International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Hey Forum Republicans: Why does your party hate science? (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=345418)

Trebuchet 12th July 2020 05:14 PM

Hey Forum Republicans: Why does your party hate science?
 
Is it money? Religion? Dogma? Or does it just make sense to you to:
a) Deny AGW, counter to 97% of actual climate scientists.
b) Deny Evolution, counter to billions of years of the fossil record.
c) Claim Covid-19 will just go away in April, masks don't work, etc.
d) Guns don't kill people....

Etc, etc, etc.

I'd really like to know. But I now know better than to ask my fellow libs to refrain.

Cavemonster 12th July 2020 05:21 PM

Personal hot take-

Any large enough group hates science when it's not telling them what they want to hear or what can stop them from getting what they want.

Republicans hate the science that shows global warming because the obvious way to deal with it involves things they don't like. (Not consuming what you damned well please, regulating industries.

A lot of democrats hate the science that shows GMOs and Nuclear power are safte because they want to believe in a certain view of "natural".

When science reveals new things over the decades, both parties (and any new ones) will pick up new parts of science that they'll call a conspiracy.

Skeptic Ginger 12th July 2020 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavemonster (Post 13154978)
Personal hot take-

Any large enough group hates science when it's not telling them what they want to hear or what can stop them from getting what they want.

Republicans hate the science that shows global warming because the obvious way to deal with it involves things they don't like. (Not consuming what you damned well please, regulating industries.

A lot of democrats hate the science that shows GMOs and Nuclear power are safte because they want to believe in a certain view of "natural".

When science reveals new things over the decades, both parties (and any new ones) will pick up new parts of science that they'll call a conspiracy.

This false equivalence is always dragged out.

Your post ignores addressing the problem with the near uniform GOP denial of science from the top down.

Trebuchet 12th July 2020 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavemonster (Post 13154978)
Personal hot take-

Any large enough group hates science when it's not telling them what they want to hear or what can stop them from getting what they want.

Republicans hate the science that shows global warming because the obvious way to deal with it involves things they don't like. (Not consuming what you damned well please, regulating industries.

A lot of democrats hate the science that shows GMOs and Nuclear power are safte because they want to believe in a certain view of "natural".

When science reveals new things over the decades, both parties (and any new ones) will pick up new parts of science that they'll call a conspiracy.

An excellent and valid point. You can add antivax, although that seems an equal opportunity lunacy. It is not, however a quasi-official policy of the Democratic Party, unlike AGW denial and Creationism for the R's.

Venom 12th July 2020 06:07 PM

Didn't you apologize for starting a similar thread earlier?

Anyway, I do agree that most of the antiscience and conspiracist crap from the left is mostly kept out of the mainstream, whereas from the right you hear it in the Senate and political rallies.

Venom 12th July 2020 06:09 PM

I also don't think "guns don't kill people" is a scientific argument, but a logical one.

sir drinks-a-lot 12th July 2020 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 13154970)
Is it money? Religion? Dogma? Or does it just make sense to you to:
a) Deny AGW, counter to 97% of actual climate scientists.
b) Deny Evolution, counter to billions of years of the fossil record.
c) Claim Covid-19 will just go away in April, masks don't work, etc.
d) Guns don't kill people....


Etc, etc, etc.

I'd really like to know. But I now know better than to ask my fellow libs to refrain.

Certainly not all Republicans believe most of that, and some Democrats believe some of that.

Democrats have their own anti-scientific beliefs:

a) Anti vax
b) no biological difference between the sexes
c) chemtrails
d) socialism
e) Claim covid-19 will kill many millions in the US

Etc, etc, etc.

Roger Ramjets 12th July 2020 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavemonster (Post 13154978)
A lot of democrats hate the science that shows GMOs and Nuclear power are safe because...

...it's a lie? Science can tell us that a specific GMO or nuclear power plant is safe, but it can't tell us that any use of genetic engineering or nuclear power will be safe.

