ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th November 2017, 11:23 AM   #121
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,379
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Those issues are only politically controversial, not scientifically so and hence represent a rejection of reality.
So the real issue is what do we base our policies on: pure application of science or should our desires, morals and values have some place?

Looking only at reality, we can observe several sides of an issue. There is no doubt, as a simple example, that tobacco is a poison which causes high morbidity and mortality and costs our health system a lot of money. That is scientifically uncontroversial. A political acceptance of this reality would indicate that tobacco should be completely banned. But no one, not even the most rational person on earth, seriously wants a or would politically pursue) complete ban of tobacco. We take into account another aspect of reality: human behavior and our notions of freedom. Sometimes being free means being free to do something completely irrational.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 11:26 AM   #122
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,939
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
To say that rejection of reality is a one-sided problem is itself a rejection of reality. It goes beyond controversial issues like evolution, sex ed, climate change, etc. Most of the issues we are talking about here have more to do with preserving the freedom to think and believe as one wants to rather than embracing a universal objective view of reality
Which is why when the republican party puts a flat earther in charge of NASA you will support it. You can't have them solely run people round earthers, all opinions on this are valid and there is certainly no more truth to one than the other. That is conservative dogma now I guess. A rejection of the very idea that there is an objective reality.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 11:31 AM   #123
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,939
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
So the real issue is what do we base our policies on: pure application of science or should our desires, morals and values have some place?
Here is the thing, science doesn't and can't tell you want to do, it only tells you what works. So it demonstrably proves that the claims that absence only education is effective at reducing STI transmission or unintended pregnancies is simply wrong. So you can no longer honestly claim that as your position, rather you need to move your position to that those who fall pregnant or get an STI are sinful and deserve to be punished for their moral failings.

So science shows trickle down economics does not raise up everyone rather in concentrates wealth in the hands of the few and increases economic inequality. It doesn't say one wit on if this is a good thing or a bad thing. If you think wealth concentration is a good thing then there is no reason not to endorse the methods that will attain it.

It just forces you to be honest with others and maybe even yourself as to what the real outcomes of your policy decisions will be, not the outcomes you wish would be.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 11:32 AM   #124
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,771
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Sometimes being free means being free to do something completely irrational.
If the GOP admits that their objections to evolution, the age of the earth/universe, objections to sex education, and the various other positions I have listed are completely irrational but are based instead on values and how the GOP wants things to be, rather than the way things actually are, then we'll have a starting point.

If they said "On one hand we have reality, and on the other hand we have our conservative world-view", there might be a degree of rationality in there.

The catch is, the GOP does not actually do that.

Last edited by crescent; 14th November 2017 at 12:43 PM.
crescent is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 12:03 PM   #125
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,788
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Here you go.



That article is about the 2012 Texas Republican platform. Here is the actual 2016 one which contains the same wording as well as a great deal of other crazy.
Thanks, that's closer to what Ahhell asked for, though it's a state GOP platform.

On the other hand, the person to which Ahhell replied used the phrase "GOP policy" rather than "GOP platform".

Far as I'm concerned, the teaching of creation science or intelligent design is not a GOP policy (nationwide) far as I can tell, not even if one adds in school vouchers. It's clear that many members are favorable to such a policy, but it can't be implemented legally in any case and merely supporting vouchers for religious education is not the same thing as advocating its introduction into public education.

That said, it is of course clear which party is more sympathetic to its inclusion in the public schools.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 12:30 PM   #126
mgidm86
Illuminator
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,798
Too much of the Republican platform is based on the supposed ideas of Christianity. Abortion, LGBT, science...for me that is the biggest reason I can never be a Republican.

If they put the religious right on the back-burner and ignored them it would affect their platform across the board. Any support they lose from the evangelicals would be replaced by new people from the middle, maybe more.

Repubs need to catch up to the nineteenth century on this stuff. As if these right wing Christian politicians all live like Jesus. What a crock. Drop the charade.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 01:10 PM   #127
ahhell
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 615
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
If they put the religious right on the back-burner and ignored them it would affect their platform across the board. Any support they lose from the evangelicals would be replaced by new people from the middle, maybe more.
I believe the party screwed themselves by catering to the fundies and they don't think they can win without them. That is probably true. The fundies won't go to Dems but who's actually going to switch from Dems to the GOP even if the GOP manages to kick the fundies out?

