Support NeoGAF

[ToxicAdam]

link to article?

Link

 

[Learn2read]

Talking points don't really help your case. I mean, again, what's the point here? This seems like the purpose of posting was to stroke a subset of people's egos and slam a political philosophy you dislike. There were much more neutral ways to present the information rather than giving educated liberals a virtual cookie for actually accepting the science on nuclear power when the premise is that conservatives don't generally accept science. It seems like the point is not merely to denigrate one and uplift the other, it's that liberals when they choose to accept science that conservatives accept are better people because they accept the same scientific reality that conservatives already accept.

Again, I see no way to read that than that the intent was to stoke partisan reactions.

The point is that it's futile to argue with someone when they don't accept basic reality. I know your hung up on the nuclear thing, but the point is that liberals can be educated on the facts and they are willing to change their opinion based on these facts. How can you argue with conservatives when the more you state facts that contradict their gut, the more they trust their gut.

 

[zomaha]

The point is that it's futile to argue with someone when they don't accept basic reality. I know your hung up on the nuclear thing, but the point is that liberals can be educated on the facts and they are willing to change their opinion based on these facts. How can you argue with conservatives when the more you state facts that contradict their gut, the more they trust their gut.

Maybe because you looked up those facts in a book. Next time, look them up in your gut.

 

[ToxicAdam]

The point is that it's futile to argue with someone when they don't accept basic reality. I know your hung up on the nuclear thing, but the point is that liberals can be educated on the facts and they are willing to change their opinion based on these facts. How can you argue with conservatives when the more you state facts that contradict their gut, the more they trust their gut.

This is not true. I've had many discussions with liberals that are convinced that the country is getting more violent, 'more racist', more impoverished, etc etc. They are just as likely to believe that the time they are living in is the 'worst ever' despite many metrics that prove otherwise.

 

[nib95]

So guns aren't a problem because knives exist?

I don't buy this logic.

Also, don't bring Hitler into this. He was religious, much of his appeal was religious, his followers were religious.

I think a lot of atheists like to believe his intensions were religiously motivated. But they weren't. Again, quite the opposite. He used every propaganda and misinformation tool at his disposal to push his agenda, religion being just another (very small) part of that.

Personally, based on life's experiences etc. I think any group that vehemently supports one thing or another and loses compassion in the middle is equally drawn to ignorance, fear, hatred etc. Same with the extreme religious, and the same with militant atheists. Problem for example, in places like the US, is that there is a rapid growth and disparity in both sides. And that irrational fear, hate and discourse is widening. Both sides feeling under attack.

It's interesting, because here in the UK I'd say we were quite a Liberal country, where most are actually non religious. But many people (non religious) also talk of the dangers of the rise of militant atheism, being a danger to society and divides as extreme religion itself. I'd have to agree in certain respects, at least with respect to society at a local level, marginalisation etc.

 

[Count Dookkake]

I think a lot of atheists like to believe his intensions were religiously motivated. But they weren't. Again, quite the opposite. He used every propaganda and misinformation tool at his disposal to push his agenda, religion being just another (very small) part of that.

Personally, based on life's experiences etc. I think any group that vehemently supports one thing or another and loses compassion in the middle is equally drawn to ignorance, fear, hatred etc. Same with the extreme religious, and the same with militant atheists. Problem for example, in places like the US, is that there is a rapid growth and disparity in both sides. And that irrational fear, hate and discourse is widening. Both sides feeling under attack.

It's interesting, because here in the UK I'd say we were quite a Liberal country, where most are actually non religious. But many people (non religious) also talk of the dangers of the rise of militant atheism, being just as much of a danger to society and divides as extreme religion itself. I'd have to agree.

Hey, drop the Hitler stuff. It is irrelevant and you are wrong.

Your dodge is noted.

 

[beelzebozo]

godwin's law in full effect.

 

[RustyNails]

I like how people immediately protest at the slightest mention of Hitler now.

 

[Count Dookkake]

I like how people immediately protest at the slightest mention of Hitler now.