Some people think that when the potential hazards of a new technology are unknown the only safe thing to do is oppose them. Normally I wouldn't go that far, but when the alternative being pushed is "the science says it's safe, end of story" maybe that is the best thing to do.

Nuclear power is safe? Only because a lot of effort is put into making it so - and even then accidents happen. Chernobyl wasn't safe. Fukushima wasn't safe. Many other incidents have occurred. Numerous plants were never completed because they couldn't meet the safety standards.

The truth is, science says that nuclear power is very dangerous. But scientists are not in control of nuclear power plants, capitalists are. Science also says that GMO has virtually unlimited possibilities for unforeseen consequences. But again, scientists don't have a say in what GMOs are produced, private corporations do.

Democrats don't hate science, they hate the opportunistic use of science by greedy capitalists who don't give a whit about safety unless it hurts their bottom line, and are willing to risk everything else (including our lives) for profit.

In fact, democrats hate 'science' for the exact opposite reason that republicans do. Republicans hate science when it stops them doing whatever they like without consequence. Democrats hate it when republicans use science to do whatever they like without consequence.

Venom 12th July 2020 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavemonster (Post 13154978)
Personal hot take-

Any large enough group hates science when it's not telling them what they want to hear or what can stop them from getting what they want.

Republicans hate the science that shows global warming because the obvious way to deal with it involves things they don't like. (Not consuming what you damned well please, regulating industries.

A lot of democrats hate the science that shows GMOs and Nuclear power are safte because they want to believe in a certain view of "natural".

When science reveals new things over the decades, both parties (and any new ones) will pick up new parts of science that they'll call a conspiracy.

People on both sides will lower their standards of evidence (assuming there was such) in order to push baseless conspiracy theories to damage the reputation of their political opponents.

blutoski 12th July 2020 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 13154970)
Is it money? Religion? Dogma? Or does it just make sense to you to:
a) Deny AGW, counter to 97% of actual climate scientists.
b) Deny Evolution, counter to billions of years of the fossil record.
c) Claim Covid-19 will just go away in April, masks don't work, etc.
d) Guns don't kill people....

Etc, etc, etc.

I'd really like to know. But I now know better than to ask my fellow libs to refrain.

My understanding from polls, is that Americans who self identify in surveys as Republican are just as likely to support science in principle as Democrats and unaffiliated do.

The problem is that identifying 'science' is a trust issue, and people simply trust different sources of 'science' facts.

This was actually a Skeptical topic close to my heart, because one of the reasons I disengaged from organized Skepticism was that at least in my local community, they argued very strongly that AGW denial was "the real" climate science. Windmills cause cancer is the "real" science of renewables. &c. This was the "pro science" message they wanted to take to the public under the Skepticism banner.

Your typical antivaxxer has a science degree. Ranked as to most common, I'd speculate: computer science, engineering, nursing, physics, biology. Basically, people who know enough to think they're on top of it by reading tweets about the topic. Maybe an abstract here and there came up in their Google search. "There (dusts hands), I've done scientific research now, as opposed to those oooother (rolls eyes) people who just take somebody's word for it."

Roger Ramjets 12th July 2020 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot (Post 13155012)
Certainly not all Republicans believe most of that, and some Democrats believe some of that.

Democrats have their own anti-scientific beliefs:

a) Anti vax

Slight problem there...

How the anti-vaccine movement crept into the GOP mainstream
Quote:

The anti-vaccine movement, which swelled with discredited theories that blamed vaccines for autism and other ills, has morphed and grown into a libertarian political rebellion that is drawing in state Republican officials who distrust government medical mandates.

Roger Ramjets 12th July 2020 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blutoski (Post 13155018)
Your typical antivaxxer has a science degree. Ranked as to most common, I'd speculate: computer science, engineering, nursing, physics, biology. Basically, people who know enough to think they're on top of it by reading tweets about the topic. Maybe an abstract here and there came up in their Google search. "There (dusts hands), I've done scientific research now, as opposed to those oooother (rolls eyes) people who just take somebody's word for it."