Southern strategy was good for the GOP short term but it has seriously screwed them in the long term. They've alienated minorities and are saddled with loons.

Last edited by ahhell; 14th November 2017 at 01:13 PM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 01:36 PM   #128
aussiedwarf
New Blood
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 22
Conservatives do tend to react to different ets of emotions more strongly than other groups. Two emotions that research has found conservatives to react more strongly to are fear[1] and disgust [2]. This means they can end up rejecting homosexuality or gender fluidity out of disgust. Fear means they reject new experiences and reject perceived threats. This is not to say that liberals dont do the same but that on average conservatives are more susceptible.

Another point is that Conservatives and liberals have different moral foundations. According to moral foundation theory there are 5 or 6 base moral ideas [3][4]. Liberals focus on harm/care as well as fairness/proportionality. Conservatives are more even and focus on an additional 3, loyalty, authority/respect and sanctity/purity. A possible 6th foundation is freedom.

So while conservatives may want things to be fair, they also tend to want people to be loyal to their group, whether that is their religion, family, community or their country. For authority they expect people to obey the president, their pastor or even the police. Sanctity/purity seems to tie into disgust as they reject non conforming ideas of sexuality, want no sex before marriage.

When it comes down to conservative ideology, they emphasise tradition, religion, social hierarchy and authority. These are not values of truth but of protecting social groups from change. Climate change, same sex marriage, atheism, threaten these groups with change and go against their moral foundations and hence are rejected.

[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ical-attitudes
[2] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...e-conservative
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
[4] http://geraldguild.com/blog/2010/09/...omment-page-1/
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
aussiedwarf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 01:40 PM   #129
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 13,702
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Thanks, that's closer to what Ahhell asked for, though it's a state GOP platform.

On the other hand, the person to which Ahhell replied used the phrase "GOP policy" rather than "GOP platform".

Far as I'm concerned, the teaching of creation science or intelligent design is not a GOP policy (nationwide) far as I can tell, not even if one adds in school vouchers. It's clear that many members are favorable to such a policy, but it can't be implemented legally in any case and merely supporting vouchers for religious education is not the same thing as advocating its introduction into public education.

That said, it is of course clear which party is more sympathetic to its inclusion in the public schools.
I browsed the 2016 GOP national platform briefly this morning and while I didn't find anything as explicitly creationist, it was very liberally (ha! Joke!) sprinkled with God and explicitly promoted "abstinence only" sex education, which has been proven not to work. I should look up environmental stuff in there one of these days.

As for the original question in the thread title, "Why?", two major reasons: Religion and Money. And they've managed to con the religious into climate change denial, which is based solely on preserving corporate profits.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 04:00 PM   #130
Lurch
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 185
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
To say that rejection of reality is a one-sided problem is itself a rejection of reality. It goes beyond controversial issues like evolution, sex ed, climate change, etc. Most of the issues we are talking about here have more to do with preserving the freedom to think and believe as one wants to rather than embracing a universal objective view of reality. And let's face it, there really is no such thing as a universal objective view of reality; we all filter things through our cognitive biases, education, experience, etc.

The "freedom to think and *believe* as one *wants* to rather than embracing a universal *objective* view of reality" is the very definition of rejecting reality! And in policy matters of large scale import as regards the functioning of society, Republicans far more so than Democrats evince this mode of thought.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 07:54 PM   #131
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,379
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
The "freedom to think and *believe* as one *wants* to rather than embracing a universal *objective* view of reality" is the very definition of rejecting reality!
Every human being rejects reality to on extent or another. Itís one of our flaws. I challenge you to elucidate clearly the Universal Objective View of Reality.

Hereís just one aspect where we are all denying reality.

Reality: Human activity is causing climate change that could have catastrophic effects for life as we know it at some point in the not too distant future.

