Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/29/10 05:54 PM, Proteas wrote:

If that was truly the case, why aren't ALL scientists liberals, instead of being divided up into three groups (liberals with 52%, independents/undecided with 39%, and conservatives with 9%)? =

It's just such a broad stance.

Someone might be a conservative in general but still think praying to find Osama is retarded. And it goes both ways, you can go to church every day and think evolution is retarded and yet believe gays should get married if they want.

It just depends on what a person values more as they answer the question.

And like it's been said, "scientist" is pretty broad... a chemist for instance doesn't really work in a field that has anything to do with political stances so ... he could be anything.

But a biologist is probably a lot more aware of the kind of stupid sauce that's been poured all over education in the last decade.

At 1/29/10 05:54 PM, Proteas wrote: You're a fucking moron = an attack on you personally, ergo, argumentum ad homein (itself defined as an attack on the person making the argument, not the argument iself).
You're argument is fucking stupid = an attack on your argument, not you, which =/= Argument Ad Hominem.

Regardless, either argument is a non-sequitor. Even if we are to accept that your comments were not a personal attack on coherant, "You're argument is fucking stupid" is still a logical fallacy. An abusive logical fallacy at that.

At 1/29/10 03:57 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 1/29/10 02:55 PM, Proteas wrote: But what part of their degree qualifies them as experts on political matters?

What part of their degree would preclude them from understanding politics and forming a rational opinion based on the evidence they have observed?

It's this sort of thinking that led to this.

Just as absolutely no part of my degree qualifies me to play with chemicals, no part of a chemist's desgree qualifies him to write revisionist history.

At 1/29/10 06:05 PM, poxpower wrote: It's just such a broad stance.

You're not responding to what I actually said, pox. Coherent made the claim that these scientists might have come to their political beliefs through use of scientific method. If that is the case, why are there still independent and conservative scientists? If they used the method and came out that way anyway, then the findings are invalid because there is something wrong with the method of self examination. If they didn't use the method, then the experiment is invalid because not all members of the group were included.

And on top of all that, the scientific method negates personal bias. So how can you use an unbiased scientific method of reasoning to determine your own political bias and have unbiased results?

At 1/29/10 06:06 PM, Musician wrote: Regardless, either argument is a non-sequitor. Even if we are to accept that your comments were not a personal attack on coherant, "You're argument is fucking stupid" is still a logical fallacy. An abusive logical fallacy at that.

Are we reading the same topic? He called ad hominem on me for calling his argument style juvenile, and my reasoning for doing so was because he could not actually address anything I said head-on without making a slippery slope or appeal to ridicule out of it. It was far from abusive, and it barely qualifies as a non sequiter as it related to the premise it followed (I wasn't just calling his argument juvenile for the hell of it).

As for the "fucking stupid" thing? That was a demonstration of what does and does not qualify as an ad hominem argument. I have yet to weigh in on what I actually think of his intelligence.

At 1/29/10 07:11 PM, Proteas wrote: Are we reading the same topic? He called ad hominem on me for calling his argument style juvenile, and my reasoning for doing so was because he could not actually address anything I said head-on without making a slippery slope or appeal to ridicule out of it. It was far from abusive, and it barely qualifies as a non sequiter as it related to the premise it followed (I wasn't just calling his argument juvenile for the hell of it).

Allow me to explain in more detail how it is a non-sequitur. You say "his argument is juvenile". Your line of logic is thus:

Juvenile Argument => Incorrect Argument

This is not necessarily true. An argument can be juvenile and still be correct. This is almost exactly the same as if you had fallen into a ad hominem fallacy where the logic would be this:

Author is Juvenile => Author's Arguments are Wrong

Personally It seems pretty clear cut to me that this was a case of ad hominem, especially given the last part of your post "If you can't actually argue against what I'm presenting that you would resort to something this juvenile, then you don't have much going for you" But like I said either way you've fallen into a logical fallacy.

At 1/29/10 07:11 PM, Proteas wrote: If that is the case, why are there still independent and conservative scientists?

Like I said, being "conservative" is extremely broad and touches on many things that have nothing to do with science.

So a scientist could disagree completely on 99% of the things conservatives stand for, but like tax cuts so he'd answer he's a conservative.

