…all the rhetoric about “revolution” and how he’s different from all the others, and Ron Paul is just another anti-intellectual, anti-science creationist nutjob. Are there any Republican politicians anywhere who aren’t ignoramuses?
Franklin Veaux's Journal
Working toward the heat death of the Universe, one joule at a time!
What will come first? A president that believes in the scientific method, or the end of the world? WWIII is looking more likely, so far!
What will come first? A president that believes in the scientific method, or the end of the world? WWIII is looking more likely, so far!
that’s a rhetorical question, right? It’s hard enough to find DEMOCRATIC politicians who aren’t ignoramuses. I don’t think such a subspecies of republican exists.
Ron Paul pretends to be a Libertarian running as a Republican, but the more I research him the more I begin to think he is way off his rocker.
The only politician in this race who has pleasantly surprised me is Obama.
I’m an Edwards man, but I’d be happy to see Dodd or Obama in the VP slot for JE.
I can’t see the electorate being able to settle on ANY of the republican contenders.
I can’t see the electorate being able to settle on ANY of the republican contenders.
Given the current flavour of US republicanism and as a Furriner, I can only see that as a good thing.
that’s a rhetorical question, right? It’s hard enough to find DEMOCRATIC politicians who aren’t ignoramuses. I don’t think such a subspecies of republican exists.
Ron Paul pretends to be a Libertarian running as a Republican, but the more I research him the more I begin to think he is way off his rocker.
The only politician in this race who has pleasantly surprised me is Obama.
I’m an Edwards man, but I’d be happy to see Dodd or Obama in the VP slot for JE.
I can’t see the electorate being able to settle on ANY of the republican contenders.
I think the correct question would be “Are there ANY politicians anywhere that aren’t ignoramuses?
The correct answer is NO.
I think the correct question would be “Are there ANY politicians anywhere that aren’t ignoramuses?
The correct answer is NO.
Why people insist on saying “theory” as if it means “some retarded 6-yearold babbling in his sleep” is beyond me.
When do we get to start calling evolution a law, anyway? It seems like it’s been long enough, and DNA sequencing is adding a pretty significant confirmation from another direction.
Evolution is always going to be a “theory” in the scientific sense of the word because it’s a model, and any model is a theory. A law is a simple xpression of a relationship, usually mathematical. The problem, sadly, is the folks who believe the word “theory” means “guess,” rather than “model.”
I thought it was simply because we couldn’t model evolution mathematically. Yet.
mm, it’s a tricky thing.
Theories explain why something happens, especially things that weren’t directly observed. We have observed in labs and in nature that genetic pools change over time, and there’s overwhelming evidence that this is why all the different species have diverged, common descent and all that, but since nobody was around for those billions of years videotaping it, this remains “a theory.” Theoretically, aliens could come down and show us how they deposited all those fossils and orchestrated a gigantic hoax just for shits and giggles, disproving the theory of evolution.
Laws simply describe events that always occur, like the effects of gravity, with no conjecture as to why.
They don’t know what the word “theory” means when it’s used in this context, basically. You see folks all the time saying “evolution is just a theory” as if that means something; the same folks never say “gravity is just a theory,” or “aerodynamics is just a theory,” even when they fly in airplanes and fail to go sailing off the planet. They simply don’t understand the word; they believe it means something like “conjecture” or “guess.”
That trips people up a lot. The use of the word “observer” in quantum theory has led people into all kinds of wild, off-the-wall, loopy silliness about how human beings re-create the world just by looking at it–they don’t realize that the word “observer” in this case means “anything whose state depends in a thermodynamically irreversible way on the state of the thing being observed.”
Science uses words in very specific ways; lay people don’t.
Well, as I understand it there’s a regression problem that applies to quantum-mechanical observation, and one of the competing hypotheses for resolving it implies that conscious observation is what finally collapses the waveform. That’s probably where some of the pseudoscience regarding quantum mechanics comes from, or at least where it gets some of its patina of respectability. But that still doesn’t imply that consciousness has any hand in determining the waveform’s final state, so it’s all rather academic — and in any case the New Agey types that like to invoke quantum mechanics in this context would probably feel their eyes starting to glaze over as soon as I mention “regression”.
Why people insist on saying “theory” as if it means “some retarded 6-yearold babbling in his sleep” is beyond me.
Neat post.
It really does seem like the theory of evolution is a lot less (for lack of a better word) popular than I thought it was.
When I run for political office, I’m taking on quantum mechanics. Those quacks have had a free ride for too long 🙂
Neat post.
It really does seem like the theory of evolution is a lot less (for lack of a better word) popular than I thought it was.
When I run for political office, I’m taking on quantum mechanics. Those quacks have had a free ride for too long 🙂
no
no
But what continues to keep him different than other ‘ignoramuses’ (of either side) is that he doesn’t think he has any right to tell you that you must teach his beliefs (or not) in schools.
yes.
Thank sanity for that.
But, still…
Is anybody with a THREE-digit IQ running this year? – ZM
But what continues to keep him different than other ‘ignoramuses’ (of either side) is that he doesn’t think he has any right to tell you that you must teach his beliefs (or not) in schools.
And that’s exactly the problem.