That's a valid criticism when the people whose word we are expected to take is trustworthy. But we are now entering a phase where that trust is about to be tested. If a Covid-19 vaccine is developed and Trump puts political pressure on the CDC to fast-track it without the usual trials, how willing will you be to take it?

Is anyone who doesn't have a science degree in microbiology unqualified to research the issue? Should they just shut up and get jabbed? The truth is, your 'typical' antivaxxer's problem isn't science, it's trust.

Stacyhs 12th July 2020 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot (Post 13155012)
Certainly not all Republicans believe most of that, and some Democrats believe some of that.

Democrats have their own anti-scientific beliefs:

a) Anti vax
b) no biological difference between the sexes
c) chemtrails
d) socialism
e) Claim covid-19 will kill many millions in the US

Etc, etc, etc.

What a load of hot steaming cow poop.

a) For Republicans, it's not so much that they don't see vaccines as a good thing, but that they don't like the government telling them that they have to vaccinate their children. Basically, it's the same argument they have against the government telling them they have to do anything. Unless, of course, it means telling them they can't get an abortion or can't serve in the military, etc.

b) I have never in my six decades had a Democrat express the opinion that men and women are not biologically different.

c) And conservatives are more likely to believe in Bigfoot and the Illuminati according this survey.

d) socialism is not a science so whether you believe or not in it has nothing to do with being scientific.

e) And Republicans are far more likely to 1) downplay Covid 19 as not worse than the flu, 2)claim it's a 'hoax', 3) refuse to wear masks, 4) not social distance, 5) believe it was deliberately manufactured by the Chinese government, 6) believe Trump's claims than the CDC or medical experts.

etc. etc. etc.

ETA: research has shown that Republicans are more likely to believe in CTs than Democrats.

Quote:

As the researchers say, their results are consistent with the theory "that conspiracy endorsement, and science denial more generally, is a more attractive worldview-bolstering strategy for conservatives than liberals, especially for high-knowledge and low-trust conservatives." That lines up with several other recent lines of research.

thaiboxerken 12th July 2020 08:08 PM

Nuclear power is not inherently safe, it's dangerous. Engineering standards and practices can make nuclear power very safe, but those standards, practices and regulations must be upheld. There's also the issue of the waste, there still isn't a good way to dispose of the waste that doesn't harm the environment.

Essentially, democrats as a whole aren't anti-science. They believe the science and facts, they question how it's used. This is totally unlike the right wing, who deny reality and fact.

The Great Zaganza 12th July 2020 08:08 PM

If you have autocratic tendencies, anything that can provide or remove support for specific policies that isn't under your control is problematic.
The reason why autocrats prefer God as their source of authority is because you can say whatever you want without the chance of being falsified.

Stacyhs 12th July 2020 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13155080)
If you have autocratic tendencies, anything that can provide or remove support for specific policies that isn't under your control is problematic.
The reason why autocrats prefer God as their source of authority is because you can say whatever you want without the chance of being falsified.

Populists like Trump and Bolsonaro (Brazil) demonize the 'elite' and that includes scientists.

The Great Zaganza 12th July 2020 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13155082)
Populists like Trump and Bolsonaro (Brazil) demonize the 'elite' and that includes scientists.

and the Media - anything that has authority that isn't their own.

Skeptic Ginger 12th July 2020 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Venom (Post 13155017)
People on both sides will lower their standards of evidence (assuming there was such) in order to push baseless conspiracy theories to damage the reputation of their political opponents.

Aaaannnd, once again, the OP question is sidetracked with claims of false equivalence.

Even if they were equivalent this still sidesteps the OP question.

Why is that? :rolleyes:

Venom 12th July 2020 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13155112)
Aaaannnd, once again, the OP question is sidetracked with claims of false equivalence.

Even if they were equivalent this still sidesteps the OP question.

Why is that? :rolleyes:

I guess my comment was a bit off track. I was mostly talking about Democrats in general instead of the ones in office. The OP says "your party" which is somewhat open to interpretation.

