Huntsman: Earth not flat; Christie: Sun does not revolve around Earth

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Most of science can't be proved to be true.  Often, you can only prove what is not true, and get a high probability that it always remains true.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Idiots. You can't win the Republican nomination by being the pro-science candidate.

one order of political party breakdown by science degree, please.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Idiots. You can't win the Republican nomination by being the pro-science candidate.

one order of political party breakdown by science degree, please.

Even if the Republicans have a larger number of people with science degree than the Democrats, I don't see how it disproves my statement in any way.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Idiots. You can't win the Republican nomination by being the pro-science candidate.

one order of political party breakdown by science degree, please.

Even if the Republicans have a larger number of people with science degree than the Democrats, I don't see how it disproves my statement in any way.

well, if the majority of real scientists reject the pro-science candidate, maybe the pro-science candidate is not very scientific in his/her thinking.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I suppose "real scientists" are similar to "real Americans"...

[bullmoose88]

Even if the Republicans have a larger number of people with science degree than the Democrats, I don't see how it disproves my statement in any way.

well, if the majority of real scientists reject the pro-science candidate, maybe the pro-science candidate is not very scientific in his/her thinking.

What are we calling a science degree now?  Any B.S./M.S degree?  Only those in certain fields?  Who exactly constitute the "scientists" group?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I suppose "real scientists" are similar to "real Americans"...

similar, but different

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Even if the Republicans have a larger number of people with science degree than the Democrats, I don't see how it disproves my statement in any way.

well, if the majority of real scientists reject the pro-science candidate, maybe the pro-science candidate is not very scientific in his/her thinking.

What are we calling a science degree now?  Any B.S./M.S degree?  Only those in certain fields?  Who exactly constitute the "scientists" group?

I'd say the min was a B.S. in a science degree (e.g. engineering, physics, biology, etc....political science is not what I consider a "science")

[bullmoose88]

I'd say the min was a B.S. in a science degree (e.g. engineering, physics, biology, etc....political science is not what I consider a "science")

At many schools (not mine...I was awarded an A.B., econ was one of my majors) economics is a Batchelor of Science program.  But yeah fair.

Are we counting psychology...pre-med...the eventual MD...DDS...too?  Are we really going to give the same percentage weight to a dentist that we do an astrophysicist?

And are we then going to discriminate by the awarding institution?  Does a science degree from Liberty U really count as much (for this purpose) as one from Cal Tech?

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

wow, those are some eye-opening stats, esp this table:



basically the opposite of what I have seen, though maybe my perception is off because my career has been spent in energy and finance.

[Linus Van Pelt]

http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

wow, those are some eye-opening stats, esp this table:



basically the opposite of what I have seen, though maybe my perception is off because my career has been spent in energy and finance.

If you follow the link this appears to be a poll of AAAS members, which tends to mean actual scientific researchers with PhD's. If you polled, say, engineers, doctors, geologists (oil/mining, not univ.), etc., with a BS or MS, you'd get very different results. Research scientists tend to be very Democratic, even though many other professionals who use science are Republican.

The reasons for this are complex; partially it has to do with economic status (researchers are more likely to be dependent on government funding and working for non-profits, other science professionals are highly white-collar/private sector/non-union, which is a very GOP combo), and partially it has to do with the complicated way in which science intersects with culture and public policy. There is a certain combination of engineering and technical expertise with disbelief in evolution by natural selection or anthropogenic climate change that is actually quite common among well-educated evangelicals but almost unknown among researchers.

[King]

Subsects of geology (aka oil exploration) and nuclear engineering are likely the only sciences that vote majority Republican, though they are probably 'moderate Republicans' for the most part and just support the GOP in economic self interest.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

wow, those are some eye-opening stats, esp this table:



basically the opposite of what I have seen, though maybe my perception is off because my career has been spent in energy and finance.

If you follow the link this appears to be a poll of AAAS members, which tends to mean actual scientific researchers with PhD's. If you polled, say, engineers, doctors, geologists (oil/mining, not univ.), etc., with a BS or MS, you'd get very different results. Research scientists tend to be very Democratic, even though many other professionals who use science are Republican.

The reasons for this are complex; partially it has to do with economic status (researchers are more likely to be dependent on government funding and working for non-profits, other science professionals are highly white-collar/private sector/non-union, which is a very GOP combo), and partially it has to do with the complicated way in which science intersects with culture and public policy. There is a certain combination of engineering and technical expertise with disbelief in evolution by natural selection or anthropogenic climate change that is actually quite common among well-educated evangelicals but almost unknown among researchers.

thanks, I was really scratching my head and wondering how I could have been in a galaxy far far away even though I’ve met so many professionals with science degrees…but, with your clarification, it seems my feet are firmly planted on the ground. 

*sigh of relief!*

[TJ in Oregon]

A large part of the reason why many scientists vote for Democrats is because they are afraid Republicans will cut funding for NSF or other agencies that issue grants. The threat of funding cuts scares people chasing after that ever-elusive grant. And since Republicans tend to be the party of budget cuts (if there even is one) Democrats often reap the benefit.

Of course there are a ton of other factors involved too such as the stigma of becoming a professor that scare conservatives away from academia. The best and brightest of conservative engineers tend to gravitate toward industry.

[beneficii]

Very smart post TJ. I might quibble with the idea that science always requires falsifiability or that evolution ultimately meets this test. I tend to think "belief in evolution," (like to a lesser extent "belief in climate change") is a problematic concept more because there are so many variants of evolutionary theory and how far one takes its implications that to say whether or not one agrees with it ends up not telling very much.

That's a good point: there isn't a real concensus on a lot of specific details of many of the larger issues.

As far as falsificationism, a lot of science is trying to disprove theories, either as a true attempt to achieve it or just to check for consistency. I don't see how you can conduct experiments or collect data on a hypothesis that can't be proven false.

