Walt Disney’s Our Friend the Atom ( one of the first books it was ever my pleasure and privilege to receive as a Christmas present ) the Manhattan Project was not designed to harness the power of the atom to produce electricity. In fact, the government all but halted work on producing electricity from nuclear power – which has been my point all along. Coupons for the homeless, eh? I’m sure that accounts for a massive infusion of funds to the local economy – 25 cents off your next purchase of Sara Lee bundt cake .
Gov. Pawlenty from MN was able to get the MN teacher’s union to agree to some merit and performance based initiatives. NR, I’m curious how you reconcile the almost universal rejection teachers unions have to merit and performance pay with your belief that it is all because those dastardly right-wingers don’t support more pay for teachers. As near as I can tell teachers only support more pay for teachers if it is more pay for all teachers regardless of what they’re teaching or how well they’re teaching it.
“News” “Reference” … go on arguing and Frank will soon spell your name using only quotes!
That sort of comic relief is the only value of arguing with someone who doesn’t get how infrastructure and regulations benefit business though…
MatanteDodo: It doesn’t take much to observe that governments build roads and bridges. But they build roads and bridges for everyone: the retired, the young, the commuter, and the businessman. It’s not they like build special roads at the behest of XYZ Corp that make it a success.
I do not consider those contributions to business, per se. I consider it simple – minded to treat them as such. We covered this ground already: the police do not “contribute” to the banking industry by catching bank robbers.
But I defy you ( and you, too, “News” “Reference” ) to illustrate to me how regulations “benefit” business.
I think I’ve provided enough free history lessons and supporting links for a while… You and “News” “Reference” have gotten a free ride all day.
freD,
Ruthless probably fits along with huge balls. There is a lot more to Bill’s story then I have mentioned. Short version, the fed didn’t have much to do with it. Computer stuff moves so fast that much is obsolete and gone before the lawyers even begin to get up to speed.
Not only does the government writ large allow for wealth production, it also allows the wealthy to retain their wealth.
Ever seen a cop before? How about the firefighters who try to put out the blaze before it destroys your living room?
It’s moronic to think that long-term wealth creation can occur outside the context of a functioning government and civil society. (Hint: you need other healthy, wealthy to buy your shit to ever make a penny in the first place, and they need roads to drive on to get to your store, and they need stoplights to make sure they don’t crash into each other, etc.).
I’ve been waiting for Frank or AO to move to Mogadishu and open up an ice-cream store and see how much they can make in a year, but I won’t hold my breath.
I was waiting for the least clever comment of them all, but I truly expected it to come from “News” “Reference” not “Jaimie”.
[I]t also allows the wealthy to retain their wealth.
It allows the wealthy to retain their wealth?
Government benefit #1 : It doesn’t steal all your money.
It’s moronic to think that long-term wealth creation can occur outside the context of a functioning government and civil society.
Once again, the argument is being made that we need government and civilization to conduct peaceful commerce. Have you ever seen these words before?
These are axiomatic, and go to the very core of our being as humans – this is not “infrastructure” or a “government benefit”.
So let’s try this again, shall we ?
I am not an anarchist, but I do believe that “That government is best, which governs least” [1837]
Until you can present some evidence to the contrary, I will continue to hold that view, just as I will continue to hold the view that Jaimie, News Reference, and MatanteDodo have the combined perspicacity of a bag of hammers.
Let’s say you have a bunch of money you made from working hard. Of course, a lot of what allowed you to make the money is “invisible” in the sense that we take it for granted — roads, energy, hospitals, etc. These things don’t occur miraculously, they have to be built. And in large part these things are built by the government.
This isn’t to say people who work hard or have good ideas shouldn’t be rich, it’s that the Randian fantasy of the sole capitalist making piles of money all by himself is ridiculous.
Or let’s be more blunt: Let’s say someone shoots you in the head and takes all your money and material possessions. There’s a reason we have cops and soldiers who are payed for by — wait for it — your tax dollars!
It’s really pretty simple. Adults realize that we don’t like to pay taxes, but they’re a necessary evil. The question is, how much should we pay, and what should we spend them on? Under the last Democratic president we had a budget surplus, job growth, and real wages were increasing. Under eight years of Bush, we got two unfinished wars and a huge deficit.
This is why people don’t take the GOP seriously any longer. They’re the party that hates government and lo and behold, it turns out they’re really bad at it!
But like I said Frank, I’d be willing to throw a few dollars your way for a ticket to Somalia. I’d love to see how much you could make there.
‘Evolution does not, nor need it, explain the origin of life, let alone human life.’
Ummm…..what?
The ‘theory’ of evolution states that ALL life forms on Earth evolved from low level (meaning non complex or simple) organisms to higher, (meaning more advanced or complex) organisms.
How could that possibly EXCLUDE human beings?
If Bill Gates is such a computer genius, why is the hotmail.com
e-mail run on servers using Linux, instead of one of the fine Microsoft software products his company sells to the general public?