Also Reality: Despite all the rhetoric, not enough humans are actually reducing the activities that lead to the problem -not nearly enough to stop climate change anyway. Way too little; too late.

This is Real Too: No matter what we do, we continue to expand in population so if the climate change doesnít get us, the effects of too many damn people will. Itís possible that overpopulation and climate change go hand in hand.

Reality Ultimate Level: Every human alive right now is going to die at some point within the next 100 years or so.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 08:09 PM   #132
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,771
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Every human being rejects reality to on extent or another. It’s one of our flaws. I challenge you to elucidate clearly the Universal Objective View of Reality.
I don't think the examples you are using for rejecting reality match the sort of rejections that the American conservatives and Republican Party make:

Quote:

Here’s just one aspect where we are all denying reality.

Reality: Human activity is causing climate change that could have catastrophic effects for life as we know it at some point in the not too distant future.

Also Reality: Despite all the rhetoric, not enough humans are actually reducing the activities that lead to the problem -not nearly enough to stop climate change anyway. Way too little; too late.
Your "Also Reality" example does not match what the Republicans do and say.
In response to:
"Human activity is causing climate change that could have catastrophic effects for life as we know it at some point in the not too distant future."

They say:
"No. Human activity is not causing the climate to change. Any changes are natural, and will not lead to catastrophic effects of any sort"

That argument is substantially different than the argument you are making. Your argument is rational and has some validity to it. Theirs is completely and demonstrably false.

Can you understand that?
crescent is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 11:44 PM   #133
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,258
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Go ahead and explain how tax money is going to reduce CO emissions. I also find it fascinating that liberal skeptics are so taken by the global warming hoax. Itís nothing but guessing, itís been shown and proven their models are way off. As far as evolution, that is more guessing. Having just about zero transitional fossils when there should be billions is quite telling.
What is a "transitional fossil"? A fossil bird with teeth? Languages evolve, but what is a "transitional language"? Middle English?
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 01:43 AM   #134
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,953
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
So the real issue is what do we base our policies on: pure application of science or should our desires, morals and values have some place?

Looking only at reality, we can observe several sides of an issue. There is no doubt, as a simple example, that tobacco is a poison which causes high morbidity and mortality and costs our health system a lot of money. That is scientifically uncontroversial. A political acceptance of this reality would indicate that tobacco should be completely banned. But no one, not even the most rational person on earth, seriously wants a or would politically pursue) complete ban of tobacco. We take into account another aspect of reality: human behavior and our notions of freedom. Sometimes being free means being free to do something completely irrational.
As has been pointed out by ponderingturtle, science doesn't tell you what to do but it can inform your choice if you choose to. If the GOP really did say "Yes, the science says this - but we're doing that" then that at least would be honest, but what they're doing is denying the science.

It's as if, in your example, the GOP position on tobacco wasn't "It's really harmful to your health but because *freedom* (and to keep our corporate donors happy) we won't ban it" but instead "There's no evidence that tobacco has any negative health effects".

The good news is that they haven't yet done that w.r.t. tobacco.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 02:20 AM   #135
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,258
Originally Posted by The Don View Post

It's as if, in your example, the GOP position on tobacco wasn't "It's really harmful to your health but because *freedom* (and to keep our corporate donors happy) we won't ban it" but instead "There's no evidence that tobacco has any negative health effects".
Guns are designed to kill or incapacitate other people. Tobacco is dangerous to those who consume it, voluntarily or not, but is not designed to kill people.

That is the difference. Here in Scotland the law bans smoking in enclosed public places, to protect people who frequent them, but doesn't prosecute people for consuming it elsewhere. Handguns are banned altogether.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 02:47 AM   #136
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,953
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Guns are designed to kill or incapacitate other people. Tobacco is dangerous to those who consume it, voluntarily or not, but is not designed to kill people.

That is the difference. Here in Scotland the law bans smoking in enclosed public places, to protect people who frequent them, but doesn't prosecute people for consuming it elsewhere. Handguns are banned altogether.
And ? So what ? When were guns ever mentioned in this thread ?