Faith in god is a belief. Evolutionary biology isn’t a belief. It’s an established and well-supported branch of science.
When people adopt the anti-intellectual view that scientific models of the physical world are just “beliefs,” no different from any other “beliefs,” then we have a very serious problem. Right now. the United States is the world’s wealthiest nation, even in spite of the staggering debt wrought by borrow-and-spend Republicans, and also the world’s only superpower, largely on the foundation of our scientific and technical leadership. In a post-industrial economy, everything from military strength to financial success to world political power rests on that foundation of scientific and technical knowledge.
When a post-industrial nation’s leaders begin to adopt ideas hostile to science, and begin to equate scientific understanding about the physical world with mere “belief,” that nation’s economic, military, and political power are jeopardized. As a nation ceases to teach science, and ceases to fund and vigorously support science, its economy and its power begin to erode.
Science is important; the Chinese understand this, and the Americans do not. Right now, China is investing more eavily than we are in basic science and research, and China is producing postgraduate degrees in hard sciences and technology at a rate nearly fifteen times higher per capita than the United States is. Meanwhile, over here, basic science is denigrated and labeled a mere “belief,” and is not taught in schools, and the Bush Administration cuts spending year after year in pure research even while it spends trillions of dollars in money on a pointless war overseas–money that’s being borrowed from, of all places, China.
If this trend continues, my advice to anyone who wishes to be a citizen in the most dynamic, vibrant world economy best learn Chinese.
I understand all that, but as far as I am concerned it is irrelevant to my point.
But what continues to keep him different than other ‘ignoramuses’ (of either side) is that he doesn’t think he has any right to tell you that you must teach his beliefs (or not) in schools.
AWWWWWWWW…..shit
Yeah.
AWWWWWWWW…..shit
See, that doesn’t bother me, at least not any more that Kucinich seeing UFOs. What bothers me is the popularity he gets when he’s ANTI-CHOICE and a RACIST.
Do you have cites on the racism issue? Not because I’m necessarily doubting you, but I’d love to be able to bring it up with others.
He openly admits to opposing affirmative action and amnesty for immigrants and believes in reverse racism (just look at his official site). There are rumors that in 1992 he made public statements where he claimed that most black men were criminals. I think the most damning evidence, though, is that he accepted a campaign contribution from a white supremacist activist (http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2007_4481122).
it’s unfortunate that he didn’t send that $500 check back. have you seen some of the people contributing to huckabee’s campaign?
Huckabee’s base is reflected by sponsors of Tuesday’s fundraising luncheon (requesting up to $4,600 a couple) at the Houston home of Steven Hotze, a leader in the highly conservative Christian Reconstruction movement.
washington post
believes in reverse racism
Okay, reverse racism is a dumb idea, but one does not have to accept sociological hegemony theories about racism being inherently one way. Now, I am not defending Ron Paul, I think affirmation action is necessary, although amnesty for immigrants is not possible with other goals like socializing health care (no country that has socialized healthcare has as liberal as the US’s immigration policy. Europe and Asia both, by and large, have much stricter immigration rules than we do).
There have been several articles I’ve seen posted relating to that, and NONE of them refuted by his campaign, that he’s got ties to several white supremacist groups & has had meetings with their leaders & taken their money for years.
I could find the articles again, or you could Google them.
It bothers me because of the long-term implications. I take the long view, and I do not believe that we will continue to remain the world’s leading superpower if our leaders adopt anti-science, anti-intellectual attitudes. He is anti-choice, he may be racist, but in the long term a failure to support science will do more harm than either of those things.
He can’t even see the difference between science and religious faith; to him, they are both merely “beliefs,” each the same as the other. In a man who would become leader of the world’s most technologically advanced nation, that’s pretty scary.
but in the long term a failure to support science
You seem to be somehow slipping past the point (or maybe I’m misapplying what you are saying to a point you aren’t applying to) but this sentiment seems hinged on “support”…. support *how*? via education? He shouldn’t have fuckall to do with education, in my opinion, regardless of his views on anything, and so he believes.
I’m fairly obviously about as pro-science as you can get, having been a biochem major and married to theoretical physicist (relativist quantum field theory) but my point is that while I think his personal anti-science attitude sucks it’s not going to affect my choices in education for my 8 years old because he doesn’t believe he has that right.
::shrug::
And, personally, I find a belief in creationism only slightly less delusional and damaging and idiotic as the belief that human beings have a “fundamental right” to health care.
See, that doesn’t bother me, at least not any more that Kucinich seeing UFOs. What bothers me is the popularity he gets when he’s ANTI-CHOICE and a RACIST.
Thank you for that. Seems like so many otherwise rational people I know are Ron Paul supporters, and I just don’t trust that guy.
Not that I’m worried about him getting the nod, though. The political machine will carry on as it always has, and it never has cottoned well to outsiders.
Thank you for that. Seems like so many otherwise rational people I know are Ron Paul supporters, and I just don’t trust that guy.
Not that I’m worried about him getting the nod, though. The political machine will carry on as it always has, and it never has cottoned well to outsiders.
yes.
Are there any Republican politicians anywhere who aren’t ignoramuses?
No.
