Why the Right Wing Rejects Science

Likewise, we don't have 100% confidence that the sun will come up tomorrow. But we readily make that bet every day. We trust the science of Isaac Newton.

 

The sun doesn't come up, it's pretty much stationary in relation to Earth and Newton is being questioned and cleaned up.

What it got wrong: Predictions from Newton’s law, along with philosophical problems with its physical interpretation, were its downfall. The predictions were good enough, and still are for high school textbooks, but some things could not be explained.
For example, the predictions were not precise enough to account for orbital precession. Also, light bends ever-so-slightly around planets, but has no mass. Albert Einstein addressed, and mostly resolved, both the predictive and philosophical problems with a new theory of universal gravitation known as General Relativity. However, even the much more powerful GR leaves much to be desired since we now have no idea how gravity relates to the other fundamental forces, and still does not predict with an accuracy we would need to do without another theory of dark matter/energy.
https://www.quora.com/What-was-Isaac-Newton-wrong-about
Today's science facts will be tomorrow's science myths.

 

See, this is another problem with the right wing. Was my comment beyond your understanding? Do you feel the need to play word games, why?

And you got this from science.

In fact, Isaac Newton's science was accurate within its domain. All models have a range and domain of applicability. That is part of understanding how science works.

Newton only addressed conditions involving weak gravity fields and speeds well below the speed of light. Within that domain, Newton is right every time to the limits of what could be measured.

 

When you walk past me, Einstein's physics tells me that your clocks are running slow compared to mine. Does it affect our reality? No. We can use Isaac Newton. If you fly past me at 180,000 miles per second, it matters and we have to go to Einstein.

Einstein recognized that Mercury was close enough to the sun such that the intense gravity allowed him to make a unique prediction, based on his new General Theory of Relativity. This would deviate from what we expected using Newton's physics. He made a prediction using physics that could be tested. That is how science works.

When we saw precisely what Einstein predicted, it was taken as a huge confirmation of his theory. No other explanation for this existed and he predicted it using math and physics alone.

 

The concept of gender being a social construct and of the statistical differences in behavior, aptitutes, and prefferences between the sexes not having a basis on evolutionary biology is consistent with science? I guess we can agree to disagree.

I said nothing about vaccines.

The point is that there is no indication of political affiliation playing a statistically significant part in science denying. It's not logical to assert that anti-vaxxers are a right wing problem when actual research on the general population shows no correlation. Either the ideology is at fault or it is not.

My argument is not that the two sides are equitable in every single aspect of the problem, but that it's important to not politicize issues by attributing them to a particular ideology and labeling science denying a problem of "them" and not "us". This is what people from both sides are doing. Immediately jumping to "my party is better"only results in neither party addressing its flaws.

 

Straw dog alert.

Please address what's said rather than propose things I certainly did not suggest in any way.

Yes, I brought up vaccines, because that is one of the significant cases of people rejecting western medicine - including science. And, western medicine was one of the issues.

The post I originally responded to claimed something different. It claimed that the left wing more commonly rejected science when considering western medicine.

I don't see any indication of that. In fact, the Republican head of the House science committee rejects science, including aspects of western medicine - such as vaccination.

NO!

A significant number of posters on this board refuse to accept science related to climate change, and those people are almost always from the political right wing.

And, we have the religious right, which tends to oppose science, even to the extent of seeing our colleges and universities as problematic because they teach science. We also continue to see these people fight the teaching of science in k-12 education.

I don't see any significant right wing movement to correct either of those serious problems.


In fact, the Trump administration is removing from the internet the results of science that have been in place for a long time - not just on climate change.

This is a systematic assault on science by the right wing.

So, no, I do not agree with your "everybody does it" theory. And, it is important that such ideas are countered by the facts, as this is NOT something we can just sit by and watch.

 

To the point where his team was feeding Trump false information, including a fake Time Magazine cover talking about global freezing. There was no such Time cover. It is an internet hoax.

 

That was a startling reveal - his own people fooling him, and doing it so easily!

America deserves a president not so easily duped and far more able to put together a team that can create strong and lasting policy based on fact.

 

Well, when you have a white nationalist who creates fake news for a living, as Trump's right-hand man... Hell, Bannon got him elected.

And where Trump is involved, you always have to wonder which is the chicken, and which is the egg.

 

Science doesn't usually enter into the political arena, but when it does, it's usually a controversial subject. Stem cell research, GMO foods, genetic human biodiversity, etc. etc. etc.

What's particularly amusing about AGW is the degree to which the left whines about it, as if that's going to change anything. It's not going to change anything, so if you want to take your house off the grid and walk to work every day so you can help save the planet, then nobody will stop you. Just don't expect everybody to follow suit.

 

That is like saying if you think the water is polluted in Flint then just don't drink it. But don't ask me to do anything about it. The "head in the sand" approach.

 

The point of the exercise is that Science can be replicated by anyone.

Nuclear fission is complex, too, but it can and has been replicated.

 

Not at all! I'm not particularly interested in the water supply in Flint Michigan, but people who live there might have some justified concerns. Let them deal with it.

 

Ahhh but the people in another part of michigan may have no direct interest in the water of flint. It may not affect them in the slightest. If flint can't afford to fix the water system by itself and can't afford emergency resources should the rest of michigan just say "hey....its not my problem."

 

Making far reaching policy on failing models is in essence, a rejection of science by politicization and it appears the left is wholly on board with that.

 

And quite simply statistical 'confidence" doesn't attribute actual causality, it doesn't create repeatable outcomes, nor does it provide enough confidence that you could, for example, use the information to bet on in say Vegas. Of course, if you wish to use that "confidence" feel free. I'm sure the casinos would welcome your money....

 

Wannt bet the average global temp will rise in the next decade? I'll take that bet

 

It's nothing like that. Flint water is an engineering issue. AGW is holistic theology which includes tithes and commandments to follow. So....why not tithe and follow the commandments?

 

Yes, they should say it isn't their problem.

Nobody is forcing people to live in a place where the water isn't safe to drink. You frickin' move to where the water is clean. Either that, or the good people of fint michigan talk to their municipal government and demand that their taxes be raised so that they can stay in their beloved city.

Lord knows I've got no reason for concern. There are people who live in the middle of death valley, and they probably have issues with water, as well. Californians have drought problems, and Nawleans residents have a slightly different problem. Everywhere you go, there are pluses and minuses to living there. It's a compromise that individuals make when deciding where to live. Do people in Las Vegas complain because they don't have beachfront property? I'm sure that some of them do, but they chose to live where there isn't an ocean within walking distance.

Not my problem.

 

Well that is completely false so we have to consider that. LOL

 

Maybe you are right. Syria? Not my problem so no tax money. Major flood in the south? Not my problem so no tax money. I don't want a new Carrier Battle Group (where will I put it?) Not my problem so no tax money.

 

Now you're starting to get the conservative mindset! Syria is not my problem, nor are floods in the south, or hurricanes in florida. The federal government does have some emergency funds for emergencies, but even that is something we're against. States should have emergency funds for when problems pop up, and not depend on the federal government for anything more than keeping the Russians from parachuting into their backyards.

 

No no no. No emergencies funds. Not a penny. Let them suffer. 9/11...not my problem. Hurricane Sandy...not my problem. I can't wait for the elimination of the department of defense. I will defend myself...thank you. I can handle any russians in my backyard

 

For defense, that's why we have a federal government in the first place. It's one of the few enumerated responsibilities of the federal government. All that other stuff is not.

 

Ohhhh. I just thought you were making the responsibility argument. Then get rid of the FBI, DEA, ATF, FAA, FDA....I am sure I can come up with a few more initials.