DUers versus Freepers on bad science

[Physicist]

If you go to freerepublic.com and ask them about chloroflourocarbons, they will insist that these chemicals decompose within a few days of being released (then how come my grandmother's refrigerator did not need a recharge in 30 years?). It is pitiful to see the freepers whine about the left-wing bias in scientific publications.

Dems tend to do better on science-related issues than Reps, whether its second-hand smoke, dietary guidelines, fisheries management, promotion of new technologies, global warming, etc.. Does anyone out there have any theories as to why?

I was a bit disappointed to see perpetual motion/free energy nonsense posted on this site, but at least other members debunked it. If it is too good to be true, it probably is, and it would be considerate to go to the library to look up information on controversial claims in a science textbook before posting it on the net.

[muchacho]

1. Ideology ubber alles

If common decency (not to mention common sense) can be trampled underfoot why not something that most Americans are generally bad at anyway?

[xray s]

3. Actually their mantra is "Profits Uber Alles"

Any scientific fact that gets in the way of a corporation making a profit is automatically attacked.

The interesting battles come when one corporation's profit making activity threatens another corporations profits. For example, the energy industry dismisses global warming as "bad science" while the insurance industry takes global warming very seriously because of the damage it will cause.

[liberalhistorian]

2. A lot of repuke scientists are

religious nutcakes who bend their "science" to fit their beliefs. And a lot of freepers and repukes have a very narrow-minded, rigid ideology that won't tolerate the rigors and open-endedness of the scientific method.

They cannot handle anything that doesn't absolutely support their own narrow, rigid views and ideological framework. And if any results don't fit or support such views and ideological framework, they refuse to believe it or label it with the all-inclusive "junk science" label.

[mike_c]

4. I've met a few of those over the years, but honestly I think that...

...education in and of itself--especially in the sciences-- fosters liberalism. I'm a working scientist and a university prof, and nearly everyone I know, from 19 year old students to aging colleagues all over the nation, is politically liberal. So I suppose what I'm saying is not that liberals make better scientists, but that scientists are predisposed to be liberal. Education and mental exercise tend to make us sceptical and broad minded- both largely incompatible with social conservatism.

[liberalhistorian]

5. I'll certainly agree with that

because I've seen it myself. And I think the same is true of those in the social sciences, very few are conservative. And if they're conservative when they first go in, they sure aren't when they come out. I was a history major with a sociology minor (and some psychology thrown in) and I saw that first-hand. Especially in sociology.

[mike_c]

7. hi LH-- I hope you didn't construe my comments to suggest...

...that us "real scientists" are better educated and more liberal than social-type "soft scientists...." :hi:

Bwahahahaha....

We are, without a doubt, far more immature, however. :evilgrin:

[liberalhistorian]

8. "Fall" more immature?

What, exactly, is that (a Freudian slip, perhaps?) :evilgrin:

I'm really beginning to wish I'd gone on to graduate school in sociology or history, I would love to teach it at the college level. I really miss the intellectual atmosphere and stimulation. I'm 39, so maybe it isn't too late. Being a single parent doesn't help, though, SIGH.

[mike_c]

9. oops, edited...

FAR more immature!

I didn't start grad school until my mid-thirties and I finished my Ph.D. just before my 40th birthday (major life moment, that). Grad school was the best time of my life. I highly recommend it. The professional rewards afterward are great too, but grad school itself was the highlight of my academic life. When else can you get to focus all your efforts on your own intellectual development? Awesome experience.

on edit: as for the immature part-- betcha' I know more disgusting practical jokes involving animal organs than you do....

[liberalhistorian]

10. Well, I guess there's hope for me yet!

The problem is, it's a bit trickier for me since I'm a single parent and already have a lot on my plate. Of course, being laid off recently doesn't help either. I'm sure there's a way, though.

As for the animal parts jokes, in the words of Our Great Leader, the Boy King Impostor himself, BRING IT ON!:evilgrin: :bounce:

[liberalhistorian]

11. Hey, mikec-

I just looked at your homepage, that is really interesting! How often do you get to do your research? What got you interested in zoology (and hence all those animal parts jokes, lol!)

[mike_c]

12. well, research changes a bit when you're in my situation....

I have six graduate students and THEY get to do most of the really interesting bits these days. We have an active lab, and I'm a partner in everything that we do, but the amount of field work that I get to do has decreased steadily during the last few years. Nowadays I primarily help with research design, grant writing, data analyses, and writing. My wife and I have a couple of collaborative projects of our own, but they're lanquishing a bit at the moment-- waiting for me to do the analyses and stuff.

I'm actually struggling with the professional (and personal) ramifications of this-- I love my work, but I don't get to do enough of the side of that work that led me into this career in the first place. I'm planning to spend some time during the next several months figuring out how I really feel about that. Summer is when I do much of my own research, but the last couple of years I've been pretty dominated by by student's needs and other committments-- I need to do something about this.