The discussion is about the GOP's apparent rejection of science. A decision to allow smoking despite the scientific evidence of harm based on arguments relating to personal freedom is an entirely different kettle of fish than what the GOP seem to be doing with respect to things such as global warming, creationism and birth control, to claim that the scientific evidence is wrong.

Again, with respect to smoking it would be to reverse anti-smoking legislation and/or taxes by refuting all the evidence that shows that smoking is injurious to health.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 02:51 AM   #137
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,213
Republicans have to reject science, fact and evidence. Their ideology cannot survive without that rejection.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 03:39 AM   #138
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,788
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
I browsed the 2016 GOP national platform briefly this morning and while I didn't find anything as explicitly creationist, it was very liberally (ha! Joke!) sprinkled with God and explicitly promoted "abstinence only" sex education, which has been proven not to work. I should look up environmental stuff in there one of these days.
Thanks. Not surprised by the things you found, of course. Abstinence only sex ed is disturbing, obviously, but not a shock.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 03:45 AM   #139
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,788
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
The "freedom to think and *believe* as one *wants* to rather than embracing a universal *objective* view of reality" is the very definition of rejecting reality! And in policy matters of large scale import as regards the functioning of society, Republicans far more so than Democrats evince this mode of thought.
The freedom to think and believe as one wants to is essential to liberals as well. I think that your premise here is nonsense.

Surely, it is essential that we don't get to tell others what to think, not even if what we tell them what to think is a "universal objective view of reality" (the meaning of those words is unclear to me, but let's press on). The issue in this thread is not whether we ought to suppress wrong-ass beliefs, but which group tends to embrace wrong-ass beliefs.

(NOTE: I'm not keen on claiming that one group or the other is worse in this regard, because stereotypes rarely advance the conversation, but I'll accept that the Republicans have lately been the anti-science party.)
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 04:13 AM   #140
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,939
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Every human being rejects reality to on extent or another. Itís one of our flaws. I challenge you to elucidate clearly the Universal Objective View of Reality.

Hereís just one aspect where we are all denying reality.

Reality: Human activity is causing climate change that could have catastrophic effects for life as we know it at some point in the not too distant future.

Also Reality: Despite all the rhetoric, not enough humans are actually reducing the activities that lead to the problem -not nearly enough to stop climate change anyway. Way too little; too late.

This is Real Too: No matter what we do, we continue to expand in population so if the climate change doesnít get us, the effects of too many damn people will. Itís possible that overpopulation and climate change go hand in hand.

Reality Ultimate Level: Every human alive right now is going to die at some point within the next 100 years or so.
How does any of that justify banning scientists from talking about climate change and claiming it is a chinese conspiracy? What should be done is a political question that science can not say. If it is happening is a scientific question about reality. The republican answer is to deny reality not say "well it is too late to do anything, time to start planning your post apocalyptic battle car now"
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 05:01 AM   #141
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,258
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
So the real issue is what do we base our policies on: pure application of science or should our desires, morals and values have some place?
Desires, morals and values have no place in deciding the truth of evolution, or of anthropogenic global warming. If you stop desiring global warming, that doesn't make it stop happening ...
Quote:
Sometimes being free means being free to do something completely irrational.
With your own life, yes. With the lives of others, no. And freedom to behave irrationally doesn't make irrational beliefs about the physical world true.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 06:17 AM   #142
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,287
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Really? I donít remember any of that.
Then you haven't paid attention to your "side".

Quote:
The definition of marriage is man and women.
Definitions can change over time. Also, that is irrelevant to my post, as usual.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 06:20 AM   #143
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,287
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Danger of marijuana? How about just a wasted life?
How about some evidence?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 08:28 AM   #144
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,673
Originally Posted by Civet View Post
I actually thought that ad was a parody of liberals made by conservatives when I first saw it (didn't have any context at the time). I'll readily admit that no one side has a monopoly on manipulating people using fear and hate. I happen to think that Republicans are doing a better job of it right now because of how well they performed last November. No way to predict how that will play out going forward.
Fear promotes conservative thinking, so fear based campaigns are almost always the province of the more conservative candidate.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 08:29 AM   #145
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,673
Liberals have greater emotional intelligence along with more activity and gray matter in parts of the brain associated (left posterior insula) with emotional intelligence. (More accurately, people with those traits tend towards liberalism. ) This allows them to better identify emotions in others and empathise with them, it also allows them to better identify and deal with their own emotions.

