• #8
    We republicans deal in facts, not theories, we don't get caught up in the sky is falling, the earth melting type of theories the liberals fall for.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #45
    A real no-brainer question. Conservatives are anti-progress, stuck in the past, opposed to change, and today's Republicans are the conservatives. Science has to be liberal, willing to ask questions, find new ways of doing things, go boldly into the future.

    But don't get it wrong. Today's conservatives, who are the Republicans, use science, but in a manipulative way to keep things the same and to seek a way to live further in the past.
  • #29
    A few options -
    1. AAAS does not equal scientists. Perhaps conservative scientists do not like the AAAS for some reason and are not represented in the poll.
    2. PhDs are more exposed to the overt liberalism at colleges. Also, professors have a say in who advances and who doesn't. Since we know a majority of professors are terribly liberal (I only met one conservative adjunct professor at college), it is reasonable to expect a filtering affect. Of course this is a chicken/egg issue. Also brings up questions regarding fairness. A conservative professor who is fair and raises up students regardless of political agenda vs liberals who only promote liberals would eventually lead to the overtly liberal condition of our current reality.
    3. People who are fed from the public teet tend to be in favor of more milk.
  • #39
    @Knightmare - It probably goes a way into explaining why the advancement of science is not keeping up with population growth. If the per capita rate of science was growing like it did in the 1800s, solar panels and wind turbines might be advanced enough to compete with cheap oil. And whatever happened to gassification of coal (early 1900s)? Oh yeah, government. Instead of the US being the power house of science that it should be, we are slowly evaporating on pithy public policy issues like evolution and anthropogenic warming. When did we last go to the moon?
  • #58
    @Knightmare this is an interesting topic and so I thank you & Derive PI for the first thoughtful and reasonable response I have seen so far.
  • #13
    As a member of the science community previously myself, I can say that anything that seems to help more people seems like it must be the best option. The left also caters to new advances much with much less skepticism. Another factor is the social aspect, if your friends and school are known for being one thing, would you oppose it? Scientists are pragmatic and always want to go with the best option. Scientists have a grasp of science. In my opinion though, if scientists were presented with all the facts, most would lean conservative-libertarian. I do not think most scientists know that the supposed rich to poor redistribution of wealth that the left advocates actually has the opposite effect.
  • #12

    Scientific papers being retracted after publication isn’t some kind of new phenomenon. The age of press releases might have made such snafus a more widely-known event, but it’s one of those things that happens from time to time. Common wisdom was that the majority of retractions were due to errors present in the work, but a new study has concluded that it’s actually misconduct like fraud or plagiarism that causes most retractions. In other words, scientists aren’t dumb; they’re just liars.

    PhysOrg breaks down how the new study came to this conclusion:

    The study reviewed 2,047 papers retracted from the biomedical literature through May 2012. To determine the reasons for the retractions, the researchers consulted several secondary sources, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Research Integrity and , which investigate scientific misconduct.

    The researchers found that about 21 percent of the retractions were attributable to error, while 67 percent were due to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43 percent), duplicate publication (14 percent), and plagiarism (10 percent). Miscellaneous or unknown reasons accounted for the remaining 12 percent.
    The studies that investigated this issue previously only took into account the official retractions by the scientific journals — which are written by the authors of the paper being retracted. It’s not like they’re going to come right out and say,“We totally copied this bit from someone else,” or anything like that.

    {Just an interesting addition to the discussion....}
  • #7
    If Republicans start to recognize evolution and climate change as facts maybe science wouldn't view them as enemies.
    When facts trump faith they might get more scientists in their party.
  • #60
    Climate change is the result of god getting hot under the collar because public schools won't teach evolution. That's a republican scientific theroy.
  • #74
    Because most scientists are atheists. Scientists generally believe something has to be 'proven' to be real, if they can't see it, touch it, or invent it, then to them it doesn't exist. A lot of democrats are atheists, as democrats have no problem with the absence of religion and in fact , many encourage it. Same with morality... they feel
    we don't need morality or accountability either. So, science will continue to make
    mistakes, as we read all the time and people who believe in God will continue to have Faith, knowing with full certainty, scientists will die, just like the rest of us, but
    the God Christians have faith in. and who has been from the beginning, will be to
    the end...Life is short and many believe that there is way more to it than at most, a
    seventy five to eighty year existence. The smart scientists (6%) believe in God.
  • #84
    Next time you get sick or get in an accident. Just stay at home and pray the sickness away. Since that is the smarter thing to done.
  • #104
    @DrMoonshine I believe in both science (medicine) and God work in unison in the healing process. It is believed by many doctors (77% believe in God ), that those who have a strong belief system and have faith, recover more quickly than those
    who have none, they also have a more positive attitude while recovering.
  • #107
    @NormalFlora No, trust me...people who have no faith are more likely to attempt and succeed in suicide than those who believe in God. Also, even the severely ill are
    much less tormented than those who have no belief system...and drugs are a direct
    gateway to psychosis. I see it all the time. Many people have taken the wrong drug
    and have had permanent psychosis from it. Scientists have no cure for psychosis,
    they also have no cure for many other diseases. They have a long way to go, and
    even then, they will never be close to knowing or being at the level of God, try as they may, they are still human and fallible.
  • #109
    @mimi57 I've heard those "stats" before, but no fundie has ever been able to provide a link to a reputable site that confirms these numbers. So until you do, I wave the BS flag.
  • R Load more replies

  • #11
    They do not like Republicans because they prove them wrong. Remember "Global Warming", they just get all pissy over things like this. The blocked stem cell research.
  • #51
    How did republicans prove scientist wrong? Republicans are not experts in science by any means. I'm sorry but if you are going to take politicians advise about science over a scientists then you sir are an idiot.
  • #10
    Ummmmm stem cell research......anyone?