Usual: My data about physicians is certainly not scientific. But seeing as I have been one for more than 20 years, and have worked at major medical centers around the world in that time, my observations are certainly more valid than an itinerant piano mover who used to build BMX bikes.
My point was that they are people who have taken science courses, like so many others, but they are not engaged in expanding human knowledge. They are not scientists and you have no reason to add them to a study about scientists except to try to muddy the water.
I don’t have to apologize for my profession, which is as necessary to society as yours and which a far lower percentage of the population is capable of. Maybe that’s why it pays so well, but I’m not about money beyond a modest lifestyle. Like one of my HS classmates who does just enough dentistry to pay for his big-wave surfing, I move enough pianos to pay for my bike riding.
This “itinerant” piano mover (inaccurate because I have a home) managed to change the world more than you ever will, and BMX is as alien to me as it is to you. I don’t know what you want out of life, but I am a bicyclist, and being one of the most influential cyclists of the 20th Century feels pretty good.
What’s your claim to fame?
Again, I will have to differ with “one of the most influential cyclists of our time”. More than 95% of physicians have written unique, peer-reviewed articles…ergo even by your definition, scientists.
Of course you have conveniently avoided all the rest of my points about socialism, and unsurprisingly, turned your answer into an “I love Repack Rider!” post.
Shakespeare wrote something about “I think thou doest protest too much….”
But I am just a simple country doctor…My greatest joy is being the most influential person in returning my modest group of patients to good health, which as it turns out feels pretty good too, and I plan to continue doing for another 20 years or so, not as a “one-hit-wonder”.
LOL,
Repacks viewpoint regarding lifetime accomplishments etc. is certainly a valid expession of a positive outlook. And Usual Suspect has a depth of experience that adds substantial weight to his observations. A pissing contest comparing penis size does little to further intelligent discourse on the near future of a capital intensive technology driven body of knowledge that all of us will rely on more and more as we age.
Social and political agendas complicate rather than simplify the balanced viewpoint neccessary to successfully solve any problem. There ain’t no free lunch and nobody said life was fair is as good a summation as any.
Pithy sentiments aside, I certainly can understand Repacks retorts after having his livlihood modestly denigrated in a discussion of healthcare. But on the other hand Dude, you leave youself open to it.
Your genius is the niche not the skillset, as I’ve said before. Lots of guys can accomplish your job, few guys can market and exploit your niche.
California has an unique spot in our culture regarding things with wheels. Detroit invented the industry s but California invented the culture of the modern car. Things with wheels fascinate a large segment of California men from skateboards to speed record holders. But mountan bikes evolved from little boys beating the hell out of their scwinn stingrays emulating first Evil Knieval and then motocross racers. While Repack was saving lives in Nam we were breaking our bikes jumping them out in the woods. Kids had ready access to welders etc. back in those days and it wasn’t much of a reach from crude repair to crude modification.
Again it appears that Repack successfully exploited a niche for a short time before being swept up in a technological wave. A good idea doesn’t care who has it.
All of which has little to do with healthcare other than supplying a modest stream of injuries to be treated.
So the “usual ‘Republican’ suspect” doesn’t use factual data, doesn’t cite statistics, doesn’t apparently understand data OR statistics, and claims to be a Doctor.
Doctor Republican doesn’t use factual data or statistics and doesn’t understand either factual data or statistics.
Well, that certainly fits with my observations of Republicans anti-scientific beliefs.
Hey, “usual suspect”, being a callous ass might not interfere with your ability to perform your function, but do your patients understand that you don’t use factual data or have a clue about what statistics mean?
Duros, I’m being criticized for being contrary for the sake of it in a thread where NR is active?
Dude, NR is always active, you know that.
I do not consider those contributions to business, per se. I consider it simple – minded to treat them as such.
You asked for examples of how government contributes to business. Examples have been provided. The fact that those examples also benefit society as a whole doesn’t diminish their benefits to business in general. Now you’re just splitting hairs and moving goalposts, Frank.
But I defy you ( and you, too, “News” “Reference” ) to illustrate to me how regulations “benefit” business.
First it was Government. Now its “regulations.” Which is it, Frank?
Could have been worse. He could have turned his answer into a “come here and say it to Repack Rider’s face.” post.
Duros, one of my posts disappeared (or I didn’t “submit” it properly). This is a stupid argument. I am being interpreted as saying no government at all is required .
Ridiculous .
I am trying to distinguish between “government” : the system or form by which a community or other political unit is governed
and “the” government : the executive and legislative and judicial branches of the federal government of the United States
I am done.
xMore than 95% of physicians have written unique, peer-reviewed articles…ergo even by your definition, scientists.
um, source please? I find this hard to believe.
Don’t think there is any paper written about THAT SQ. However, almost all of my colleagues wrote papers during their residency at least.
I’m sorry, but regardless, I would say the vast majority of the population would regard us as scientists.
Usualsuspect: I wouldn’t. And the majority of the population really knows jack shit about science really entails, anyway.
A research doc is a scientist, having both an MD and a PhD.
Most doctors only have MD’s.
Really usual? Single author papers, or as a co-author on a paper written by the attending.
Just asking.