Skeptic Ginger 12th July 2020 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Venom (Post 13155125)
I guess my comment was a bit off track. I was mostly talking about Democrats in general instead of the ones in office. The OP says "your party" which is somewhat open to interpretation.

So you missed this part" "Hey Forum Republicans:" :confused:

Venom 13th July 2020 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13155155)
So you missed this part" "Hey Forum Republicans:" :confused:

And? :confused:

Ziggurat 13th July 2020 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 13154970)
Is it money? Religion? Dogma? Or does it just make sense to you to:
a) Deny AGW, counter to 97% of actual climate scientists.
b) Deny Evolution, counter to billions of years of the fossil record.
c) Claim Covid-19 will just go away in April, masks don't work, etc.
d) Guns don't kill people....

Etc, etc, etc.

I'd really like to know. But I now know better than to ask my fellow libs to refrain.

I'd really like to know why you thought framing your question like this would ever lead to a productive conversation.

Or maybe you didn't. Maybe that was never the point. Maybe this is just another in the endless stream of 2 minute hate threads.

timhau 13th July 2020 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13155186)
I'd really like to know why you thought framing your question like this would ever lead to a productive conversation.

Or maybe you didn't. Maybe that was never the point. Maybe this is just another in the endless stream of 2 minute hate threads.

But now that the question has been asked, aren't you the slightest bit troubled by e.g. evolution denial by high-profile Republicans?

The Don 13th July 2020 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timhau (Post 13155188)
But now that the question has been asked, aren't you the slightest bit troubled by e.g. evolution denial by high-profile Republicans?

Evolution denial isn't GOP national policy and so any such claims can be simply disregarded as being made marginal kooks who don't properly represent the party in that regard (regardless of how senior they are in the party at a national or state level and regardless of GOP representatives at a state level to push creationism, intelligent design or "teaching the controversy").

If not that then it's an individual's personal religious views and hence none of our business thanks to the first amendment.

The next step would be to identify Democrats with similarly kooky views (though they tend not to be so influential) and suggest that there's no difference.

Ziggurat 13th July 2020 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timhau (Post 13155188)
But now that the question has been asked, aren't you the slightest bit troubled by e.g. evolution denial by high-profile Republicans?

I'm troubled by lots of things. But this thread isn't an attempt at an honest conversation about any of them, so what's the point? Even your question still isn't actually an honest attempt, though it's not as blatant as the OP.

Seriously, think about it for a moment. If I am troubled by evolution denial, what then? Is the point just to get me to feel bad? To publicly denounce Republicans? To what end? And if I'm not troubled by evolution denial, again, what then? Is the goal to change my mind? To expose me for denying evolution?

There is no scenario in which any of this is of any use.

Carrot Flower King 13th July 2020 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blutoski (Post 13155018)

Your typical antivaxxer has a science degree. Ranked as to most common, I'd speculate: computer science, engineering, nursing, physics, biology. Basically, people who know enough to think they're on top of it by reading tweets about the topic. Maybe an abstract here and there came up in their Google search. "There (dusts hands), I've done scientific research now, as opposed to those oooother (rolls eyes) people who just take somebody's word for it."

Got a source for that one?

Cavemonster 13th July 2020 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13154988)
This false equivalence is always dragged out.

Your post ignores addressing the problem with the near uniform GOP denial of science from the top down.

I don't mean it to be an equivalence. You're absolutely correct that science denial is embraced by the GOP to the top, and it's not so ubiquitous within the democratic party.

I feel though that that's explainable by my core point.

Two of the highest level commitments of the Republican party are.

1) Court the voter of angry evangelicals
2) Allow large businesses to do anything they want to do.

Accepting science is going to get in the way of these goals in a huge way.

Giordano 13th July 2020 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot (Post 13155012)
Certainly not all Republicans believe most of that, and some Democrats believe some of that.

Democrats have their own anti-scientific beliefs:

a) Anti vax
b) no biological difference between the sexes
c) chemtrails
d) socialism
e) Claim covid-19 will kill many millions in the US

Etc, etc, etc.

