posted
Hmmmm, see it doesn't really work that way. If I understand the period to which you're referring to liberals are effectively non-existent.
Forgive my quoting Wikipedia but:
quote:Liberalism was to suffer in the wake of the immense challenges China faced from Japanese militarism and the impact of the Communist movement. By the 1930s many of the younger generation felt that only radical, authoritarian doctrines could save the country. The Guomindang or Nationalist party absorbed a good deal of Fascist doctrine and practice. Liberalism increasingly seemed to serve as a forlorn "third force", able only to admonish authoritarian regimes of the Left and Right.
The ascendancy of Mao Zedong and the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949 brought the liberal impulse to its lowest level. Ideological witchhunts were organized against the (real or imaginary) followers of Hu Shi, and their values were ceaselessly derided as bourgeois delusions which could only weaken the nation.
With the collapse of Mao's ideology on his death, seeds of regeneration which had lain dormant gradually came to life. Liberal ideals like intellectual freedom, the separation of powers, civil society and the rule of law were reexamined in the light of the destruction wrought by the Communist party ...
In other words, liberals are effectively killed both outside the party and inside the party. I don't even know how useful a term like "conservatives" is in the chaos during the early republic.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe scientists tend to work in the public sector either in education or on research dependent on grants. Perhaps democrats fund these institutions/projects more then republicans.
This.
People who live off of other people's taxes tend to be more in favor of taxes. Not a huge surprise.
Correct, because the other party never raises taxes, right?
Wouldn't "people who live off of other people's taxes" include a lot more than government sponsored scientists? Fire fighters, police, the army, navy, all the military and the people who supply the military, most government workers, and everyone who holds a governmental office, most of the people who work for people that hold office...
We should really be winning more elections.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Drawing lines through single data points has a long and honoured history in the social sciences.
I think it's graph envy.
A philosopher professor I once had admitted it, saying there was no way for him to graph to lines and declare the answer was where they intersect. Of course, I haven't found an answer where two lines intersect in a very long time, but the idea is there.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got a problem with how they selected their "scientists"
The fine print says that they "scientists" were taken from a random sampling of 2,553 members of the "american association for the advancement of science" the "world's largest general scientific society"
I'm unclear as to whether they included engineers as scientists or not. I don't see them making a lot of other distinctions between "pure" and "applied" science.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
In D&D terms, it might be accurate to say Conservatism is about Wisdom (relying on things we've already learned from experience) and Liberalism is about Intelligence (learning, studying and reacting to new ideas).
Granted, I probably lose 13 arbitrary credibility points for using D&D terms to explain politics.
Actually, no.
You lose credibility points for ascribing either Intelligence or Wisdom to either political party.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm now getting even more disgruntled. It isn't that I'd rank myself as a conservative or anything, I probably agree with most of the AAAS views myself. But, in the interest of "science" I'd like to see an unbiased sampling of "scientists".
Yes, the AAAS publishes the Journal "Science" however you could read that journal and even submit papers to that journal and still not belong to the AAAS, which has a clear political statement and agenda on their website.
Those who actually bother joining the AAAS probably agree with a significant amount of their policy goals *before* they join.
Edit: I'm wrong. You "automatically" become a member of AAAS when you subscribe to "Science" the magazine. I still think that might create a selection bias.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You lose credibility points for ascribing either Intelligence or Wisdom to either political party.
You may note that I said "Conservative" and "Liberal," philosophies that aren't inherently tied to the machinations that make political parties so dumb.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Wouldn't "people who live off of other people's taxes" include a lot more than government sponsored scientists? Fire fighters, police, the army, navy, all the military and the people who supply the military, most government workers, and everyone who holds a governmental office, most of the people who work for people that hold office...
Now that it is established that the survey was really "subscribers to Science that aren't k-12 educators" I think this survey needs to be looked at in a different light.
Sweeping generalizations ahead folks, but I would hazard that many "scientists" working in defense-related industries, are often more politically conservative than their counterparts in non-defense related industries and despite the fact they are being paid by the government, tend to be a lot less taxation friendly than their non-defense industry counterparts.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Those who actually bother joining the AAAS probably agree with a significant amount of their policy goals *before* they join.
Edit: I'm wrong. You "automatically" become a member of AAAS when you subscribe to "Science" the magazine. I still think that might create a selection bias.
If anything this will cause the bias to go the other way. Older scientists will be over-represented in the "I need dead tree copies of Science" group. Younger scientists will likely belong to a university or an institute that has a subscription, so they will read it online only, and not sign up for anything. And it would be quite surprising of younger scientists didn't show the same liberal/conservative split that younger people in general show.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: Older scientists will be over-represented in the "I need dead tree copies of Science" group. Younger scientists will likely belong to a university or an institute that has a subscription, so they will read it online only, and not sign up for anything.
