The War on Science and Reason
washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-republicans-w...Posted Oct 25, 2011, 1:58 PM UTC
14048
washingtonpost.com
It's been TEN fuckin' years since Karl Rove publicly announced that the Republican were not Reality Based. Now the Washington Post feels buyer's remorse.
9
"Take back the Enlightenment" There's the bumper sticker!
4
This isn't new or surprising, but it was still an interesting read.
3
there is a war on science and reason because finally the people are actually empowered enough to find out that science and reason are contrary to popular political and religious beliefs that have been the foundation of thousands of years of minority oppression... its custer's last stand, i'm just happy i'm young enough to see what happens next
2
I'm terrified that I'm young enough to see what happens next. I look around me, and there are idiots everywhere.
2
hahah, touche, but its only a handful of intelligent, motivated people that can change a whole generation
1
Yup. War on science, war on reason, war on teachers, war on voting, war on social programs, war on government, war on labor, war on Iraq...
The GOP really loves war, of every stripe.
2
I honestly believe this "war effort" was turbo-charged by the need to burry 9/11. Even the NIST - once a pillar of scientific benchmarking - has reminded us that, in truth, the it primarily serves as a tool for the Federal government (which is not all that shocking).
1
There is no war on science or reason by conservatives. It should be noted, however, that liberal's wholesale support for whatever is currently politically correct is neither scientific nor reasonable.
-1
Come on, seriously. How does one equate curtailing social programs with being anti science and reason? I'll say one good thing about the WaPo. It makes good fish wrap
-4
The war is over.
God Won.
-8
science must feel pretty embarassed, being defeated by a bronze age myth
5
He's still dead. It's the followers that we have to do next.
4
I believe in God and my God is a champion of truth - science is a useful tool. End the war on science and then you'll end the war on God.
-5
You don't deserve to be down voted. And you do deserve to see the universe truth the lens of obscured truth. If you choose to see god, that' your prerogative.
3
They should fire this guy. His writing isn't good enough to be called blogspam.
-9
She only owns and publishes The Nation, but don't worry your pretty little head about it.
4
Imagine you said this:
"Murdoch only owns Fox News. But don't worry your little head about it."
That's a silly argument plus a personal attack. Congrats- you succeeded at avoiding rational debate.
-1
You said you should fire this guy. You don't even know who the fuck you are talking about.
If Murdoch wrote an article for the Post, I'd read it. BECAUSE he owns Fox news, even. If he didn't, his opinion wouldn't matter at all.
3
1: Saying "it's a woman" again doesn't contribute anything. I couldn't care less that I used guy instead of gal. If your debate style is just insults, why don't you leave reddit?
My point was that the writing was awful.
2: Your argument (that we should value the opinions of someone because they own a lot,) instead of can write well, is absurd.
-1
This guy named Katrina?
3
That dude looks like a girl.
1
[deleted]
1
More sophistry with little in terms of reasoned analysis.
-12
From the article:
With the exception of Jon Huntsman, who polls about as well as Darwin would in a Republican primary, the Republican presidential candidates have either denied the existence of climate change, denied that it has been caused — and can be reversed — by man, or apologized for once holding a different view.
While the words used to describe these Republican views are colorful, it IS true that all of the GOP candidates, (excluding Huntsman) have either denied climate change or its cause. As those are facts, that colorful analysis of the Republicans IS based upon reasoning.
9
I will also point out that the exact quote you used is incorrect as applied to Romney, one of two current frontrunners in the Republican primary. His position is that 1.) global warming exists; 2.) it's unclear how much is caused by man; 3.) the issue does not merit substantial gov't involvement. Try to do a little research first next time.
-2
Got a citation for that?
2
Sure. It doesn't matter. I've been caught in the center of another liberal circle-jerk where nobody ever stops to read or think. Either way, here's an article just from late August addressing Romney's position:
-1
What's your point? The author isn't a scientist and wouldn't be infallible otherwise. The scientists who do doubt global warming (usually that it is caused in large part by man) are regularly discounted and denied opportunity to present their arguments. The author is emoting a policy position which she knows a significant portion of her readership will agree with. Nothing more. She is making no arguments about a war on science or reason.
What would your response be to a conservative article claiming Democrats are engaged in a war on science and reason? It could be done quite easily.
-5
The scientists who do doubt global warming (usually that it is caused in large part by man) are regularly discounted and denied opportunity to present their arguments.
Denied? Many don't even attempt to publish in peer-reviewed journals, much like the smoking causes cancer deniers back through the early 80s.
4
Oh, look! An article doing the conservative equivalent: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/10/25/are_evangelicals_or_university_professors_more_irrational_111809.html BTW, it also addresses your nonsense statement about scientists who doubt global warming. The article just came out.
-1
Perhaps this Washington Post article should mention that the Washington Post has been one of the most prominent sources of anti-science crap, just as an example, spewed over and over again by George Will. It's hard to take this seriously.
I'm not convinced that WaPo is an entity of homogenous opinion. Will is undoubtedly a nutjob, but he's the ultra-right-wing columnist, and if not generally representative of his party, at least typifies this trend.