Actually anti-vax doesn’t map to Democrats. Opposite your claim almost three times as many Republicans say they will refuse an anti-COVID-19 vaccine vs. Democrats, but that is only 20% of all Republicans and likely relates to the politicalization of this issue by Trump and his lackeys.

https://www.newsweek.com/republicans...e-poll-1502176

However similar numbers do apply to vaccinations as a whole, with Republicans again being more against than Democrats.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/276929/...important.aspx

Of course the concern that COVID-19 can potentially kill millions in the USA is quite scientific and thanks to Trump remains possible. Denial of it is anti-scientific.

Making claims by making blithe statements without looking at the facts is the ultimate in unscientific thinking.


I haven’t bothered to address your other claims because I don’t believe you even meant to take them seriously.

xjx388 13th July 2020 07:19 AM

To answer the question, much of the GOP is very religious, very conspiracy minded or some combo platter of the two.

I find myself at odds with people I otherwise agree with over a few issues. Covid-19 is the biggest one right now, of course. Climate Change is another. Evolution, more accurately: teaching creationism or downplaying evolution, is one that I see a lot as well but it doesn't bother me as much because it doesn't get much mainstream traction. Guns are not a "science" issue.

I've gotten blocked on Facebook because I don't agree with the GOP stance on Covid. I make a habit of correcting when people share stupid stuff like "They are supressing Hydroxychloroquine to make Trump look bad!" or any of Trump's inanities on the subject. I'm not rude about it, I just point to the science. Their response, before the block me, is that I'm a secret Democrat and want to destroy Donald Trump and the Republican Party. They have one part of that right -I do want to destroy what Donald Trump represents in the Republican Party. But I want to do it by exposing the lies and pointing to the facts. Very few people are open to such.

Mind you, I wouldn't say I'm a Republican because I don't agree with a lot of their platform. But of the two parties, it probably represents me the best.

crescent 13th July 2020 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blutoski (Post 13155018)
Your typical antivaxxer has a science degree. Ranked as to most common, I'd speculate: computer science, engineering, nursing, physics, biology. Basically, people who know enough to think they're on top of it by reading tweets about the topic. Maybe an abstract here and there came up in their Google search. "There (dusts hands), I've done scientific research now, as opposed to those oooother (rolls eyes) people who just take somebody's word for it."

I know a handful of anti-vaxxers pretty well. One is a professional photographer. The others all have sciency type degrees, mostly in botany. The photographer's father was an actual WWII Nazi who never repented, for whatever that is worth (Due to that upbringing, I don't think she's ever trusted any sort of mainstream information source. She's a very new-age hippy type person. Very nice in person, actually.).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets (Post 13155021)

Again, for the anti-vaxxers I know, those who still talk about it, the Dems are out and they really like Trump.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13155061)
What a load of hot steaming cow poop.

a) For Republicans, it's not so much that they don't see vaccines as a good thing, but that they don't like the government telling them that they have to vaccinate their children. Basically, it's the same argument they have against the government telling them they have to do anything. Unless, of course, it means telling them they can't get an abortion or can't serve in the military, etc.

(snip)

ETA: research has shown that Republicans are more likely to believe in CTs than Democrats.

This holds true for those anti-vaccine people I know as well. Now that the state-level GOP has more or less abandoned opposition to legal weed and (mostly) threw in the towel on same-sex marriage, the anti-vaxxers I know are no longer bothered by the Republican Party. They don't want the government regulating what things get injected into their kids, which makes them lean more and more libertarian.

And, they lurv them some chemtrails conspiracies, and go on and on about Bill Gates putting microchips into the Covid vaccine.

They shift more and more into Libertarian or Republican advocacy.

lomiller 13th July 2020 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 13154970)
Is it money? Religion? Dogma? Or does it just make sense to you to:
a) Deny AGW, counter to 97% of actual climate scientists.
b) Deny Evolution, counter to billions of years of the fossil record.
c) Claim Covid-19 will just go away in April, masks don't work, etc.
d) Guns don't kill people....