Are there any Republican politicians anywhere who aren’t ignoramuses?
No.
I can’t see the electorate being able to settle on ANY of the republican contenders.
Given the current flavour of US republicanism and as a Furriner, I can only see that as a good thing.
The thing is I can’t see how his religious views are very relevant — which is what he was trying to say, I believe. What makes him stand apart is that he has sound economic policy, which is a very new thing… and actually is passionate about adhering to the constitution. from what I’ve seen, he’s one of the only non-corrupt guys out there, and he’s really far from an “ignoramus” — have you seen this guy talk about economic and political theory and history?
What makes him stand apart is that he has sound economic policy…
This depends on whether you consider advocating a return to the gold standard is sound economic policy. Most gold bugs I know — as I don’t know you, forgive me in advance if this doesn’t apply — don’t really seem to understand why we went off the gold standard in the first place. If your economy is growing but your currency is fixed, then unless you keep adding gold (or whatever the currency is fixed to) to the reserves at a rate that matches economic growth, you get deflation — which creates a strong disincentive to actually keep spending. Fixed currency economies tend to experience deeper and more frequent depressions. In the 19th century, most national economies were experiencing ever-deepening cycles of boom and bust, and economies that abandoned the gold standard in the early 20th century broke that cycle. Advocates of specie-backed currency like Paul will gladly tell you about all sorts of problems with “fiat currency,” and they do exist, but anyone who doesn’t explain why a deflationary boom-and-bust cycle is preferable to low inflation and steady growth is not adequately defending the gold standard, and I haven’t seen an adequate defense.
Paul is in many respects a smart fellow and I think he’s got a lot of integrity. However, I can’t help but think that he’s sort of the conservative/libertarian equivalent of honest, non-corrupt politicians and activists on the left who show up occasionally, who feel it’s their duty to stand on their principles 100% of the time, consensus be damned. I admire these folks even when I don’t agree with their principles, but being an executive requires consensus-building. Setting aside any questions about Paul’s positions on science, taxes, equality of the sexes, acting talent of Nicolas Cage, or whatever, I think it’s worth seriously thinking about whether a guy whose nickname in Congress is “Dr. No” has the temperament necessary to lead a country.
The thing is I can’t see how his religious views are very relevant — which is what he was trying to say, I believe.
They’re not.
But we’re not talking about religious views. We’re talking about evolutionary biology, and about teaching basic science. These have nothing to do with religion, and the fact tat so many people can not tell the difference between the two terrifies me. We depend, every day, on science and technology for our standing on the world stage; it is the machinery of scientific research that drives the society and economy of a post-industrial nation.
And we have political leaders who literally can not distinguish between science and religion, and label scientific models as mere “beliefs.”
That’s bad news. I don’t care about Ron Paul’s religious beliefs, but I do care about living in a society that supports and teaches science. Evolutionary biology is not a “belief,” and it is not a religion.
(Part II)
…he’s really far from an “ignoramus” — have you seen this guy talk about economic and political theory and history?
Indeed I have, and at times he comes across as a barking moonbat. His speech about how the Civil War was unnecessary because Lincoln could have effectively abolished slavery simply by buying and then freeing all the slaves is a great example. The Civil War was fought for reasons other than just slavery, and would have been fought even had the issue of slavery not existed.
And some of his economic ideas are just downright loopy. Returning to a gold-backed currency is one of them. Nations no longer do that for one very simple reason: because it allows other nations to control them.
Why would it be a bad idea to return to the gold standard? Because the world’s leading gold suppliers, in order, are South Africa, Russia, and Australia. If our currency were backed by gold, its value on the international market would be tied to worldwide prices for gold. Essentially, that means South Africa and Russia could, if they chose, inflate the value of the US dollar and trigger inflation in our economy by curtailing their output of gold, or could cause the value of the US dollar to fall, and trigger trade imbalances and increase the price within the US of imported goods, by increasing their supply of gold. It also means that any sufficiently wealthy nation could, at will, manipulate the entire US economy simply by manipulating the world’s trade in gold.
So: Gold standard, stupid idea. Thats why you no longer see nations whose currency is pegged to any particular commodity. In a world economy, you’re handing control of your currency to anyone who can affect trade in that commodity.
The thing is I can’t see how his religious views are very relevant — which is what he was trying to say, I believe. What makes him stand apart is that he has sound economic policy, which is a very new thing… and actually is passionate about adhering to the constitution. from what I’ve seen, he’s one of the only non-corrupt guys out there, and he’s really far from an “ignoramus” — have you seen this guy talk about economic and political theory and history?
I should also add that while he may be a creationist, he doesn’t propose to take any actions whatsoever that are affected by him having this belief. All his ideas are to do with economic and political policy, and as such, his vast economic and political knowledge are what matter, not his scientific or religious knowledge. This is quite different from other politicians, like Huckabee, who make a political platform based on their religious beliefs and forcing them on others. Attacking Ron Paul for being a creationist seems like just another ad hominim attack…
*shrug* If he believes that evolutionary biology is “just a belief,” then that has consequences for the American public at large. The way we educate about science and technology directly and immediately affects the technological underpinnings of our financial and political power. Evolution isn’t a religion’ we’re not talking about religion here. It suits me fine if he doesn’t want religion in public schools–but if he doesn’t want science in public schools, that’s not cool, and it directly threatens the world status of the country I live in.
but if he doesn’t want science in public schools
What he might “want” in “public school” is irrelevant because he doesn’t feel the federal government should have anything to say about public schools.