That's not what happened.

 

[nib95]

Hey, drop the Hitler stuff. It is irrelevant and you are wrong.

Your dodge is noted.

No, they very much are not. You push your (ignorant) viewpoint because you are vehemently anti religion. But Hitler's religious devotion is something that is contested. Did he use it now and again to push an agenda? Sure. But privately he was very critical of Christianity and preferred to pursue his anti-religious theories on non-equality and superior race.

 

[zomaha]

No, they very much are not. You push your (ignorant) viewpoint because you are vehemently anti religion. But Hitler's religious devotion is something that is contested. Did he use it now and again to push an agenda? Sure. But privately he was very critical of Christianity and preferred to pursue his anti-religious theories on non-equality and superior race.

 

[Quazar]

Am I the only one who thinks Mooney's books suck? He even attacked Dawkins/Harris etc. on hurting science in Unscientific America.

 

[Count Dookkake]

No, they very much are not. You push your (ignorant) viewpoint because you are vehemently anti religion. But Hitler's religious devotion is something that is contested. Did he use it now and again to push an agenda? Sure. But privately he was very critical of Christianity and preferred to pursue his anti-religious theories on non-equality and superior race.

It's funny how you ignore two elements of my initial rebuttal to your drivel.


And then lie about (or display deep misunderstanding of) the third.

 

[Gaborn]

This is not true. I've had many discussions with liberals that are convinced that the country is getting more violent, 'more racist', more impoverished, etc etc. They are just as likely to believe that the time they are living in is the 'worst ever' despite many metrics that prove otherwise.

That's true, and another good example. If you ask the average person whether violence against police officers is more or less common you'd likely be told it was much more common. In reality police officers are being attacked significantly less by every measure and the decline has been happening for decades. That's not a liberal or a conservative issue, nor is it meant to suggest it is or should be. But a lot of people believe narratives whether they're true or not.

 

[Learn2read]

That's true, and another good example. If you ask the average person whether violence against police officers is more or less common you'd likely be told it was much more common. In reality police officers are being attacked significantly less by every measure and the decline has been happening for decades. That's not a liberal or a conservative issue, nor is it meant to suggest it is or should be. But a lot of people believe narratives whether they're true or not.

It's more an issue of media sensationalism and saturation.

Now, which group responds by wanting to crack down and "get tough on crime"?

 

[nib95]

If I was a leader who was pushing a very much anti-religious general agenda of divide and rule, and a large portion of my followers were religious, I'd pander to them too. Throughout Hitler's life he was quite sceptical or religion, especially organised religion, and only even went along with certain aspects of it skeptically or begrudgingly. It is not at all surprising he might use it in small context to appeal to his religious followers whilst at the same time privately criticising it.

It's funny how you ignore two elements of my initial rebuttal to your drivel.

And then lie about (or display deep misunderstanding of) the third.

You honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about. You're like so many others. Quick to assign religion as the key catalyst for this problem or that, not thinking rationally or researching the more prominent reasons at the foundation. Just do a little reading dude. Even Wiki it for heavens sake.

EDIT: Here you go. Made it easier for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_views

Next you'll tell me Anders Breivik was religiously motivated. And not motivated by racism, Islamaphobia, ultranationalism, hatred etc.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Hitler is pretty irreverent. He is well studied but he is just one man and we can't really claim to understand his inner life perfectly. Even if we did are we then saying that every liberal voter in America is exactly the same as Hitler?

 

[Count Dookkake]

If I was a leader who was pushing a very much anti-religious general agenda of divide and rule, and a large portion of my followers were religious, I'd pander to them too. Throughout Hitler's life he was quite sceptical or religion, especially organised religion, and only even went along with certain aspects of it skeptically or begrudgingly. It is not at all surprising he might use it in small context to appeal to his religious followers whilst at the same time privately criticising it.

So basically, you are now confirming my initial claim that you were attempting to rebut.

Thanks!