Etc, etc, etc.

I'd really like to know. But I now know better than to ask my fellow libs to refrain.

I was moderately right leaning up until the early 2000’s when the growing silliness, misinformation and rejection of fact turned me away from right leaning political parties. Here is how I see it.

One factor is that a lot of the pseudoscience shows got their start on right wing “alternative” radio back in the 80’s and 90’s and have grown along with the rise and consolidation of the far right media.

Another goes back to the early 90’s when Republicans started to adopt the political strategy of “Repetition is reality” IOW as a political tactic they adopted the approach that something doesn’t need to be real, it just needs to be repeated a lot for people to believe it’s real.

Originally, I think the working assumption was that this was just an election strategy and that once elected politicians would base polices on reality, or at least their interpretation of it. We are now in the second and third generation of politicians who formed their opinions by listening to the echo chamber. To these new politicians the “facts” they learned that way are real and they seek to use them to set real policies instead of just using them for politics.

When this happens they bump into experts who tell them the “facts” they are trying to rely on are false. To resolve the cognitive difference they seek out “experts” who will tell them what they want to hear, and this causes them to reject actual experts in favor of the purveyors of pseudoscience.

Delvo 13th July 2020 07:41 AM

Not only are there more subjects on which Republicans are more likely to be anti-science than the other way around, and higher percentages of Republicans buying the Republican ones than Democrats buying the Democrat ones (sometimes even majorities, as with evolution/creation)...

...but also, the Republican side is the only one that often makes its arguments on those subjects explicitly based on being anti-science, outright saying that science itself, overall, can not be trusted or is even out to get you, so the main reason to reject any particular bit of science is because it's science. I've never encountered a single case of that kind of argument coming from a non-Republican, non-conservative source.

Leftus 13th July 2020 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 13154970)
c) Claim Covid-19 will just go away in April, masks don't work, etc.

No longer with the GOP, but I will address the issue about masks. Simply put, the CDC and WHO organizations both, early in the pandemic, both advised against masks.

Were they basing their recommendations on "the science" or was it an attempt to get the masks that do work into the hands of front lines?

Did the science change, or was it a lie to prevent people from stockpiling effective masks like toilet paper? I'm pretty sure it was the latter. Masks are bad, don't wear them. Wait, now not only are the good, but you have to wear them, or go to jail. Jail is bad, so we have to release everyone so they don't get Covid, unless you are anti-mask, then we will lock your ass up. Mixed messages to say the least.

lomiller 13th July 2020 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 13154990)
An excellent and valid point. You can add antivax, although that seems an equal opportunity lunacy. It is not, however a quasi-official policy of the Democratic Party, unlike AGW denial and Creationism for the R's.

These days anti-vax is more prevalent on the political right than the political left. This is particularly true when it comes to the political power centers in the Democratic and Republican parties. With Trump having pushed anti-vax in the passed I think it may even be fair to call a quasi-official policy of the Republican party. (Whereas Creationism and global warming denial are outright official Republican policies)

Donal 13th July 2020 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavemonster (Post 13154978)
Personal hot take-

Any large enough group hates science when it's not telling them what they want to hear or what can stop them from getting what they want.

Yes, but in this case, one of those groups runs the country.

Quote:

Republicans hate the science that shows global warming because the obvious way to deal with it involves things they don't like. (Not consuming what you damned well please, regulating industries.

A lot of democrats hate the science that shows GMOs and Nuclear power are safte because they want to believe in a certain view of "natural".
Ya, neither of those, nor anti-vaxx, is exclusive to the left. The weakling has even himself pushed anti-vaxx conspriacies. And, again, fringe conspiracies by some leftists are not the same as anti-science planks of the official GOP platform.

Quote:

When science reveals new things over the decades, both parties (and any new ones) will pick up new parts of science that they'll call a conspiracy.
Stop with the false equivalence.

Donal 13th July 2020 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 13155456)
No longer with the GOP, but I will address the issue about masks. Simply put, the CDC and WHO organizations both, early in the pandemic, both advised against masks.