You know, along the lines of:
“1. The US Department of Education should be abolished, leaving education decision making at the state, local or personal level.”
And that continues to place him far and away above any other candidate in my opinion.
And I think that’s a terrible, terrible idea. It would create a patchwork of educational systems of uneven quality, with the prejudices and religious fears of each local group determining what does and does not get taught.
There is a direct correlation between educational level and income, and there is a direct correlation between religious conservativism and fear of education. More conservative parts of the country–which are already universally the poorest–would teach nonsense like “intelligent design” or young-earth creationism, virtually ensuring that they remain mired in poverty.
There seems to be a knee-jerk emotional reaction which leads people to believe that centralized government is always bad in all circumstances, and in situations like this, I think that emotional reaction leads people to accept ideas which, when put in practice, would be harmful and destructive. Honestly, I think that consistent standards in public education are a good ting, not a bad thing.
🙂 I should have read all the comments before starting my comment responding because, yes, this comment thread is the crux of it – rendering my other comments unnecessary.
I feel bound to mention that that uneven patchwork of educational systems is almost precisely what we have right now, and by all appearances attempts to regulate it (via standardized testing, etc.) have by all appearances made things worse, not better. That’s partly — even mostly — due to poor implementation, but there are still real issues to consider.
Probably the most persuasive, from my point of view, is that the chances of implementing universal and rigorous standards for hard-science education in the near term are close to zero, and trying would breed counterproductive resentment in the parts of the nation that most need it. It seems like a better idea in the long run to allow individual states — or even smaller jurisdictions, since state-level educational decisions can be frighteningly cultish and anti-scientific no matter their political leanings (witness recent attempts at an anti-bias curriculum in math and science) — to find their own favored solutions, and then watch the better ones propagate as their real-world effects become clear. Conservative parts of the country might be inclined towards religious education, but they’re not completely stupid.
On the other hand, as long as we’ve got a Department of Education kicking around, it does sound reasonable to establish some basic standards for school districts receiving its assistance.
I should also add that while he may be a creationist, he doesn’t propose to take any actions whatsoever that are affected by him having this belief. All his ideas are to do with economic and political policy, and as such, his vast economic and political knowledge are what matter, not his scientific or religious knowledge. This is quite different from other politicians, like Huckabee, who make a political platform based on their religious beliefs and forcing them on others. Attacking Ron Paul for being a creationist seems like just another ad hominim attack…
What makes him stand apart is that he has sound economic policy…
This depends on whether you consider advocating a return to the gold standard is sound economic policy. Most gold bugs I know — as I don’t know you, forgive me in advance if this doesn’t apply — don’t really seem to understand why we went off the gold standard in the first place. If your economy is growing but your currency is fixed, then unless you keep adding gold (or whatever the currency is fixed to) to the reserves at a rate that matches economic growth, you get deflation — which creates a strong disincentive to actually keep spending. Fixed currency economies tend to experience deeper and more frequent depressions. In the 19th century, most national economies were experiencing ever-deepening cycles of boom and bust, and economies that abandoned the gold standard in the early 20th century broke that cycle. Advocates of specie-backed currency like Paul will gladly tell you about all sorts of problems with “fiat currency,” and they do exist, but anyone who doesn’t explain why a deflationary boom-and-bust cycle is preferable to low inflation and steady growth is not adequately defending the gold standard, and I haven’t seen an adequate defense.
Paul is in many respects a smart fellow and I think he’s got a lot of integrity. However, I can’t help but think that he’s sort of the conservative/libertarian equivalent of honest, non-corrupt politicians and activists on the left who show up occasionally, who feel it’s their duty to stand on their principles 100% of the time, consensus be damned. I admire these folks even when I don’t agree with their principles, but being an executive requires consensus-building. Setting aside any questions about Paul’s positions on science, taxes, equality of the sexes, acting talent of Nicolas Cage, or whatever, I think it’s worth seriously thinking about whether a guy whose nickname in Congress is “Dr. No” has the temperament necessary to lead a country.
Do you have cites on the racism issue? Not because I’m necessarily doubting you, but I’d love to be able to bring it up with others.
He openly admits to opposing affirmative action and amnesty for immigrants and believes in reverse racism (just look at his official site). There are rumors that in 1992 he made public statements where he claimed that most black men were criminals. I think the most damning evidence, though, is that he accepted a campaign contribution from a white supremacist activist (http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2007_4481122).
i strongly disagree with him on pro-life/choice, as well as having a different set of religious beliefs […i have none],
but
ask which presidents are willing to roll back executive privileges? that’s a big one: you have got to know hillary is not going to sacrifice one iota of power that could come her way.
i disagree with rp on borders and immigration, and that’s a sticking point for me. my second choice is obama. we’ll see what happens.
Plus, on the domestic issues that he bothers non-Christians on, he really doesn’t have much power other than veto (and arguibly some of the things should not be tax money uses anyway). I am not a libertarian and that much is obvious to me.