And on top of all that, the scientific method negates personal bias. So how can you use an unbiased scientific method of reasoning to determine your own political bias and have unbiased results?

Like I told you, scientists don't side with politicians, politicians side with scientists.
If scientist realize politicians from a certain party tend to ignore science and just push their opinions over reality, they won't side with that party because they know the politicians are full of crap.

So regardless of other issues they're not expert in, they will choose not to identify with them.

For instance, if you saw a dude say "hey join my party, we believe in a flat earth" you'd just tell him to fuck off and it wouldn't matter what his ideas are on healthcare reform or zoning permits.

That's what happened with evolution. People who have studied science KNOW about that subject and when they heard what was going on, they realized instantly that the party pushing for banning it was retarded.
But people who aren't educated don't know about this so they don't get it.

At 1/29/10 07:29 PM, Musician wrote: This is not necessarily true. An argument can be juvenile and still be correct.

Then show me how his use of straw-man and slippery slope were both mature and correct.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

"If you can't actually argue against what I'm presenting that you would resort to something this juvenile, then you don't have much going for you"

As in, "you don't much of an argument," which he didn't and still doesn't have.

But like I said either way you've fallen into a logical fallacy.

I made a comment attacking his argument, not him, and not him by extension. This does not qualify as an ad hominem attack even by the most stretched out of definitions you are using, and even if it did, it's as mild as tap water compared to some of things I have said to people in regards to their intelligence on here. Get over yourself.

At 1/29/10 07:38 PM, poxpower wrote: So a scientist could disagree completely on 99% of the things conservatives stand for, but like tax cuts so he'd answer he's a conservative.

So how can you trust the results of this poll if you believe in this one drop rule form of logic? If you can't trust the people taking the poll to answer correctly, then the results are meaningless.

Like I told you, scientists don't side with politicians, politicians side with scientists.

Then why is this topic about scientists personal political viewpoints?

Somebody just tell me I'm typing in Chinese so I can have a stroke and get it over with.

At 1/29/10 08:38 PM, Proteas wrote:

If you can't trust the people taking the poll to answer correctly, then the results are meaningless.

Their political stance isn't all about scientific stuff.

So it's possible you have two climate scientists who both agree on everything regarding climate science but who have two different political allegiances for whatever reason.

Conservatives just have this history of resisting change, inquiry, free speech, honesty etc on top of promoting retarded bullshit like religion and coming across as straight-up morons.

When Sarah Palin represents you, you're in deep trouble if you're trying to pass as smart.

I doubt many people who've spent 10 years in higher education want anything to do with political figures who sound like they've been dropped as babies.

Proteas, seriously, just stop. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to non-sequiturs and other logical fallacies. Even if we ignore the fact that your argument was an ad hominem and perhaps deliberately non sequitur, you can not tell me that this is a productive form of debate:

If you can't actually argue against what I'm presenting that you would resort to something this juvenile, then you don't have much going for you.

It doesn't address the argument, it's an open insult towards your opponent and frankly it's embarrassing to see a moderator, someone who's supposed to be a role model, acting like this. You're clearly upset, which is understandable given that a discussion like this is bound to be extremely controversial, but it's everyones responsibility on these forums to control themselves and be civil.

At 1/29/10 08:55 PM, poxpower wrote: Their political stance isn't all about scientific stuff.

*eye twitch*

I could have sworn that I've said several times in this topic that we were supposed to be discussing personal beliefs, as in, not related to scientific beliefs. And now you're telling me that these political beliefs... aren't related... to scientific stuff...

Does anybody know what a stroke feels like?

I doubt many people who've spent 10 years in higher education want anything to do with political figures who sound like they've been dropped as babies.

And yet, they chose to align themselves with a political party anyway. So what does that say about their intelligence?

At 1/29/10 09:07 PM, Musician wrote: You clearly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to non-sequiturs and other logical fallacies.

You really want to go there?

Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.

I made the claim that his argument was juvenile because it (1) he relied on strawman arguments to make his points, (2) he relied on slippery slope arguments to make rediculous claims about what I was presenting, neither tactic of which actually addressed what I was saying, both of which are immature tactics for debate (which no one would argue with), so it would follow that I would both call him out on it and make the point that he really didn't have an argument to present.