Why do you assume that there are a larger proportion of younger scientists attached to academic institutions? I see no proof of that, beyond the actual student bodies of institutions, and you can't exactly call them scientists just yet. Why would a younger person in the sciences necessarily be working in an academic environment? Most don't- we're talking about doctors, engineers, commercial researchers, government researchers, etc. From your spin on things I get a mental image of the "young scientist" carrying a physics book on a college campus, and an "older scientist" futzing around in his basement with a bunch of beakers and Bunsen burners. Granted, my private image of "scientist" until I was about 20 solely involved the activity of mixing volatile chemicals together, but let's not remain so simplistic.
And I'm not sure if you know how the electronic journal subscription thing works, but subscribing to just a couple of magazines is a whole hell of a lot cheaper than a research subscription to an online database.
I agree the selection criteria are not very good, but that particular reasoning is full of holes a mile wide.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: Younger scientists will likely belong to a university or an institute that has a subscription, so they will read it online only, and not sign up for anything.
*raises hand* I'm one of these. Although I still print in the "dead-tree format." It's not as easy to scribble in pen and highlighter all over my computer screen as it is on paper.
quote:First posted by swbarnes2: And it would be quite surprising of younger scientists didn't show the same liberal/conservative split that younger people in general show.
From my experience there is a clear liberal/conservative split, but I work in atmospheric and climate science, so I don't think that's too surprising.
ETA: Actually, I wouldn't call it a liberal/conservative split at all. That seems to indicate extremes, which is not how I see things here.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Hmmmm, see it doesn't really work that way. If I understand the period to which you're referring to liberals are effectively non-existent.
Forgive my quoting Wikipedia but:
quote:Liberalism was to suffer in the wake of the immense challenges China faced from Japanese militarism and the impact of the Communist movement. By the 1930s many of the younger generation felt that only radical, authoritarian doctrines could save the country. The Guomindang or Nationalist party absorbed a good deal of Fascist doctrine and practice. Liberalism increasingly seemed to serve as a forlorn "third force", able only to admonish authoritarian regimes of the Left and Right.
The ascendancy of Mao Zedong and the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949 brought the liberal impulse to its lowest level. Ideological witchhunts were organized against the (real or imaginary) followers of Hu Shi, and their values were ceaselessly derided as bourgeois delusions which could only weaken the nation.
With the collapse of Mao's ideology on his death, seeds of regeneration which had lain dormant gradually came to life. Liberal ideals like intellectual freedom, the separation of powers, civil society and the rule of law were reexamined in the light of the destruction wrought by the Communist party ...
In other words, liberals are effectively killed both outside the party and inside the party. I don't even know how useful a term like "conservatives" is in the chaos during the early republic.
Yet in the scholarship of the period it was common to refer to the old party liners like Zhou En Lai, Deng Xiao Ping, and Liu Shao Qi as the conservative element, while Mao, Lin Biao, Jiang Qing, and the others in the Gang of Four are referred to as the liberal element. I think radical is a better term, but I don't think you can say that because liberalism is related or comes from the word "liberty" that liberalism then favors liberty. Conservatives often feel like their liberty is being infringed upon by current political developments, the idea of being compelled to pay higher taxes so that the government can fund a universal health care plan to them seems like an attack on liberty.
But I'll agree with you that from 1930-1970ish the concept of left and right got extremely muddled in China.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Yet in the scholarship of the period it was common to refer to the old party liners like Zhou En Lai, Deng Xiao Ping, and Liu Shao Qi as the conservative element, while Mao, Lin Biao, Jiang Qing, and the others in the Gang of Four are referred to as the liberal element. I think radical is a better term
I haven't really seen them used that way and I think radical is usually more common. I don't think even "conservative" usually gets used all that often for CCP politicians since that would have a similar connotation to traditionalist in that era (or reactionary for that matter).
Again, I usually see the terms used more like this:
quote:The Hundred Flowers campaign was Mao's attempt to rally liberal intellectuals to combat bureaucratism; however, the explosion of criticism of the CCP's power monopoly surprised him. Convinced that liberal intellectuals could never be trusted and were always potential enemies, Mao launched the Anti-Rightist campaign in mid-1957 to punish outspoken liberal intellectuals, who were labelled "bourgeois rights."
quote:... but I don't think you can say that because liberalism is related or comes from the word "liberty" that liberalism then favors liberty. Conservatives often feel like their liberty is being infringed upon by current political developments, the idea of being compelled to pay higher taxes so that the government can fund a universal health care plan to them seems like an attack on liberty.