Obama is interesting because I can’t tell what his stances are on many, many things–but he’s leading in Iowa and New Hampshire, which could change the national outlook dramatically.
Rolling back the Cheney-machine would be the singularly most important thing he could do, and yes, I agree, I don’t think any other candidate would do that.
I don’t know if that’s true or not. I actually have some hope for Obama. I suspect that Hillary would be loathe to give up whatver power comes her way, though like her husband, she seems to have some economic policies I agree with. (Bill Clinton strikes me as the only true fiscal conservative we’ve seen in a very long time; his administration was the only one since WWII that balanced the federal budget, started paying down the federal debt, and reduced the size of the federal government on a per-capita basis. These are things that Republicans pretend to care about, yet every Republican administration since Ronald Reagan has dramatically increased the size of the federal government and dramatically increased deficit spending.)
At the moment, in all honesty, “none of the above” is looking like my favorite candidate.
While I don’t see Hillary issuing record numbers of signing statements and so on, I can see her buckling to continuous pressure to “be tough,” and end up continuing much of the nonsense Bushco has promulgated. Or, maybe not. Maybe she’ll be bold and try to set a different tone. I’m skeptical.
We need an FDR-like person to stand up and give the nation its backbone back. “Nothing to fear but fear itself.” Unfortunately, we’ve gotten into a cycle where fear whips us up into a frenzy, encouraging the populace to give the government more power. The government then proceeds to dish up more fear. Gotta break that cycle.
Maybe Obama can do it. I don’t think Hillary would do it. Rudy is actively doing the opposite. Ron Paul, as best as I can tell, would just outsource it to the states. 😉
As for “none of the above…” Didn’t he run once?
i strongly disagree with him on pro-life/choice, as well as having a different set of religious beliefs […i have none],
but
ask which presidents are willing to roll back executive privileges? that’s a big one: you have got to know hillary is not going to sacrifice one iota of power that could come her way.
i disagree with rp on borders and immigration, and that’s a sticking point for me. my second choice is obama. we’ll see what happens.
it’s unfortunate that he didn’t send that $500 check back. have you seen some of the people contributing to huckabee’s campaign?
Huckabee’s base is reflected by sponsors of Tuesday’s fundraising luncheon (requesting up to $4,600 a couple) at the Houston home of Steven Hotze, a leader in the highly conservative Christian Reconstruction movement.
washington post
Plus, on the domestic issues that he bothers non-Christians on, he really doesn’t have much power other than veto (and arguibly some of the things should not be tax money uses anyway). I am not a libertarian and that much is obvious to me.
Obama is interesting because I can’t tell what his stances are on many, many things–but he’s leading in Iowa and New Hampshire, which could change the national outlook dramatically.
believes in reverse racism
Okay, reverse racism is a dumb idea, but one does not have to accept sociological hegemony theories about racism being inherently one way. Now, I am not defending Ron Paul, I think affirmation action is necessary, although amnesty for immigrants is not possible with other goals like socializing health care (no country that has socialized healthcare has as liberal as the US’s immigration policy. Europe and Asia both, by and large, have much stricter immigration rules than we do).
There have been several articles I’ve seen posted relating to that, and NONE of them refuted by his campaign, that he’s got ties to several white supremacist groups & has had meetings with their leaders & taken their money for years.
I could find the articles again, or you could Google them.
Thank sanity for that.
But, still…
Is anybody with a THREE-digit IQ running this year? – ZM
Rolling back the Cheney-machine would be the singularly most important thing he could do, and yes, I agree, I don’t think any other candidate would do that.
When do we get to start calling evolution a law, anyway? It seems like it’s been long enough, and DNA sequencing is adding a pretty significant confirmation from another direction.
Evolution is always going to be a “theory” in the scientific sense of the word because it’s a model, and any model is a theory. A law is a simple xpression of a relationship, usually mathematical. The problem, sadly, is the folks who believe the word “theory” means “guess,” rather than “model.”
They don’t know what the word “theory” means when it’s used in this context, basically. You see folks all the time saying “evolution is just a theory” as if that means something; the same folks never say “gravity is just a theory,” or “aerodynamics is just a theory,” even when they fly in airplanes and fail to go sailing off the planet. They simply don’t understand the word; they believe it means something like “conjecture” or “guess.”
That trips people up a lot. The use of the word “observer” in quantum theory has led people into all kinds of wild, off-the-wall, loopy silliness about how human beings re-create the world just by looking at it–they don’t realize that the word “observer” in this case means “anything whose state depends in a thermodynamically irreversible way on the state of the thing being observed.”
Science uses words in very specific ways; lay people don’t.
But what continues to keep him different than other ‘ignoramuses’ (of either side) is that he doesn’t think he has any right to tell you that you must teach his beliefs (or not) in schools.
And that’s exactly the problem.
Faith in god is a belief. Evolutionary biology isn’t a belief. It’s an established and well-supported branch of science.