Evolution could be proven false by digging up human remains that contain the same carbon dating age as dinosaurs. Or if we had found that remains thought to be older aren't actually older after using carbon dating. Or if we show our entire understanding of dating is completely wrong. Granted, evolutionary theory does still contain a few holes big enough to ride a T-Rex through in that we are missing a huge amount of proof intermediate states of tons of organisms actually existed. But, the way evolution could be disproven is to collect a bunch of evidence that contradicts it. This would be further complicated that most of the Linnean classification system has been constructed around evolutionary theory. Yet, if we had clear data showing evolution did not actually happen, an awful lot would change.

These examples are particularly thorny; most of the time an attempt to disprove a theory is just taking data and seeing if it follows an equation.

Generally good post, but we would not use carbon dating to measure the age of dinosaur bones, because carbon dating is only good for up to a million years or so.  Potassium-argon dating would be the method of choice.

Still, you are correct, if we start finding stuff that doesn't make sense in light of evolution, like bunny rabbits in the pre-Cambrian then evolution as we know it would be falsified.

What opponents miss, however, is that everything we've seen thus far in biology makes sense in light of evolution, leading to Theodosius Dobzhansky's 1973 essay, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."

Keep up the good posts.

EDIT: I should have read more deeply:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

The limitations of fossils, fossilization being a rare process:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#e4

There are multiple lines of evidence supporting evolution:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml

Also, proof isn't really a concept used in science outside of math.  It's the question of whether a hypothesis or theory is the simplest explanation that fits all the evidence (viz. Occam's razor) and isn't contradicted by any of it but could conceivably be contradicted by future evidence (falsifiability).  This is because of the problem of induction.

So good post, except for what I pointed out above.

[TJ in Oregon]

Thanks for your compliments.

I should admit I am a chemical engineer, not a biologist, so yeah, I may have messed up some details there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There. I didn't mean "proof" and really that is the type of slip-up I've been rallying against for most of this. I guess I was bound to say something stupid in this discussion at some point.

[TJ in Oregon]

Here's an example of why most academic scientists are Democrats:

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139852035/shrimp-on-a-treadmill-the-politics-of-silly-studies

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I keep reading this thread title as "Christie does not revolve around Earth"

[ag]

I'd say the min was a B.S. in a science degree (e.g. engineering, physics, biology, etc....political science is not what I consider a "science")

I would never consider somebody, who holds a B.A. degree with a major in economics "an economist" just on the basis of that degree. Hell, I myself had a math major - this doesn't make me a "mathematician". I would suggest using the same policy for (natural) scientists. The liberal arts education is not designed to produce professionals, but "gentlemen" (and ladies), capable of further (possibly, professional) study.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I would never consider somebody, who holds a B.A. degree with a major in economics "an economist" just on the basis of that degree. Hell, I myself had a math major - this doesn't make me a "mathematician". I would suggest using the same policy for (natural) scientists. The liberal arts education is not designed to produce professionals, but "gentlemen" (and ladies), capable of further (possibly, professional) study.

understood, but I'm not discounting those who didnt choose to pursue a graduate degree in a field, simply because having an advanced degree doesnt mean you have any more common sense....so, as long as you have a BS in a field of science (including math, biology, physics, etc), I consider you capable of abstract scientific thought.

[ag]

understood, but I'm not discounting those who didnt choose to pursue a graduate degree in a field, simply because having an advanced degree doesnt mean you have any more common sense....so, as long as you have a BS in a field of science (including math, biology, physics, etc), I consider you capable of abstract scientific thought.

I don't know what you mean by "abstract scientific thought" or the "common sense" and what does it have to do w/ any of it. The big chunk of natural (or, for that matter, social) science is knowing the empirical facts: without that, it is just math. There is no reason why an abstractly thinking individual might not conclude that if you drop an apple it would fly up to the Moon: in the abstract it doesn't contradict anything. Theologists, in general, are very capable of abstract thought. For that matter, even to properly understand the doctrine of Trinity one has to be quite ingenious at it ) This has nothing to do w/ science, though

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

For that matter, even to properly understand the doctrine of Trinity one has to be quite ingenious at it ) This has nothing to do w/ science, though

no one understands the doctrine of the Trinity

[lowtech redneck]

no one understands the doctrine of the Trinity

Heh. At first, I thought ya'll were talking about the 'unholy trinity' of macro-economics....

As for the issue in question, there is effectively a consensus among relevant scientists that climate change is occurring, and human endeavors are partially responsible-that's good enough for me.

But...

The proposed solutions to the problem are environmentally counter-productive as well as detrimental to the economy; attempting to forcefully cap greenhouse gases is unlikely to be successful due to the extreme nature of the collective action problem, and even if they were successful they would just force production into developing countries who emit far more pollutants per unit of production than Western countries.  I prefer climate change 'deniers' to politicians who would enact ruinous policies.

[Sbane]

Thanks for your compliments.

I should admit I am a chemical engineer, not a biologist, so yeah, I may have messed up some details there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There. I didn't mean "proof" and really that is the type of slip-up I've been rallying against for most of this. I guess I was bound to say something stupid in this discussion at some point.

For me evolution is "proved" by what we see in Bacteria. Now most people not in the sciences might discount that, or just not care about it, but Bacteria are the best organism out there to study whether evolution occurs or not. And the evidence is just piling up that yes, evolution does occur. Human evolution, or the evolution of dinosaurs is much harder to study, and is unnecessary to understand how evolution works. We can't really study human evolution (or evolution in most mammals) that well due to the large generation times. Bacteria on the other hand have a generation time of a few hours or less, which makes the study of evolution possible. Always remember, evolution takes a long, long time to occur.