    Theists have always attempted to retard science. Its a FACT people........ohhh and "god" hates condoms and the Earth is at the center of the universe.(rolls eyes)

    Now thats some hardcore science right there!!!!!

    When science disproves your god, well now we just “caint” have that.

    Republicans are mostly religious, religion and science will never agree.

    Easy to understand.
  • #26
    God has a problem with dancing. That crap has to stop and that's a scientific fact. Just ask the Baptists.
  • #162
    @AtheistStand Well ya know.....hmmm.....geez........ (looks around).....ohboy........uh... ...whatever. LOL
  • R Load more replies

  • #9
    There's a BIG difference between book smarts and common sense smarts. It's common fact that these "scientists" are good with books, but have no common sense. That's why they hate the GOP.
  • #40
    So, do you believe the world is flat or round?
    Do you understand how gravity keeps us from flying away?
    Do you know anyone with an artificial limb?
    There's a reason why "book smarts" is also referred to as "higher learning."
  • #73
    IMO the experts quoted in the article, and all of you posting comments, have it wrong. When only 6% of a group tends in a direction, there is a much more substantial reason. Here is my theory based on a lifetime of self-education and avid reading of many scientific topics. It's just my thoughtful opinion, so try not to tear me a new one for it.

    The conservative mind-set is just that: set. This is neither right or wrong, good or bad, it just is. Every conservative I've ever met has a strong preference for absolutes. Things either work a certain way or they don't. Something either exists or it doesn't. Conservatives are people of strong convictions, and will stick to their beliefs even when those convictions are wrong. There is a resistance to change, a resistance to refutation of beliefs, so much so that many a pundit, online blogger, journalist and media personality make a really good living spinning scientific facts and actual events and statements into refutable theories or even outright lies. They know what their conservative audience wants to hear, and they find ways to provide it. Conservatives are so convinced of their correctness that they find great fault with any who disagree. Absolutes are very comforting, especially where religion is concerned. Think about it: life on earth is never neat and tidy and rarely warm and fuzzy. It is short and often messy, if not brutal. Who wants to believe that this is all we get? It is much more comforting to believe that if you behave a certain way, your "immortal soul" will go to a place where all is sweetness and light.

    Scientists, on the other hand, need more flexibility in their thinking. Changes occur often in science during the course of calculation and experimentation. The scientific mind needs to be open to being wrong, open to learing a new approach, open to doubt. Some things become absolute facts, but nothing is ever static. Knowledge is a constantly accummulative thing. New discoveries happen pretty much daily.

    IMO the liberal, or progressive, person is much more open, not only to change but to the possibility of being wrong now and then, of learning something new through research or discourse (as we do here on this site - or some of us do, at least). Liberals are less rigid in their thinking, and more prone to "prove it to me" logical thinking. As I stated, neither right or wrong, good or bad, just different in the approach to life and change.

    For what it's worth (which to many of you is probably not very much!).:)
  • #86
    @Denizen_Kate Well I don't know if your 100% right, but at least your trying to systematicly break it down with out lowering yourself to an easy attack. I myself love science but don't accept theory as fact, and yes my religous beleafs do heavily influence my perspective.
  • #92
    @paperdragons81 - Of course your beliefs into into pretty much every aspect of your life. Like I said, neither right or wrong, good or bad, just a different way of thinking.
  • R Load more replies

  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #211
    Republicans are NOT hostile to science or R&D... They just like to fully understand how something works before they incorporate the discovery into society. They do it gradually, so they can fully study the affects.
  • #181
    The GOP won't open the purse strings and fund these geeks. So they have to go begging to the Marxist party to get the cash for their 10 year studies on dental floss and it's effect on Hispanic transgendered bi-polar social workers.
  • #163
    Another reason for this is the popular misconception it takes government funding to fund large science projects and space missions. So, naturally, the people who want those kinds of things to happen are going to generally support the party of big government.
  • #148
    Yes, and maybe 3% of Engineers are Democrats. It is the difference between a theoretical thinker (Communism sounds good, so it must be) and a practical thinker (live within your means, pay your bills). So when the split comes between theoretical (Scientists) and practical (Engineers) the party affiliation is obvious.
  • #145
    Why Are Only 6% of Scientists Republicans?
    because the other 94% are just liberal socialist morons, who indoctrinate the public for an agenda.
    Most scientists arent even Americans! so how can they be Republican?
  • #144
    We are all dumber now for reading this article. How many scientists refuse to identify? How many are of other affiliations? Ironically this study really wasn't scientific...
  • #141
    Nonsense. Very few religious folks have any problem with science. Just Bible-literalists and they are a small minority.
  • R Load more comments...