 

[areal]

There's no science here. I'm not even sure that a sociological approach to this question makes much sense given there are so many confounding factors. There have been a few neurological studies but there's little evidence to support the claims in this article.

 

[scar tissue]

godwin's law in full effect.

Yeah, normally I'm not a big fan of godwin's law because I'd like to think we're mature enough to discuss hitler, but some of the stuff ITT is just silly. Hitler was not an atheist (nor a vegetarian, for that matter). And if he was, it still wouldn't matter.

 

[Count Dookkake]

You honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about. You're like so many others. Quick to assign religion as the key catalyst for this problem or that, not thinking rationally or researching the more prominent reasons at the foundation. Just do a little reading dude. Even Wiki it for heavens sake.

EDIT: Here you go. Made it easier for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_views

Your claims about me are unsupportable.

And your wikipedia link is irrelevant.


You are free to abandon this tangent and get back on topic.

 

[iapetus]

Except you look at a issue like nuclear power and what happens? Well, educated liberals are praised for their open mindedness, but left unsaid is that Republicans support nuclear power as well and to a greater degree than liberals. It seems like the way the article is framed is designed to provoke ideological reactions, either ego stroking from liberals or anger from conservatives.

You're missing the point, which is either a sign that you still haven't read the OP properly or a sign that you suffer from the problems they're describing.

This is nothing to do with open-mindedness. There's no implication that Republicans don't support nuclear power - quite the opposite. It's portrayed as an issue where there's a Republican/Liberal split with the Republicans tending to be in favour and Liberals against, with the distinction being that the more educated the Liberal, the more likely they are to realise that their instinctive position based on ideological boundaries is wrong when presented with the facts.

 

[iapetus]

Yeah, normally I'm not a big fan of godwin's law because I'd like to think we're mature enough to discuss hitler.

Unfortunately, the evidence normally tends to prove you wrong.

(It's not a question of discussing Hitler. It's a question of bringing Hitler into discussions that are not about Hitler.)

 

[Count Dookkake]

Unfortunately, the evidence normally tends to prove you wrong.

(It's not a question of discussing Hitler. It's a question of bringing Hitler into discussions that are not about Hitler.)

It's a great tactic to end a discussion.

 

[Quazar]

There's no science here. I'm not even sure that a sociological approach to this question makes much sense given there are so many confounding factors. There have been a few neurological studies but there's little evidence to support the claims in this article.

That's Mooney for you. I read article than realized this shit was probably written by him and sure enough it is. He loves to claim the likes of Dawkins and co. for the non-peace of science and religion. lol

 

[Gaborn]

You're missing the point, which is either a sign that you still haven't read the OP properly or a sign that you suffer from the problems they're describing.

This is nothing to do with open-mindedness. There's no implication that Republicans don't support nuclear power - quite the opposite. It's portrayed as an issue where there's a Republican/Liberal split with the Republicans tending to be in favour and Liberals against, with the distinction being that the more educated the Liberal, the more likely they are to realise that their instinctive position based on ideological boundaries is wrong when presented with the facts.

Sure. But how are they characterizing the liberals that support nuclear power? To say it has nothing to do with open-mindedness is to ignore the quote. Let's say I support X, because X has been supported scientifically to my satisfaction. Then Mr. W comes along and says publicly he ALSO supports X even though he belongs to an organization that does not, on the whole support X. Should Mr. W be praised as open-minded then merely for bowing to the facts while it is merely accepted that I should? That is not an even handed treatment of science. There are either sound scientific reasons to support something or there are not, but the way they framed that was very odd.

Also, I know they characterized that as "instinctive positions" but there are none. There is only support or opposition to science.

 

[poppabk]

I think that there is probably an interesting book to be written about this but what's in the OP seems more propaganda than science. I mean you couldn't come up with a better label than 'smart idiots'?

 

[Flatline]

There's no science here. I'm not even sure that a sociological approach to this question makes much sense given there are so many confounding factors. There have been a few neurological studies but there's little evidence to support the claims in this article.