Conservatives have more gray matter and brain activity in the right Amygdala which is typically associated with negative emotions, particularly fear. Again it’s almost certainly the fear causing the conservatism, not the conservatism causing the increased brain activity as fear causes people to take more conservative stances. While fear can cause people to take a more conservative outlook a sense of personal empowerment can cause people to take a more liberal outlook.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0052970

None of this explains the tendency for conservatives to reject reality based arguments that has grown up in the US for the last 25 years or so. What seems top have happened is that conservative marketers have stumbled onto a formula for controlling their base. They come up with a policy that is good for the ruling elite, but maybe not so good for anyone else and leverage the tendencies of conservatives to make that happen. They get fed a false reality who’s logical conclusion is the desired policy, and wrap it in a sense of fear and dis-empowerment to make the conservative base follow along.

The catch 22 is that while these policies are doomed to fail, the failure itself creates more of the same conditions that causes people to lean more conservative in the first place. Eg fear is a natural response to Trump and many of the policies trap and disempower people so even recognising what a bad president he is simply re-enforces the tendency to act/vote in a conservative manor. The conservative base is literally trapped in an abusive relationship where the more they are kicked and abused the stronger their support for the people abusing them. The tendency to reject reality is just them dealing (badly) with the cognitive dissonance of supporting polices aimed at promoting the interests of their abusers over themselves.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 08:34 AM   #146
MuDPhuD
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by MuDPhuD View Post
Here is an interesting related NYT article on the interaction of politics with social and scientific issues.

"When political elites disagree, their views tend to be adopted first by higher-educated partisans on both sides, who become more divided as they acquire more information."

Seems like because one political party affirms the scientific position, the other political party MUST disagree. Politics (and people) ain't rational.
forgot the link:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ype=collection

Some interesting data there.
MuDPhuD is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 08:55 AM   #147
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,673
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
I see anti-nuclear power policy as another popular liberal position that is often based on unscientific reasoning. That said, both nuclear and GMO at least have clear potential to be bad if implemented in ways that can cause problems, even if those problems can be avoided through careful and correct implementation.

This is fundamentally different than trying to deny that climate change is happening, or suggesting that climate change is not caused primarily by humans, or denying that evolution happens, or young-earth creationism, or insisting that Low-Drama-Obama was born in Kenya.
Liberals have a wide variety of views on Nuclear Power and GMO ranging from vigorous support to vigorous opposition, so they not a particularly good examples. Even just looking at the opposition, there is often nuanced reasoning behind it.


Anyone can be misinformed on a specific topic; the issue is that conservatives are showing an increasing tendency to be systematically misinformed on a wide variety of topics ranging from scientific to economic to social to historical.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 09:04 AM   #148
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,379
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Desires, morals and values have no place in deciding the truth of evolution, or of anthropogenic global warming. If you stop desiring global warming, that doesn't make it stop happening
That's not what I'm saying. You (as in most people in our society) desire to have transportation, for example. We want to drive to work or the store (even when it's around the block!) or fly to a meeting/vacation. That transportation, for the most part, burns fossil fuels and the vehicles are constructed out of natural resources that also burn fossil fuels and fossil fuels are burned during their manufacture. Planes, trains and automobiles are a huge source of CO2 emissions. That is reality. If we accept the reality of global warming, then how can any of us use these forms of transportation? We are either 1)Justifying it somehow or 2)Denying the problem. We do that because we desire and value convenient transportation.

Quote:
... With your own life, yes. With the lives of others, no. And freedom to behave irrationally doesn't make irrational beliefs about the physical world true.
Seems to me that you are rejecting a bit of reality there yourself. A smoker heavily impacts the lives of others. Start with their families and the health problems their children will develop and the likelihood of the children smoking later in life. Think of the economic impact of productivity lost to heart disease, lung cancer, etc. But most of all, consider the impacts in a system where healthcare is "universal." In Medicare, for example, billions are spent keeping current/former smokers alive. That's reality too. We could just accept reality and let them die and save all that money, couldn't we? They made the choice to take up a habit (rejecting reality in the process) that would likely cause illness and death so why does my tax money have to go towards their care? Because we value their lives and desire to extend them as long as we can; we consider it immoral to let someone die when we can stop it. So we justify this blatant rejection of reality.