Thats kind of an American development though. If anything, in modern day China it would be the conservatives that would be in favour of state-run health care and not the liberals. In Canada, health-care was essentially a social democrat platform that was co-opted and supported by liberals by virtue of the two being more compatible than their conservative opposition.
(And it is true, that in the States, liberals have long aligned themselves on the left. However, the point of the Chinese examples, when a society moves far to the left, liberals end up on the right. However, in the Qing era they would be on the "left." This is because unlike the "left/right" or "reformist/conservative" pairs which are mostly relative and context-sensitive, liberal is a term that is more absolute)
quote: But I'll agree with you that from 1930-1970ish the concept of left and right got extremely muddled in China.
Not quite my point, but close.
I think left/right isn't actually that bad in that era. What I think is muddled are divisions such as traditionalists, reactionaries, conservatives, reformists, radicals, etc. All of these are terms that essentially require an agreed upon base-line for what is "older" and what is "newer" which don't really work in that turbulent era.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: Older scientists will be over-represented in the "I need dead tree copies of Science" group. Younger scientists will likely belong to a university or an institute that has a subscription, so they will read it online only, and not sign up for anything.
Why do you assume that there are a larger proportion of younger scientists attached to academic institutions? I see no proof of that, beyond the actual student bodies of institutions, and you can't exactly call them scientists just yet. Why would a younger person in the sciences necessarily be working in an academic environment? Most don't- we're talking about doctors, engineers, commercial researchers, government researchers, etc. From your spin on things I get a mental image of the "young scientist" carrying a physics book on a college campus, and an "older scientist" futzing around in his basement with a bunch of beakers and Bunsen burners. Granted, my private image of "scientist" until I was about 20 solely involved the activity of mixing volatile chemicals together, but let's not remain so simplistic.
And I'm not sure if you know how the electronic journal subscription thing works, but subscribing to just a couple of magazines is a whole hell of a lot cheaper than a research subscription to an online database.
I agree the selection criteria are not very good, but that particular reasoning is full of holes a mile wide.
I think you may be misinterpreting swbarnes's post. In fact, I'm sure of it.
swbarnes is not saying that young scientists are more likely to be in academia than in applied sciences (although given that "young scientist" and "student" are virtually synonymous, this is almost certainly true). He's saying that young scientists, regardless of institutional or corporate affiliation, are likely to be more tech-savvy than their older counterparts, and are therefore more open to using modern online databases to retrieve papers. Such online databases make use of institution-wide subscriptions to journals - for example, if I work at Pfizer, I would access relevant papers via Pfizer's subscription to those papers, rather than a personal subscription. Pfizer almost certainly has a mechanism that allows me access to journals even from home, obviating any need for me to bother subscribing myself. This is standard practice in all modern research institutions, ranging from tiny liberal arts colleges to massive multinational conglomerates.
It has been my experience that older scientists often prefer their dead-tree personal subscriptions (at least to the big journals - Science, Nature, etc), and have the money to pay for them. They are not cheap. In comparison, student/ faculty/ staff scientist access to university or corporate subscriptions is almost always free. Therefore, if a personal subscription to Science is the minimum entry barrier to AAAS membership, you will have far more older scientists than younger ones, because the younger scientists won't even bother to subscribe.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: I've got a problem with how they selected their "scientists"
The fine print says that they "scientists" were taken from a random sampling of 2,553 members of the "american association for the advancement of science" the "world's largest general scientific society"
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: It has been my experience that older scientists often prefer their dead-tree personal subscriptions (at least to the big journals - Science, Nature, etc), and have the money to pay for them. They are not cheap. In comparison, student/ faculty/ staff scientist access to university or corporate subscriptions is almost always free. Therefore, if a personal subscription to Science is the minimum entry barrier to AAAS membership, you will have far more older scientists than younger ones, because the younger scientists won't even bother to subscribe.
That would be a fairly easy factor to control for though- you just balance the numbers according to age, and maybe correct for the estimated numbers of scientists working in different industries and their ages.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: Older scientists will be over-represented in the "I need dead tree copies of Science" group. Younger scientists will likely belong to a university or an institute that has a subscription, so they will read it online only, and not sign up for anything.
Why do you assume that there are a larger proportion of younger scientists attached to academic institutions?