Now, if I was to call him immature for

Even if we ignore the fact that your argument was an ad hominem

Which it clearly is not, because I attacked the argument he was presenting and not him personally.

and perhaps deliberately non sequitur, you can not tell me that this is a productive form of debate:

And what you've been doing IS a productive form of debate?

It doesn't address the argument, it's an open insult towards your opponent and frankly it's embarrassing to see a moderator, someone who's supposed to be a role model, acting like this.

*looks around*

Since when was I a mod again?

You're clearly upset, which is understandable given that a discussion like this is bound to be extremely controversial, but it's everyones responsibility on these forums to control themselves and be civil.

You want to see what it look like when I'm uncivil with someone? Click here. You haven't SEEN me get upset yet.

At 1/29/10 10:04 PM, Proteas wrote:

And now you're telling me that these political beliefs... aren't related... to scientific stuff...

Just read it again using both your eyes.

And yet, they chose to align themselves with a political party anyway.

The survey wasn't about political parties, it was about if they felt they were more liberal or conservative.

At 1/29/10 10:09 PM, poxpower wrote: The survey wasn't about political parties, it was about if they felt they were more liberal or conservative.

It actually wasn't entirely about either of those things, but both of them were mentioned (party & identified ideology). The piece was also about how people viewed scientists etc etc.

I'd also like to point out that ad hominum, which almost everyone (almost) has engaged in is not a measurement you can use against a debate. You can argue it doesn't support the point a person is making, but that doesn't make the attack untrue. For instance, the topic starter could be immature, but this doesn't mean he is right or wrong. Proteus could be an idiot, but this doesn't necessarily make him wrong. Anything I claimed could be true I wasn't saying was true, if you were able to read beyond both sentences. My only point here is that whether or not people used ad hominum attacks is actually entirely irrelevant because their use doesn't necessarily destroy their argument unless the entire argument is based on that attack, which neither were arguments were.

Now, insinuating that scientists never do real work is ad hominum and its unfounded and that would imply there's a fallacy somewhere.

I think when someone speaks of science in the sense of liberalism versus conservatism, we are talking about beliefs on issues such as Abortion or evolution, at least in the biological-medical sense, why virtually all biologists would be registered democrats makes sense to me.

We also have to consider that college professors in general lean left, or at least the overwhelming majority of them are registered democrats, even if they are not mainstream democrats.

For instance, i believe that 2/3rds of all economics professors are registered democrats, yet this ratio is significantly closer to 50-50 than most of the humanities, where sociology or history might be 20-1 or 30-1 democrat to republican.

I think social liberalism is more appealing to scientists simply because Scientists, even though they are often Egg-heads, are more cosmopolitan

At 1/30/10 01:09 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: For instance, i believe that 2/3rds of all economics professors are registered democrats,

Really?
I thought it was the other way round. Specially the Microeconomics ones. Those are unbelievable at times (ergo, Chicago).
HEY, you need to see the video at my blog. It's where my sig message came from! :D

At 1/30/10 01:28 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 1/30/10 01:09 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: For instance, i believe that 2/3rds of all economics professors are registered democrats,

Really?
I thought it was the other way round. Specially the Microeconomics ones. Those are unbelievable at times (ergo, Chicago).
HEY, you need to see the video at my blog. It's where my sig message came from! :D

I saw it already, it was great.

Play low interest rates, Naw it's the animal spirits.

At 1/29/10 02:17 AM, Coherent wrote: Social Liberalism to be specific. I was talking with a conservative friend of mine and he was going on his usual rant about how the american school system has a liberal slant. I agree with this to an extent, but today I had a different idea. Have you ever considered that liberalism is more widely accepted by college proffesor and students because liberalism is simply more compatible with reality?

Nah, I think that professors are more left-leaning because they hate the system. They see themselves as being at the top of their field, well respected in academic circles, and making less money than the managers at Wal Mart (well, this is true of adjuncts in most humanities, probably not tenured professors though). It annoys them that society gives them less money and less respect than their own little social circles.

After all, liberals aren't the one claiming "God did it!" is the best and most useful scientific explanation for everything. Liberals aren't claiming extremely trivial benign things like homosexuality are "immoral" and "evil".

Most conservatives think this either.