When people adopt the anti-intellectual view that scientific models of the physical world are just “beliefs,” no different from any other “beliefs,” then we have a very serious problem. Right now. the United States is the world’s wealthiest nation, even in spite of the staggering debt wrought by borrow-and-spend Republicans, and also the world’s only superpower, largely on the foundation of our scientific and technical leadership. In a post-industrial economy, everything from military strength to financial success to world political power rests on that foundation of scientific and technical knowledge.
When a post-industrial nation’s leaders begin to adopt ideas hostile to science, and begin to equate scientific understanding about the physical world with mere “belief,” that nation’s economic, military, and political power are jeopardized. As a nation ceases to teach science, and ceases to fund and vigorously support science, its economy and its power begin to erode.
Science is important; the Chinese understand this, and the Americans do not. Right now, China is investing more eavily than we are in basic science and research, and China is producing postgraduate degrees in hard sciences and technology at a rate nearly fifteen times higher per capita than the United States is. Meanwhile, over here, basic science is denigrated and labeled a mere “belief,” and is not taught in schools, and the Bush Administration cuts spending year after year in pure research even while it spends trillions of dollars in money on a pointless war overseas–money that’s being borrowed from, of all places, China.
If this trend continues, my advice to anyone who wishes to be a citizen in the most dynamic, vibrant world economy best learn Chinese.
Yeah.
It bothers me because of the long-term implications. I take the long view, and I do not believe that we will continue to remain the world’s leading superpower if our leaders adopt anti-science, anti-intellectual attitudes. He is anti-choice, he may be racist, but in the long term a failure to support science will do more harm than either of those things.
He can’t even see the difference between science and religious faith; to him, they are both merely “beliefs,” each the same as the other. In a man who would become leader of the world’s most technologically advanced nation, that’s pretty scary.
The thing is I can’t see how his religious views are very relevant — which is what he was trying to say, I believe.
They’re not.
But we’re not talking about religious views. We’re talking about evolutionary biology, and about teaching basic science. These have nothing to do with religion, and the fact tat so many people can not tell the difference between the two terrifies me. We depend, every day, on science and technology for our standing on the world stage; it is the machinery of scientific research that drives the society and economy of a post-industrial nation.
And we have political leaders who literally can not distinguish between science and religion, and label scientific models as mere “beliefs.”
That’s bad news. I don’t care about Ron Paul’s religious beliefs, but I do care about living in a society that supports and teaches science. Evolutionary biology is not a “belief,” and it is not a religion.
(Part II)
…he’s really far from an “ignoramus” — have you seen this guy talk about economic and political theory and history?
Indeed I have, and at times he comes across as a barking moonbat. His speech about how the Civil War was unnecessary because Lincoln could have effectively abolished slavery simply by buying and then freeing all the slaves is a great example. The Civil War was fought for reasons other than just slavery, and would have been fought even had the issue of slavery not existed.
And some of his economic ideas are just downright loopy. Returning to a gold-backed currency is one of them. Nations no longer do that for one very simple reason: because it allows other nations to control them.
Why would it be a bad idea to return to the gold standard? Because the world’s leading gold suppliers, in order, are South Africa, Russia, and Australia. If our currency were backed by gold, its value on the international market would be tied to worldwide prices for gold. Essentially, that means South Africa and Russia could, if they chose, inflate the value of the US dollar and trigger inflation in our economy by curtailing their output of gold, or could cause the value of the US dollar to fall, and trigger trade imbalances and increase the price within the US of imported goods, by increasing their supply of gold. It also means that any sufficiently wealthy nation could, at will, manipulate the entire US economy simply by manipulating the world’s trade in gold.
So: Gold standard, stupid idea. Thats why you no longer see nations whose currency is pegged to any particular commodity. In a world economy, you’re handing control of your currency to anyone who can affect trade in that commodity.
*shrug* If he believes that evolutionary biology is “just a belief,” then that has consequences for the American public at large. The way we educate about science and technology directly and immediately affects the technological underpinnings of our financial and political power. Evolution isn’t a religion’ we’re not talking about religion here. It suits me fine if he doesn’t want religion in public schools–but if he doesn’t want science in public schools, that’s not cool, and it directly threatens the world status of the country I live in.
I don’t know if that’s true or not. I actually have some hope for Obama. I suspect that Hillary would be loathe to give up whatver power comes her way, though like her husband, she seems to have some economic policies I agree with. (Bill Clinton strikes me as the only true fiscal conservative we’ve seen in a very long time; his administration was the only one since WWII that balanced the federal budget, started paying down the federal debt, and reduced the size of the federal government on a per-capita basis. These are things that Republicans pretend to care about, yet every Republican administration since Ronald Reagan has dramatically increased the size of the federal government and dramatically increased deficit spending.)
At the moment, in all honesty, “none of the above” is looking like my favorite candidate.
right
right
While I don’t see Hillary issuing record numbers of signing statements and so on, I can see her buckling to continuous pressure to “be tough,” and end up continuing much of the nonsense Bushco has promulgated. Or, maybe not. Maybe she’ll be bold and try to set a different tone. I’m skeptical.
We need an FDR-like person to stand up and give the nation its backbone back. “Nothing to fear but fear itself.” Unfortunately, we’ve gotten into a cycle where fear whips us up into a frenzy, encouraging the populace to give the government more power. The government then proceeds to dish up more fear. Gotta break that cycle.