I meant to write 'institution', which isn't quite right either, but I bet that industries also get site-wide subscriptions. And I would be shocked if government facilities and hospitals didn't.
quote:From your spin on things I get a mental image of the "young scientist" carrying a physics book on a college campus, and an "older scientist" futzing around in his basement with a bunch of beakers and Bunsen burners. Granted, my private image of "scientist" until I was about 20 solely involved the activity of mixing volatile chemicals together, but let's not remain so simplistic.
Huh?
My "image" of a young scientist is someone who doesn't have the shelf space to store years of Science articles, and who figures they might move once or twice in their career and wouldn't want to move an extra box of books. Science magazine is pretty broad...in any given issue there might only be one article that's in your field, and often, none. Online is searchable, and takes up no space, and if you want to mark up a physical copy of one article, you can print one, instead of having a whole issue of articles, most of which aren't relevant. And if you want detailed specifics on a paper, those probably aren't even in the dead tree version, you'll have to go online anyway.
Most importantly, the "young" scientist is used to doing a great deal of reading on the computer, and has been doing so since adolescence, if not earlier. And they are used to information being mroe or less free, without requiring signing up for anything, or paying for anything.
I'm just saying, I can imagine a post-doc or a grad student who's not making much money, who has to keep up with papers in many other journals too, not bothering with paying for the AAAS (yes, it's a tax write off, but it's still a few hundred dollars), because she can read what articles she wants to read in Science for free at work.
But the guy who's got 20 years of Science probably isn't going to stop his subscription.
So it's going to skew, but I think this skew is going to make the ratio look more Republican than it is.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus: We essentially agree, but I must confess your words smack of intellectualism. Are you sure you aren't a member of "that stinking 9th category" of class enemies, who are "running dogs for the capitalists?"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe scientists tend to work in the public sector either in education or on research dependent on grants. Perhaps democrats fund these institutions/projects more then republicans.
This.
People who live off of other people's taxes tend to be more in favor of taxes. Not a huge surprise.
If there were even a half truth here, one would expect that police officers, military contractors, public school teachers, and farmers would be even more likely to be democrats than scientists. Police officers and public school teachers for example are 100% supported by our tax dollars.
I don't know who this study counted as scientists, but even if they were counting only people with Ph.D's in the physical or life sciences, they would find that the majority are employed in the private sector by companies who do not receive any substantial government grants or contracts.
Use some rational thinking before posting people.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like kmboots beat me to it. At least some one here has enough logical ability to think their way out of an open paper bag.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, there were like two people tops who posted that opinion, and at least 8 people who have dogpiled on top of each other pointing out how wrong it is, and no one has since argued back. It's got kind of ridiculous.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Looks like kmboots beat me to it. At least some one here has enough logical ability to think their way out of an open paper bag.
PSH. That hole in the top is just how they get you. I'm no sucker!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious to what degree folks of different stripes identify primarily as a member of a party, vs. which find a party aligns with their identity.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: In Mao's China, both of us probably wouldn't last very long.
Probably not, after rereading Life and Death in Shanghai, I really want to read a good biography of Zhou En Lai (周恩來), he's seemed like the sort of person I would have loved to know.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He usually seems to be cast in a good light in the books* in which he makes an appearance, although I have yet to read a biography on him specifically.
* As the latest example I've read, Trudeau in his memoirs seemed quite fond of him
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Despite Rabbit's as-usual-rude-and-trashy comment, she misses the point. However, she isn't worth the bother of an explanation. If she thinks hard, she might be able to figure out why.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Despite Rabbit's as-usual-rude-and-trashy comment, she misses the point. However, she isn't worth the bother of an explanation. If she thinks hard, she might be able to figure out why.
So your response is: an as-usual-rude-and-trashy comment.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Wouldn't mind an explanation either, although I doubt we'll be getting one for the obvious reason(s?))
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
BB, I've got a question for you. Do you see the embracing by the GOP of anti-science/anti-smart people rhetoric and policy that many of us here do?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky: describing what the GOP does as a whole is pretty murky work, stating that they act as a completely unified group is not very accurate.
I actually wrote and rewrote what I wanted to say right after the above paragraph, but it kept coming out long winded and wrong. It sufficeth me to say that yes to some extent the GOP has propagated an anti-science/intellectual argument, so as to continue to attract evangelical Christians.
It's causing them to hemorrhage the moderate vote, and I think the party is starting to recognize that their strategy is not very feasible.
----
edit: I came into college a pretty strong Republican, but I voted for Kerry within just a few months. It took another 4 years for me to leave the party.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:describing what the GOP does as a whole is pretty murky work, stating that they act as completely unified group is not very accurate.
Oh, no doubt. Sorry, I didn't mean to make it seem like they were a homogeneous whole.
