The G.O.P.’s War on Science Gets Worse | Hacker News Reader

The G.O.P.’s War on Science Gets Worse

newyorker.com

17 pointsdnetesn11 comments

With all the talk of negatively being removed from HN, why aren't we removing articles like this? It's so completely biased and negative. It will do nothing but insight flame wars.

"Everyone who denies climate change has the same stirring message,"

Nobody is denying that the climate is actually changing. We are skeptical that a cycle that has happened for 1000 of years is now only being effected by man made contributions.

My issue is that we don't even know how much of it is actually due to cycles, how can we possibly put all of the blame on something man-made.

Weather, which is the first step to climate, can't even be predicted past 2 weeks from the best scientists in the world. How are we now able to predict something that will happen in 50 or 100 years?

I see the same tactics used when I'm buying a car: If we don't give the government more money, we are all going to die a horrible death because the earth will increase a few degrees. This isn't science, it's marketing.

It's also suspect when many forums, which claim to be open and honest, will not allow alternative view points.

I'm also tired of hearing the phrase "settled science". Science is never really settled. When it is, it's called religion.

The motion of individual air particles, which is the first step to aerodynamics, can't even be predicted past a couple of nanoseconds. How are we now able to predict something that will happen in minutes or hours?

There may be good arguments to be made against the idea of anthropogenic climate change. But if there are, Republicans aren't making them, and neither are you.

Unfortunately, most people have a hard time distinguishing "your arguments are bad" from "you are wrong."

It looks like the "skeptic" position is also wrong, but the fundamental problem is that it's based on irrationality.

Because the Democrats are so much better on science...

They certainly seem to be. I'm no fan of the party, but the Democrats are at least basically sane on the science front as far as I can tell. What major Democratic figures have repeatedly denied basic scientific facts in front of a national audience?

There is typically no show of hands at Democratic debates to assess which of the candidates don't believe in evolution. That pretty much says it all.

http://crooksandliars.com/2007/05/03/who-doesnt-believe-in-e...

Believe it or not, there are meaningful differences between the parties in the US, and thinking there isn't is intellectually lazy, a way to justify not making a meaningful decision on political issues.

Collectively, I think they are, a bit. My main science beef with the left is pandering to anti-GMO hysteria, but OTOH I do support labeling for GMO content. Do you have other examples in mind?

1) heritability of intelligence 2) Obamacare's coverage of quack therapies

The Democrats aren't more pro-science in the abstract. Every politician is pro-science when it supports their agenda. Every politician is magically skeptical of "settled science" when it goes against their agenda.

Edit: I meant that science strongly supports the notion that intelligence is largely heritable, which is opposed by Democrats.

Heritability of intelligence is in no way a position espoused by anyone of any significance in the Democratic party. As far as quack therapies go, you have to get the bill through the legislature and all of the special interests there. When Obamacare was passed that meant pandering to Tom Harkin, a liberal's liberal, and Orrin Hatch, the conservative Mormon. Both were shills for altmed and other quackery but had enough markers that you did not cross them on the issue unless you had all your ducks in a row and really wanted that fight.

I don't know what (1) refers to, and you're cherry-picking with (2), but the voting records of the Democrats show a largely pro-science bias, and the GOPs have the exact opposite. It's irrelevant that they're doing it for political reasons -- that's the nature of politics.

There are counterexamples, of course. And I'm not happy with the Democrats, for many reasons. But, on science, the alternative is to go back to pre-enlightenment times with the GOPs. And leeches, as a medical cure-all, are probably more harmful than sugar pills.

Yes they are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com