Maybe Obama can do it. I don’t think Hillary would do it. Rudy is actively doing the opposite. Ron Paul, as best as I can tell, would just outsource it to the states. 😉
As for “none of the above…” Didn’t he run once?
One of the things that makes Ron Paul on the surface appealing is that he seems to be a strong believer in the Constitution – and after years with Bush that feels like a much needed return to sanity. But….
This statement from Ron Paul makes me fear he is totally detached from the ideas and ideals of the Founding Fathers, and he certainly seems to have forgotten details of the Constitution than he would be swearing to uphold and protect: “Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s…”
Replete with references to God?!?!? The Constitution was very intentionally designed to make NO reference to God, and the Declaration of Independence makes only passing reference to a “Creator” and “Divine Providence”…
Here is a longer article looking into the true religious beliefs and motivations of our Founding Fathers. I think they would actually be “aghast” at some of the ideas that Ron Paul is pushing for: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen
Here is a longer snipit from Ron Paul: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
The Founding Fathers were not even all Christian….
Egads – this man scares me. What scares me even more is how many young and idealistic people seem to be getting sucked up into a fervor supporting him.
In contrast, Obama seems to give the perfect answer on how to strike the right balance between church and state:
Read the rest of his speech here: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/
He is reasoned and balanced and eloquent – and he comes across as someone who can build bridges in a way that feels way beyond what Ron Paul seems capable of.
Thoughts?
– Chris
Obama’s the clear choice, in my opinion.
Just in general, everything I’ve heard him say has left me nodding in agreement, or even sighing in relief that someone is finally making some freaking sense.
I’m biased, of course, since he lives in my neighborhood in Chicago and taught at my school. Seriously though, those who say he only has a few years of experience in national politics should remember that what he was doing before that was teaching constitutional law for ten years at one of the top universities in the nation. And worked as a community organizer and a civil rights attorney.
Mostly though, he gives the impression that his views are ones he’s come to based on his experience and logic, rather than his personal opinions (like with the abortion debate). I have the same views, that it’s very very difficult to say abortion is “ok” if you think someone is “human” form the moment of conception, but that the effects of banning it would be much worse.
And he rationally tries to convince people of these, rather than scaring them with “Them immigrants are gonna take yer jobs!” and “omg there’s going to be no Christmas next year!”
One of the things that makes Ron Paul on the surface appealing is that he seems to be a strong believer in the Constitution – and after years with Bush that feels like a much needed return to sanity. But….
This statement from Ron Paul makes me fear he is totally detached from the ideas and ideals of the Founding Fathers, and he certainly seems to have forgotten details of the Constitution than he would be swearing to uphold and protect: “Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s…”
Replete with references to God?!?!? The Constitution was very intentionally designed to make NO reference to God, and the Declaration of Independence makes only passing reference to a “Creator” and “Divine Providence”…
Here is a longer article looking into the true religious beliefs and motivations of our Founding Fathers. I think they would actually be “aghast” at some of the ideas that Ron Paul is pushing for: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen
Here is a longer snipit from Ron Paul: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
The Founding Fathers were not even all Christian….
Egads – this man scares me. What scares me even more is how many young and idealistic people seem to be getting sucked up into a fervor supporting him.
In contrast, Obama seems to give the perfect answer on how to strike the right balance between church and state:
Read the rest of his speech here: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/
He is reasoned and balanced and eloquent – and he comes across as someone who can build bridges in a way that feels way beyond what Ron Paul seems capable of.
Thoughts?
– Chris
mm, it’s a tricky thing.
Theories explain why something happens, especially things that weren’t directly observed. We have observed in labs and in nature that genetic pools change over time, and there’s overwhelming evidence that this is why all the different species have diverged, common descent and all that, but since nobody was around for those billions of years videotaping it, this remains “a theory.” Theoretically, aliens could come down and show us how they deposited all those fossils and orchestrated a gigantic hoax just for shits and giggles, disproving the theory of evolution.
Laws simply describe events that always occur, like the effects of gravity, with no conjecture as to why.
Obama’s the clear choice, in my opinion.
Just in general, everything I’ve heard him say has left me nodding in agreement, or even sighing in relief that someone is finally making some freaking sense.
I’m biased, of course, since he lives in my neighborhood in Chicago and taught at my school. Seriously though, those who say he only has a few years of experience in national politics should remember that what he was doing before that was teaching constitutional law for ten years at one of the top universities in the nation. And worked as a community organizer and a civil rights attorney.
Mostly though, he gives the impression that his views are ones he’s come to based on his experience and logic, rather than his personal opinions (like with the abortion debate). I have the same views, that it’s very very difficult to say abortion is “ok” if you think someone is “human” form the moment of conception, but that the effects of banning it would be much worse.
And he rationally tries to convince people of these, rather than scaring them with “Them immigrants are gonna take yer jobs!” and “omg there’s going to be no Christmas next year!”
I understand all that, but as far as I am concerned it is irrelevant to my point.
but in the long term a failure to support science
You seem to be somehow slipping past the point (or maybe I’m misapplying what you are saying to a point you aren’t applying to) but this sentiment seems hinged on “support”…. support *how*? via education? He shouldn’t have fuckall to do with education, in my opinion, regardless of his views on anything, and so he believes.