Just because he doesn't cite his sources in the article doesn't mean there's no science here or that the actual book doesn't expand on his thesis.

 

[iapetus]

Sure. But how are they characterizing the liberals that support nuclear power?

They're not. They're characterizing the liberals who change their views of nuclear power based on the evidence, despite it contradicting their knee-jerk opinions. They're contrasting that to Republicans who don't change their views from their knee-jerk positions when the facts contradict them.

I'm not making any judgement on whether this research is valid (my knee-jerk reaction is that it isn't) - just pointing out that you don't seem to understand the claims it's making.

Let's say I support X, because X has been supported scientifically to my satisfaction. Then Mr. W comes along and says publicly he ALSO supports X even though he belongs to an organization that does not, on the whole support X. Should Mr. W be praised as open-minded then merely for bowing to the facts while it is merely accepted that I should? That is not an even handed treatment of science.

Which is why he's contrasting two situations. You've described half of it. He's also, however, looking at support for Y. Mr W supports Y, because Y has been supported scientifically to the same extent as X. But you, belonging to an organisation that hates Y, refuse to accept Y and oppose it despite the evidence. Mr W is being given credit for supporting X (which he is not ideologically predisposed to) and Y (which he is) as opposed to your behaviour of supporting X (which meets your ideological biases) but not Y (because it doesn't).

Edit for clarity: So he's not comparing your position on X to Mr W's position on X. He's comparing your position on Y to Mr W's position on X.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I'm sure Chris's stuff is all well-sourced. He's an active blogger, so he's been collecting information for years now. All you have to do is compile the information you want, frame it in the way you want, and viola, you have a book for the digital-age.

 

[Quazar]

I think that there is probably an interesting book to be written about this but what's in the OP seems more propaganda than science. I mean you couldn't come up with a better label than 'smart idiots'?

Rationally uninformed? I've only read Unscientific America by Mooney, but to me the book was more rambling than anything. Turns into everyone come together for the sake of science(Shut up Dawkins), people in science are socially awkward and cant lobby for themselves, most of the smart people now go into business because of shit pay from sciences. So his grand idea for the science illiteracy in America is to get these business people to speak for them(scientists) and create policies that favor science. lol

He blames the rise of Dawkins and 'new' atheists or some shit for the further divide in public opinion on science. After Sagan passed everything has gotten more divided because it made way for the new atheists.

Been awhile since I've read it, but the book read of someone just doing a research paper in undergrad.

He's also written a book called Republicans war on science, so yea.

 

[Opiate]

I'm sure Chris's stuff is all well-sourced. He's an active blogger, so he's been collecting information for years now. All you have to do is compile the information you want, frame it in the way you want, and viola, you have a book for the digital-age.

I agree. So much information exists in the world that you can cherry pick and frame virtually any conclusion. This seems like a particularly likely example, given that only two topics total were researched; climate change and nuclear power. If he had included even a couple more data points, I would have found this far more convincing; furthermore, he would have been far more convincing if his tone were not so deliberately antagonistic.

 

[iapetus]

I agree. So much information exists in the world that you can cherry pick and frame virtually any conclusion. This seems like a particularly likely example, given that only two topics total were researched; climate change and nuclear power. If he had included even a couple more data points, I would have found this far more convincing; furthermore, he would have been far more convincing if his tone were not so deliberately antagonistic.

He can only lose out with this book, anyway. If he's right, it's not going to change anything, because Republicans have broken brains and can not comprehend his argument. If he's wrong, Liberals and Republicans will mock him, or so he claims.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I agree. So much information exists in the world that you can cherry pick and frame virtually any conclusion. This seems like a particularly likely example, given that only two topics total were researched; climate change and nuclear power. If he had included even a couple more data points, I would have found this far more convincing; furthermore, he would have been far more convincing if his tone were not so deliberately antagonistic.

Book sales will be telling. Wonder how many "educated" liberals will buy (into) this.
May become quite ironic.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

William Buckley used to laugh at Ayn Rand's cult and noted that her hate for altruism was wrong. Now republicans are pretty much objectivists though. It really sucks how far right this country has gotten.

fear is a helluva drug.