When people say conservatives reject reality, that is undeniably true. That just makes them human like everyone else -their view of reality is skewed by desires, values and morals.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 09:05 AM   #149
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,673
Originally Posted by MuDPhuD View Post
Here is an interesting related NYT article on the interaction of politics with social and scientific issues.

"When political elites disagree, their views tend to be adopted first by higher-educated partisans on both sides, who become more divided as they acquire more information."

Seems like because one political party affirms the scientific position, the other political party MUST disagree. Politics (and people) ain't rational.
I'd argue that the exact opposite is happening. That is, because conservatives are becoming systematically unscientific liberals don't need to go beyond supportable science to oppose them. As a general rule I expect:

- Liberals to err on the side of accepting new ideas to readily and accept things not supportable or not yet supportable by the science.

- Conservatives tend to err on the side of rejecting new ideas even after the science firmly supports it.

The trend for conservatives to reject science and fact based reasoning altogether appears to be a more recent phenomenon which is why I think it's got other causes.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 09:17 AM   #150
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,379
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Liberals have a wide variety of views on Nuclear Power and GMO ranging from vigorous support to vigorous opposition, so they not a particularly good examples. Even just looking at the opposition, there is often nuanced reasoning behind it.
Conservatives have a wide variety of views on evolution and climate change. There is just as much nuance in many of those viewpoints as any liberal view.

It's funny how in this forum, all conservatives are painted with the same drab gray while liberals are given a spectrum of colors. Talk about rejecting reality!
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 09:35 AM   #151
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,634
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Conservatives have a wide variety of views on evolution and climate change. There is just as much nuance in many of those viewpoints as any liberal view.

It's funny how in this forum, all conservatives are painted with the same drab gray while liberals are given a spectrum of colors. Talk about rejecting reality!
Which of those nuances led to the summary cancellation of every EPA grant that included the phrase "climate change" in its text?

Talk about rejecting reality.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 09:37 AM   #152
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,728
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Conservatives have a wide variety of views on evolution and climate change. There is just as much nuance in many of those viewpoints as any liberal view.

It's funny how in this forum, all conservatives are painted with the same drab gray while liberals are given a spectrum of colors. Talk about rejecting reality!
Except as has been pointed out, those conservatives who deny global warming are in the mainstream. Those conservatives who deny evolution are influential, even if not mainstream. Those conservatives who deny the evidence of Russian attempted interference in the election are in the mainstream.

Those on the left who deny reality tend to not be on the mainstream, and tend to not be liberals.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 09:41 AM   #153
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,560
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Conservatives have a wide variety of views on evolution and climate change. There is just as much nuance in many of those viewpoints as any liberal view.

It's funny how in this forum, all conservatives are painted with the same drab gray while liberals are given a spectrum of colors. Talk about rejecting reality!
Rolleyes, indeed...

Which is why I propose sticking to elected officials, and their policies and records. How many elected conservative politicians are against teaching creationism in schools, or in favour of environmental regulations?

From the official GOP site: "We will enforce the original intent of the Clean Water Act, not itís distortion by EPA regulations. We will likewise forbid the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide."
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 09:57 AM   #154
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,673
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
The freedom to think and believe as one wants to is essential to liberals as well. I think that your premise here is nonsense.
The conflict seems to center around rules that limit what you can do to force others to act/think/behave a certain way. Conservatives want to dictate how others behave and feel rules preventing them from doing so are unfair. Liberals are generally trying to maximize everyoneís ability to act/think/behave which in some cases means limiting one personís ability to impact someone else. This probably comes back to liberalís greater abilities to empathise and view the situation from everyoneís point of view not just their own.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 10:04 AM   #155
ahhell
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 615
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Except as has been pointed out, those conservatives who deny global warming are in the mainstream. Those conservatives who deny evolution are influential, even if not mainstream. Those conservatives who deny the evidence of Russian attempted interference in the election are in the mainstream.