I’m fairly obviously about as pro-science as you can get, having been a biochem major and married to theoretical physicist (relativist quantum field theory) but my point is that while I think his personal anti-science attitude sucks it’s not going to affect my choices in education for my 8 years old because he doesn’t believe he has that right.
::shrug::
And, personally, I find a belief in creationism only slightly less delusional and damaging and idiotic as the belief that human beings have a “fundamental right” to health care.
but if he doesn’t want science in public schools
What he might “want” in “public school” is irrelevant because he doesn’t feel the federal government should have anything to say about public schools.
You know, along the lines of:
“1. The US Department of Education should be abolished, leaving education decision making at the state, local or personal level.”
And that continues to place him far and away above any other candidate in my opinion.
And I think that’s a terrible, terrible idea. It would create a patchwork of educational systems of uneven quality, with the prejudices and religious fears of each local group determining what does and does not get taught.
There is a direct correlation between educational level and income, and there is a direct correlation between religious conservativism and fear of education. More conservative parts of the country–which are already universally the poorest–would teach nonsense like “intelligent design” or young-earth creationism, virtually ensuring that they remain mired in poverty.
There seems to be a knee-jerk emotional reaction which leads people to believe that centralized government is always bad in all circumstances, and in situations like this, I think that emotional reaction leads people to accept ideas which, when put in practice, would be harmful and destructive. Honestly, I think that consistent standards in public education are a good ting, not a bad thing.
🙂 I should have read all the comments before starting my comment responding because, yes, this comment thread is the crux of it – rendering my other comments unnecessary.
Well, as I understand it there’s a regression problem that applies to quantum-mechanical observation, and one of the competing hypotheses for resolving it implies that conscious observation is what finally collapses the waveform. That’s probably where some of the pseudoscience regarding quantum mechanics comes from, or at least where it gets some of its patina of respectability. But that still doesn’t imply that consciousness has any hand in determining the waveform’s final state, so it’s all rather academic — and in any case the New Agey types that like to invoke quantum mechanics in this context would probably feel their eyes starting to glaze over as soon as I mention “regression”.
I feel bound to mention that that uneven patchwork of educational systems is almost precisely what we have right now, and by all appearances attempts to regulate it (via standardized testing, etc.) have by all appearances made things worse, not better. That’s partly — even mostly — due to poor implementation, but there are still real issues to consider.
Probably the most persuasive, from my point of view, is that the chances of implementing universal and rigorous standards for hard-science education in the near term are close to zero, and trying would breed counterproductive resentment in the parts of the nation that most need it. It seems like a better idea in the long run to allow individual states — or even smaller jurisdictions, since state-level educational decisions can be frighteningly cultish and anti-scientific no matter their political leanings (witness recent attempts at an anti-bias curriculum in math and science) — to find their own favored solutions, and then watch the better ones propagate as their real-world effects become clear. Conservative parts of the country might be inclined towards religious education, but they’re not completely stupid.
On the other hand, as long as we’ve got a Department of Education kicking around, it does sound reasonable to establish some basic standards for school districts receiving its assistance.
I thought it was simply because we couldn’t model evolution mathematically. Yet.
The question should be “Are there any politicians who aren’t ignoramuses?” And/or nine different flavors of crazypants. ^_^
Ron Paul is a nutjob, plain and simple. Seeing otherwise intelligent people support him makes me want to bash my head into the wall. Theory (in the scientific sense) DOES NOT EQUAL guess, belief, or something I just pulled out of my ass. A scientific theory is a model that has been tested and has not been disproved as of yet. I learned this in middle school (and I went to Catholic school!). Science is not equivalent to religious belief. I want to find these people and hit them with a clue-by-four.
Obama seems to be the best choice. He’s the only politician who makes any amount of sense and doesn’t make me want to strangle people whenever I hear about him.
(By the way, mind if I friend you? I like your writing, and have seen you frequently around the sex/kink comms I’m in. Plus you’re in Atlanta–my part-time home.)
Not at all–welcome aboard!
The question should be “Are there any politicians who aren’t ignoramuses?” And/or nine different flavors of crazypants. ^_^
Ron Paul is a nutjob, plain and simple. Seeing otherwise intelligent people support him makes me want to bash my head into the wall. Theory (in the scientific sense) DOES NOT EQUAL guess, belief, or something I just pulled out of my ass. A scientific theory is a model that has been tested and has not been disproved as of yet. I learned this in middle school (and I went to Catholic school!). Science is not equivalent to religious belief. I want to find these people and hit them with a clue-by-four.
Obama seems to be the best choice. He’s the only politician who makes any amount of sense and doesn’t make me want to strangle people whenever I hear about him.
(By the way, mind if I friend you? I like your writing, and have seen you frequently around the sex/kink comms I’m in. Plus you’re in Atlanta–my part-time home.)
Not at all–welcome aboard!
Sunshine
Nudge Nudge… I added you.
Re: Sunshine
Welcome aboard!
Sunshine
Nudge Nudge… I added you.
Re: Sunshine
Welcome aboard!