 

[Orayn]

fear is a helluva drug.

Even more potent when you get a nice fear-religion-nationalism feedback loop going.

 

[CrazyDogg77]

Even more potent when you get a nice fear-religion-nationalism feedback loop going.

As much as I defend my faith I can't deny religion has played a big part in some of the idiotic things that go on in politics in this country.

 

[Onemic]

But there's no proof of global warming though

 

[KHarvey16]

But there's no proof of global warming though

Of the earth getting warmer there certainly is. This assumes you believe in things like thermometers.

 

[pirata]

I think people let their irrational hatred for religion seriously cloud their judgement and common sense.

What on Earth does religion have to do with Global Warming? You honestly think it says somewhere in the Bible or Qur'an or whatever that we can never do damage to the Earth? That we should be wasteful etc? Quite the opposite...The latter two, maybe. But my guess is it sometimes has little to do with religion and more to do with the general political mentality, often spurred by Right Wing media and think tanks.

Well, in my experience, a lot. For example, at my old church, kids had to deny scientific theories/facts before the entire congregation (such as that the existence of fossils is proof that the earth is older than 6000 years) during the confirmation ceremony. Someone who is very religious and goes to church is far more likely to hold false beliefs about (and even ill will towards) science than someone who does not consistently put him/herself in that environment.

 

[FlyingTeacup]

Well, in my experience, a lot. For example, at my old church, kids had to deny scientific theories/facts before the entire congregation (such as that the existence of fossils is proof that the earth is older than 6000 years) during the confirmation ceremony. Someone who is very religious and goes to church is far more likely to hold false beliefs about (and even ill will towards) science than someone who does not consistently put him/herself in that environment.

seriously???

 

[CrazyDogg77]

Well, in my experience, a lot. For example, at my old church, kids had to deny scientific theories/facts before the entire congregation (such as that the existence of fossils is proof that the earth is older than 6000 years) during the confirmation ceremony. Someone who is very religious and goes to church is far more likely to hold false beliefs about (and even ill will towards) science than someone who does not consistently put him/herself in that environment.

What type of church of was this?

 

[Zzoram]

Part of the reason why college educated Republicans are even MORE wrong on science is likely because Republicans and conservatives in general don't typically do science degrees. They are more likely to do business-type degrees, so in their case, more education does nothing to improve their understanding of science. However, it does make them feel more confident in their positions because of their education, whereas an uneducated conservative may have more doubt due to feeling less confidence from not having a degree.

 

[iapetus]

What type of church of was this?

A YEC one, obviously.

 

[Onemic]

Of the earth getting warmer there certainly is. This assumes you believe in things like thermometers.

That's natural though, who's to say it was through what we did?

 

[Orayn]

That's natural though, who's to say it was through what we did?

Maybe when we discovered that we caused a massive increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

 

[Slurpy2k20]

Why the fuck was nib95 banned? What did he say in this thread that's ban-worthy?

 

[speculawyer]

Chris Mooney talks about the book & his findings in the second half of this podcast.


I have a silly theory that there is a rejection based on "well, these people support abortion & gays therefore they are evil therefore everything they say is wrong"

 

[Quazar]

Part of the reason why college educated Republicans are even MORE wrong on science is likely because Republicans and conservatives in general don't typically do science degrees. They are more likely to do business-type degrees, so in their case, more education does nothing to improve their understanding of science. However, it does make them feel more confident in their positions because of their education, whereas an uneducated conservative may have more doubt due to feeling less confidence from not having a degree.

I thought it had more to do with vested interest. I believe they know the difference but they back industries that are opposed to certain changes. Not everyone really cares for long term benefits.

 

[FlyingTeacup]

I have a silly theory that there is a rejection based on "well, these people support abortion & gays therefore they are evil therefore everything they say is wrong"

that is to say that I got laid wearing a blue shirt, therefore blue shirt will always get me laid?

brilliant!