It doesn't help that I spent ALL DAY today on DU rather than getting any work done!

As for zoology-- interestingly, I was a graphics designer and illustrator (and worked in the printing industry) for years. I went to college in my early thirties to get a biology degree so I'd have some credentials to break into medical/scientific illustration (as usual, there's a bit more to the story than just that). Got kinda side-tracked along the way....

[liberalhistorian]

14. Wow, that's quite an interesting

career change! It's funny how things like that happen, isn't it? My college Russion professor got into it his freshman year of college. He'd planned on majoring in chemistry or biology, and had to take Russian or German since a lot of scientific articles and research was in those languages. He chose Russian and the rest, they say, is history!

Too bad you didn't go into archeology, because they generally get to continue with field work right up until it's almost time for retirement. Is there some way you could figure out how to balance things out so you're doing more research and not just all the other stuff?

[mike_c]

16. at my institution I can buy out some of my other responsibilities...

...with grant money. I've resisted this because I spend the vast majority of my research support on other people's salaries/stipends, but I'm thinking very seriously about beginning to spend some on myself. These 14 hour days are getting a bit old....

[liberalhistorian]

17. I would seriously consider

doing that if I were you, that sounds like what you should do. What kind of collaborative projects do you and your wife work on, is she in the field, too? That's great to be able to work with someone like that!

[mike_c]

18. yes, we're both entomologists....

I'm primarily an ecologist, and she's an acarologist-- mites-- and primarily a taxonomist, so we complement one another nicely. Some of the projects we're working on are low intensity (prescribed) fire effects on forest soil arthropod communities and relationships between old growth forest structure and ground dwelling arthropod biodiversity. We're pretty fortunate to be able to work in Northern California-- it's a naturalist's dream. We're getting ready to start a long project looking at the effects of river management on aquatic insect life in the Trinity River basin.

Of course, it's not always sweetness and light, especially as the boundaries between professional and personal lives tend to blur occasionally. How many other couples are likely to include quips about specimen identity errors in arguments about whose turn it is to clean the bathroom? x(

[LeftCoast]

19. Hey Mike,

would your wife be able to give me any clues as to how to get rid of spider mites? I've been searching EVERYWHERE for something to kill these little S.O.B.'s.

Sorry for the totally off-topic question. :)

[liberalhistorian]

20. LOL!

I would imagine you do, indeed, have some interesting arguments, I hope you don't "bug" each other too much (sorry, couldn't resist it!)

[mike_c]

13. oh, and by the way, that home page photo is a few years old...

...and out of date. I haven't changed it recently-- hope springs eternal....

[liberalhistorian]

15. LOL!

I've noted that men can be as bad as women when it comes to pictures.

[Donkeyboy75]

24. Hey Mike,

what field do you work in?

I guarantee I'm the most immature, BTW. As a practical joke, I headed to the library today and borrowed books regarding bedwetting and how to solve the problem...and put them in with my colleague's other books.

:evilgrin:

[Mikimouse]

6. It has been empirically demonstrated on numerous occasions...

that as education increases, liberalism increases. This has been the case even in the most 'conservative' educational institutions (including the one where I currently teach).

[DrWeird]

21. On any given science forum on the internet...

you'll have nutjobs and fruitcakes showing up to talk about crystals, and homeopathy, and Tesla, and whatnot.

As for your question, I'm not scientifically literate because I'm a liberal, I'm a liberal because I'm scientifically literate.

[seasat]

22. There tend to be two types of conservative scientists.

I've known a few conservatives that are scientists. They, however, tend to be more liberal when it comes to scientific views such as global warming. I always found it interesting that people that claim to be conservative suddenly become liberal on a specific issue when the issue involves them directly.

The other type of conservative "scientists" are usually employed by the industries or groups that scientist's policies affect (I use the quotation marks because I don't generally consider them to truly follow the scientific method). Examples of this are those like Singer, Lindz, and others that critique the green house gas theory of global warming. You can trace their funding back to such biased organizations as the Western Fuels Association and Exxon.

[Donkeyboy75]

23. I'm biased, but I think I have a very good reason.

I am a scientist (a bioorganic chemist), like you are, I assume. I have made a couple of observations over the years: Liberals tend to be much more open-minded and observant about the world around them. They may even change their stance on a particular issue if the evidence warrants. I find conservatives to be much more close-minded, and only like to hear opinions that mirror their own. I have rarely known a Repub to change his/her mind, even when faced with mountains of evidence that they are clearly wrong. Hence the dittohead phenomenon.

Unfortunately, that seems to be one of the reasons that the Republican party is much more unified than the Democratic party...Dems simply have more people thinking for themselves, and are much less likely to toe the line.

Incidentally, if you read my characterization of liberals and conservatives above, it's clear which group would make better scientists...and maybe part of the reason the overwhelming majority of scientists in the academic world are liberals.