A recent poll by the pew research center found that 52% of all scientists identify themselves as "liberal" while only 9% identify themselves as "conservatives" (an even lesser 6% identified themselves as republicans) (Source: http://people-press.org/report/528/) So now it would seem that not only are those more exposed to higher education identifying themselves as liberals, but the majority of scientists are as well?

One issue here is that in academia, liberal means "libertarian" more than it means "leftist". In any case, people with BS degrees are more conservative than average. Those with more than a BS or no higher education at all are more liberal.

Of course, none of this objectively proves that liberalism is closer to reality, but it certainly worth considering and discussing. It certainly seems from my perspective that conservatives in this country have taken to arguing based on their own personal moralitys (or other biases), rather than arguing upon logic in reason.

Just my 2 cents

I think that morality and reason go hand in hand.

At 2/1/10 10:40 PM, Al6200 wrote: I think that morality and reason go hand in hand.

Do you really believe that? I mean sure, someones morality and reason can coincide, but I wouldn't say they go hand in hand. Not with all the examples to the contrary.

Consider this, because someone thought it was a good idea to legislate their personal morality we have:

- Draconian drug laws, that has allowed criminal organizations to monopolize the drug trade.
- Mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have led to overpopulation in our prison system
- A policy that bans homosexuals from serving in the military
- Legislation in some states that explicitly prohibit homosexual marriages or civil unions
- A pro-life movement that would bring us back to the era before roe v wade, where women were dying on the streets getting back alley abortions.

If you want I can go on.

At 2/2/10 12:00 AM, Musician wrote:

At 2/1/10 10:40 PM, Al6200 wrote: I think that morality and reason go hand in hand.

Do you really believe that?

Well some people are fucking retarded, so the "reason" part of their "morality and reason go hand in hand" equation is a little lacking.

:D

At 2/2/10 12:06 AM, poxpower wrote: Well some people are fucking retarded, so the "reason" part of their "morality and reason go hand in hand" equation is a little lacking.

D

Honestly I've never really gotten morality. I mean, there are so many examples of morality that are just plain stupid/weird. In islamic countries alcohol is immoral. In India cows are sacred and you're not supposed to eat them. Jews aren't supposed to eat pork. Scientologists say psychiatry is immoral. Just about everyone before the 20th century thought homosexuality was immoral.

Wouldn't it be much easier to just base our laws on what works rather than adhere to some supposedly all encompassing moral code?

Conservatism is closer to nature. Natural selection benefits the strong. There is no forgiveness for weakness or inferiority, and the only thing that is immoral in nature is failure.

True conservatism also acknowledges the scientific method. Fact. What really does exist, not what we wish existed.

George Lincoln Rockwell

Rockwell on Science

At 2/2/10 12:00 AM, Musician wrote: - A policy that bans homosexuals from serving in the military
- Legislation in some states that explicitly prohibit homosexual marriages or civil unions
- A pro-life movement that would bring us back to the era before roe v wade, where women were dying on the streets getting back alley abortions.

If you want I can go on.

So you're arguing that morality doesn't make sense... with your own moral stances?

At 2/6/10 12:35 AM, dySWN wrote: So you're arguing that morality doesn't make sense... with your own moral stances?

I'm not saying morality doesn't make sense, in many cases morality coincides with reality. The morals that say murder is wrong for example, coincide with reality because a society can't exist where nobody can assume the right to life.

Sometimes, however, morality does not coincide with reality. Legislated abortion for example, has been empirically proven to be a failure. Such a program not only fails to prevent abortion, but it breeds poverty, and with that higher crime rates. From an objective stand point the pro-life morality does not coincide with the reality of the situation.

The case for legislating against gay rights is even clearer: it persecutes a completely harmless group of people for no other reason than "my morality says they're bad". A group of American's are stripped of their rights because of a "morality" held by an irrational majority.

At 1/29/10 07:38 PM, poxpower wrote: So a scientist could disagree completely on 99% of the things conservatives stand for, but like tax cuts so he'd answer he's a conservative.

No, sorry. Conservative is an overall view. You must agree with more than one platform to be conservative. You're muddying the waters.

That is, quite simply, horsecrap.