Were they basing their recommendations on "the science" or was it an attempt to get the masks that do work into the hands of front lines?

Did the science change, or was it a lie to prevent people from stockpiling effective masks like toilet paper? I'm pretty sure it was the latter. Masks are bad, don't wear them. Wait, now not only are the good, but you have to wear them, or go to jail. Jail is bad, so we have to release everyone so they don't get Covid, unless you are anti-mask, then we will lock your ass up. Mixed messages to say the least.

It wasn't a lie, but the CDC was trying to prevent a run on masks. At the time of the initial statement, we hadn't experienced community spread. Health officials made the recommendation against masks based o the assumption that local, state, and federal officials would address the situation appropriately. Their fault for forgetting we put idiots In charge.

The Don 13th July 2020 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 13155456)
No longer with the GOP, but I will address the issue about masks. Simply put, the CDC and WHO organizations both, early in the pandemic, both advised against masks.

Were they basing their recommendations on "the science" or was it an attempt to get the masks that do work into the hands of front lines?

Did the science change, or was it a lie to prevent people from stockpiling effective masks like toilet paper? I'm pretty sure it was the latter. Masks are bad, don't wear them. Wait, now not only are the good, but you have to wear them, or go to jail. Jail is bad, so we have to release everyone so they don't get Covid, unless you are anti-mask, then we will lock your ass up. Mixed messages to say the least.

AIUI, the science relating to mask use has always been unambiguous, used properly an appropriate mask provides significant protection against Covid-19 infection which is why medical personnel have always worn them.

The problem is that members of the public seem unable to use masks properly, they don't replace them often enough, they contaminate them by touching them and as a result, masks give a false sense of security which in turn means that they don't follow social distancing instructions properly. It's been a matter of balancing the benefits of their use against the risks of their misuse.

The public don't like nuanced messages, they're confusing so it's been very difficult to develop an accurate binary message.

pgwenthold 13th July 2020 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 13155456)
Were they basing their recommendations on "the science" or was it an attempt to get the masks that do work into the hands of front lines?

Fauci has been asked about this. His answer is forceful and straightforward: They wanted the masks in the hands of the front lines and didn't want the public hoarding them. Which, of course, they would do.

lomiller 13th July 2020 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot (Post 13155012)
Democrats have their own anti-scientific beliefs:

a) Anti vax

At this point anti-vax is firmly right wing, not left wing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot (Post 13155012)
b) no biological difference between the sexes

Not actually a thing, but there are a number of pseudoscientific “Democrats believe X” beliefs held by the Right.
Quote:

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot (Post 13155012)
c) chemtrails

To my knowledge there isn’t any political bias to this one, but it is a product of right wing radio
Quote:

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot (Post 13155012)
d) socialism

See above. The notion that “Democrats support socialism” is largely pseudoscience in it’s own right. It’s actually Republican that are prone to Heterodox economics, “audit the Fed” ,“Return to a gold standard”, the “Laffer curve”, Austrian Economics or “Market failures are not a real thing”

Quote:

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot (Post 13155012)
e) Claim covid-19 will kill many millions in the US

Etc, etc, etc.

The actual claim was that unchecked covid-19 would kill millions, and contrary to right-wing belief this is well supported by the science.

Leftus 13th July 2020 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donal (Post 13155502)
It wasn't a lie, but the CDC was trying to prevent a run on masks.

If it wasn't the truth, and they knew it wasn't the truth, that makes it what?

Since the goal wasn't to flatten the curve, or slow the infection, but control availability. In what way is that being honest about the science?

Quote:

At the time of the initial statement, we hadn't experienced community spread. Health officials made the recommendation against masks based o the assumption that local, state, and federal officials would address the situation appropriately. Their fault for forgetting we put idiots In charge.
Address it how? By wearing masks, something they were trying to avoid recommending? I thought it was a run on masks, but now it's the fact that "others" will address it correctly? Based on their no-mask recommendations? Or were they telling the leaders one thing in private and then lying to the general public?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.