No offense taken, they aren't *my* party anymore. But I can say I have not seen any attempt to temper the anti-intellectualism that the GOP currently exudes.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
C'mon, folks -- I don't want to lock another thread.
Kat, you're out of line on your comment to Samp, no matter what you think invited it.
Why does it seem so difficult to respond to something without snark? I often struggle to figure out what is desired to be accomplished, other than to lift oneself up or knock someone else down. I rarely if ever (I was going to say never but my memory isn't that good) see it actually improve the level of discourse.
Certain personalities keep clashing, and probably will as long as baggage from previous (years of) threads is kept. I find that to be sad.
Can we return to discussing the subject at hand, instead of to discussing the people discussing the subject at hand?
posted
If you haven't done it yet, I recommend reading the full report. It is quite interesting.
I think there are a number of misconceptions floating around that ought to be corrected.
Most people join scientific societies because the participate in the conferences and meetings, not for the journals. There are much cheaper and easier ways to get access to the journals, particularly if you have access to a decent University library. If you want to know something about the membership of AAAS, look through the programme for their national meetings. In every division I looked at, the sessions at AAAS were far more public policy / education oriented than typical science conferences I've attended. This is consistent with the stated goals of the society. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the AAAS membership is at least some what biased toward scientists that are interested in science and public policy or science education.
Furthermore, when you get a research grant the money generally doesn't go in your pocket. Typical professors get at most 1 or 2 months of summer salary from grants. The grant money goes to buy instruments and supplies, pay dissemination costs, and pay graduate student research assistants. Government grants actually have a salary cap, which can be a problem for senior professors and particularly medical doctors -- many of them actually have to take a salary cut if they are paid off a research grant.
People don't go into scientific research or education for the money. Very very few people make it above middle class as scientific researchers. If you are scientifically gifted, a career in engineering of medicine will or even patent law will end up being far more profitable than a career as a scientific researcher.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lem: Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).
If you look at the chart, there is another tidbit worth mentioning. In the industry, only 10% of scientists are republicans up from 6%. In fact, government and academic are at 7% and 5% which are probably within the error margin. It is the NGO scientists which really bring down the average at 3%.[/QB]
Not many have commented on this.
This shows how scientists who work in the private sector, who DON'T get their money from the government, are still by great majority Democrats, or lean towards Democrats.
So the "People who live off of other people's taxes tend to be more in favor of taxes" argument obviously doesn't hold any water at all.
posted
I was wondering when anyone would notice that. I didn't add the EDIT that long after the initial post. 10 minutes tops. I find it interesting that this is even being argued when the study addresses that very suggestion.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not, but at the same time it's pretty worthwhile to have analyzed it enough to have a well-explained rebuttal to the notion.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I agree the GOP often uses railing against ivory tower elitism to rouse its base to action, it's interesting to note that neither party uniformly represents scientific opinion. Take, for instance, animal testing. The pew survey showed 93% of scientists supported animal testing, something which is anathema to the Democratic base (or, at least, portions of the Democratic base. I recognize that neither party's "base" is a fundamental, unified opinion bloc). Similarly, scientists are more similar to Republicans than Democrats in their support for nuclear power.
Personally, I believe while the GOP rhetoric (unfortunately) can make scientists feel unwelcome, at least as significant a factor is the culture of higher education in general, and particularly higher science education in our country. Since Kennedy (or perhaps Adlai Stevenson), "fitting in" in college has meant espousing liberal political views. It's very much the same as the "country club effect" on Republicans; to be accepted, you feel pressure to agree with your friends, colleagues, mentors, etc. The result is an increasingly homogeneous population (and one in which both the majority and minority opinion groups become increasingly radicalized).
I don't believe that most scientists are Democrats primarily because of their scientific opinions. I imagine most are Democrats because they support abortion rights, and don't mind gun control, and believe in marriage equality, and... Values they learned and adopted from their cultural milieu. I doubt that if the GOP institutionally condemned creationists and global warming doubters that the party would win back a significant number of those scientists. Even if the party moved rhetorically from populism to meritocratic elitism, I think it would take at least a generation to make significant in-roads with the college-trained scientific population.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I doubt that if the GOP institutionally condemned creationists and global warming doubters that the party would win back a significant number of those scientists.
And at the same time, the GOP is pretty sure that they can't institutionally condemn creationists and global warming doubters.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, compromise. Throw out the creationists, keep the global-warming deniers, and I promise I'll vote for the Republicans the next time I get a chance.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not concerned about the overall party affliation of scientists....I am very concerned about one scientist... John HoldrenPopulation ControlPosts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