Those on the left who deny reality tend to not be on the mainstream, and tend to not be liberals.
As someone that leans conservative to libertarian, I think this is the problem in a nutshell.
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
The conflict seems to center around rules that limit what you can do to force others to act/think/behave a certain way. Conservatives want to dictate how others behave and feel rules preventing them from doing so are unfair. Liberals are generally trying to maximize everyone’s ability to act/think/behave which in some cases means limiting one person’s ability to impact someone else. This probably comes back to liberal’s greater abilities to empathise and view the situation from everyone’s point of view not just their own.
That on the other hand is clearly self serving nonsense that boils down to, liberals good, conservatives bad.

Take a look at the forgive trump voters thread for to see liberals greater empathy on display. As a rule, liberals want(in the US sense) want to tell folks what to do in the market and conservatives want to tell people what to do in the bedroom.

Last edited by ahhell; 15th November 2017 at 10:06 AM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 10:08 AM   #156
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,673
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
That's not what I'm saying. You (as in most people in our society) desire to have transportation, for example. We want to drive to work or the store (even when it's around the block!) or fly to a meeting/vacation. That transportation, for the most part, burns fossil fuels and the vehicles are constructed out of natural resources that also burn fossil fuels and fossil fuels are burned during their manufacture. Planes, trains and automobiles are a huge source of CO2 emissions. That is reality. If we accept the reality of global warming, then how can any of us use these forms of transportation?
1) Completely and immediately abandoning energy sources that create CO2 emissions isnít required nor is it being advocated.

2) Itís a reality that we live and need to function within in a society with fundamental systems built around fossil fuels. The answer is to change the way these systems work, simply abandoning fossil fuels without doing so isnít possible or practice. This is why the process or replacing/changing these systems needs to start as soon as possible


These are the reality based outlook on the issue. "I don't want to change the way things are done so global warming can't be happening" is not a reality based approach to the problem.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 10:14 AM   #157
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,673
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Conservatives have a wide variety of views on evolution and climate change. There is just as much nuance in many of those viewpoints as any liberal view.

It's funny how in this forum, all conservatives are painted with the same drab gray while liberals are given a spectrum of colors. Talk about rejecting reality!
Fail.

Democrats can get though the primary process regardless their views on Nuclear Power or GMO and in fact they can gain support from other Democrats for either stance.

Republicans cannot get though the primary process if they accept global warming, evolution, mainstream economics, etc.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 10:34 AM   #158
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,673
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
As someone that leans conservative to libertarian, I think this is the problem in a nutshell.That on the other hand is clearly self serving nonsense that boils down to, liberals good, conservatives bad.
There is no value judgment inherent. If you find the characterization of conservatives in conflict with your own values I suggest you reconsider your own political stance because it consistent with the evidence, on multiple fronts. We see numerous cases where social conservatives are mainly interested in their own ability to restrict the behavior of others than to maximize the freedoms of everyone. Similarly, current mainstream research into free market economics is largely focus on market efficiency and how to optimise it. Mainstream conservatives view this as ďsocialismĒ because maximizing market efficiency typically involves regulating certain behaviors within the market. Again instead of maximizing everyoneís ability to act freely with a marketplace, conservatives only see ďtheirĒ ability to act being restricted.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 11:03 AM   #159
Grey2000
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 32
Aromatherapy, Homeopathy, "Identifying", Transcendental Meditation, Hypnotism, Seances, Acupuncture, Reflexology.

I'd say that there's a fair few liberals who reject reality too.
Grey2000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 11:08 AM   #160
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,728
Originally Posted by Grey2000 View Post
Aromatherapy, Homeopathy, "Identifying", Transcendental Meditation, Hypnotism, Seances, Acupuncture, Reflexology.

I'd say that there's a fair few liberals who reject reality too.
And I don't see anyone denying that there are. What I do see is people pointing out that this doesn't impact on the policies of mainstream liberal parties.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:16 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.