Like I told you, scientists don't side with politicians, politicians side with scientists.
If scientist realize politicians from a certain party tend to ignore science and just push their opinions over reality, they won't side with that party because they know the politicians are full of crap.

You contradict yourself. But I doubt you realize that.

For instance, if you saw a dude say "hey join my party, we believe in a flat earth" you'd just tell him to fuck off and it wouldn't matter what his ideas are on healthcare reform or zoning permits.

Again, no, sorry. No one joins a party, a group, whatever, that they don't agree with 51% or more.

That's what happened with evolution. People who have studied science KNOW about that subject and when they heard what was going on, they realized instantly that the party pushing for banning it was retarded.
But people who aren't educated don't know about this so they don't get it.

Gotcha. You're an ideologue.

At 2/6/10 01:57 AM, Musician wrote: Sometimes, however, morality does not coincide with reality. Legislated abortion for example, has been empirically proven to be a failure. Such a program not only fails to prevent abortion, but it breeds poverty, and with that higher crime rates. From an objective stand point the pro-life morality does not coincide with the reality of the situation.

Oh goodness. Um, sorry chap, but epic fail. Poverty rates increased quicker after abortion was legalized. As did crime. But don't let facts stand in your way.

The case for legislating against gay rights is even clearer: it persecutes a completely harmless group of people for no other reason than "my morality says they're bad". A group of American's are stripped of their rights because of a "morality" held by an irrational majority.

Because me not giving you a pat on the back and saying "good boy" deprives you of your rights? eye roll.....

At 2/7/10 06:23 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Oh goodness. Um, sorry chap, but epic fail. Poverty rates increased quicker after abortion was legalized. As did crime. But don't let facts stand in your way.

hi could you show me these facts, thx

It's simply difficult to say that anything is closer to reality in terms of political views. Things like morals and ethics do not make me think of "reality". When I look at reality, I think of the chances we have of dying and being able top accept undsiputable facts that have been proven. If statistics have shown that p;eople who are liberals accept reality more and don't do things like think of conspiracy theories or creationism, then I guess they would be closer to reality than whose who don't.

At 2/7/10 06:23 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Oh goodness. Um, sorry chap, but epic fail. Poverty rates increased quicker after abortion was legalized. As did crime. But don't let facts stand in your way.

There was a major drop in crime in 1990s. I know what you're thinking: "Hey abortion was legalized in the 1970s, so if what you said is true shouldn't there have been an immediate decline in crime rates?" Not when you consider why exactly legalized abortion lowers the crime rate. Consider this, when abortion was illegal, kids were being born into poor living conditions. Because of this most of them lived in poverty and were more likely to become involved in crime at an older age. Maybe starting around the 16-20 year old age group.

When abortion was legalized, kids were less frequently born into such conditions, and so we had less kids growing up to become criminals. This explains the 20 year gap. You can read more about this and why it's considered one of the better explanations for the recent drop in crime here.

But even if you were right and the overall crime rate had increased, that still would not mean abortion had a positive effect on crime rates, because it absolutely disregards the fact that there's more than one factor contributing to crime rates. It could be while abortion is lowering crime rates, another factor is raising it. Just another area you failed to address.

As for poverty, it's well known that children cost a lot of money. By keeping abortion illegal many people get trapped in perpetual poverty because an unwanted child puts a strain on their limited resources. You can say that adoption is possible in response to this. But this ignores the fact that most people do not opt for adoption.

It's pretty clear making abortion illegal would have a negative effect on our society. If you're really against abortion, it's better to work through means that truly work, like sex education, and higher availability of birth control products.

Because me not giving you a pat on the back and saying "good boy" deprives you of your rights? eye roll.....

This is just stupid. Open homosexuals are being denied rights (the ability to serve in the military, the ability to have a civil union) because of a "moral" held by the majority. This has nothing to do with open acceptance of gays, they are literally being denied the same rights as you or me.

graph below shows lag time btw

At 1/29/10 06:21 PM, Imperator wrote: It's this sort of thinking that led to this.

Lol, sociologists, such an authority.

At 2/7/10 07:57 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 1/29/10 06:21 PM, Imperator wrote: It's this sort of thinking that led to this.

Lol, sociologists, such an authority.

If only Hank Hill were here...

Liberalism closer to reaching your impossible dreams. nothing to do with reality.