English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I've been watching lectures with groups of some of the most popular scientists. They all laugh when the name "George Bush" is mentioned. They laugh out loud when someone mentions "Fox News". They don't seem to have any respect for the sort of conservative opinions that might be found on bill oreilly or Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. Why is this? What makes a science education favor Liberalism?

2007-08-18 06:29:12 · 23 answers · asked by Earl Grey 5 in Politics & Government Politics

23 answers

real scientists laugh at bush and fox because both are souces that have been focal points of efforts to deflect real science, especially with regards to the human effect on global warming.

2007-08-18 06:37:03 · answer #1 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 3 2

Most people in general don't respect Rush Limbaugh's views, it isn't just the liberal elite scientists and whatnot. Maybe these scientists are aware of the God-awful levels of right-wing bias in Fox News.

Most people in general aren't a fan of George W. Bush either.

Joe C, your answer made no sense whatsoever, liberalism isn't some sort of disorder, it's merely a different viewpoint. That's all. You know something? I find it amusing that you're berating scientists for laughing at Fox News, while at the same time dismissing anyone who leans left as having a mental disorder. Doth the term "hypocrisy" mean anything to you? Why is it ok for you to irrationally bash one group of people, but not okay for others to do the same? Huh?

Quit stealing talking points from Michael Weiner "Savage".

2007-08-18 06:56:49 · answer #2 · answered by Liberals love America! 6 · 2 0

The current administration is giving conservatism a bad name. The reliance of Bush and his followers on evangelical Christianity (for votes and a semblance of legitimacy) have led to the creation of a Republican party that is viewed by many as anti-science, anti-progress, and anti-reason.

But don't make the mistake of thinking that all conservatives are like this...

The problem is that demagogues like Limbaugh and Hannity have hijacked the party. They HAVE to argue that science is wrong, because if they embrace science two things will happen:

* The American lifestyle would have to alter, which would upset the corporations that are making trillions of dollars supplying that lifestyle.

* Many of the basic premises of evangelical Christianity (such as "Intelligent Design," and "Homosexuality is a choice") would have to be discarded...and once they are, what else about that belief system would be questioned and eventually discarded?

Conservatives by definition do not want change; the current crop DOES want change...they simply want to go back in time to a period that never truly existed in the first place. To do this they must reject science.

2007-08-18 06:45:21 · answer #3 · answered by epublius76 5 · 3 0

Liberalism is all about an biased understanding the facts of a condition or problem and trying to evolve a rational solution to the problem with the least disruption to the status Que.

Conservatism has embedded in it, conservation of dogma. This can only be done by ignoring contemporary issues, pretending the don't exist (global warming) and / or asserting a "god given" right to determine other people's futures (Iraq- ban on abortion to save the mothers life etc)

Thus, while the term conservatism would imply a non-confrontational approach to life, the fact is, adherence to the dogma requires frequently engaging in violence

2007-08-18 06:49:28 · answer #4 · answered by fredrick z 5 · 0 0

I don't agree at all. Both parties have severe faults (some shared by both). To believe that either political party is correct about everything is ridiculous. To believe that one of them has acheived "enlightenment" is actually stupid. The Democrats aren't sitting in the Senate meditating all day. The idea of a bipartisan system is that the government is built of polar extremes, so that every viewpoint is heard. The operative word being "extreme". Politics is not a team sport. Don't base your opinion of an issue on the party affilitation of the person speaking to you.

2016-05-22 03:11:00 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

As a scientist (PhD in chemistry), I find that there are an equal amount of conservatives and liberals in the sciences.

That is of course among the few American citizens in the scientific community.

2007-08-18 07:01:34 · answer #6 · answered by beren 7 · 1 0

Ideology of Conservatism
 ‘conserving’; or ‘keeping something intact”; status quo
 “we are born into a culture, a political society, a social group like our fathers and forefathers; we do not make it.”
 Modern usage of the term goes back to the aftermath of the French Revolution, which caused great turmoil, disorder, chaos, anarchy and anomy the the West. The term was first used in the USA, France and Britain in 1820s and owards.
 By 1835, Conservatism became the pillar of the Tory Party in England.
 1830 and 1848 Revolutions in Europe were underlying the celebration of conservative values and norms... Conservatism meant popular opposition against industrialism, individualism, socialism, and modernism. Because all those corresponded to the decline of community, tradition, order and religion.
LIBERALISM
• Ethimology of the term ‘liberalism’ dates back to the Middle Ages. The latin term ‘liber’ meant ‘free man’.
• The term liberal then had the connotations of broad mindedness, tolerance, progress, liberty, individualism and generocity.
• The term ‘liberal’ was first used in Spain in 1820s in to define the opponents of the Crown: Liberales vs. Royalists
• Assumptions of liberalism on individual:
• Individual is prior to society; Each person is equal; Individuals are rational.
• autonomy vs. heteronomy
• Classical Liberal understanding claims autonomy for individuals. Autonomous individual refers to self-ruled person who is able to govern himself/herself and to dare to reason. Such understanding happens to disregard that individuals are not always rational, but they are also subject to values, conventions, traditions, norms and ideologies.

• The propositions of early liberalism were directed against eighteenth century absolutism and the many feudal practices
• Absolutism was supported by landed Aristocracy, stifled human activity while maintaining the feudal privieges of nobility at that time when the growth of manufacturing and commerce had begun to open up new vistas of ibdividual effort, exploration, wealth and change
• Because of this, bourgeoisie did not like order of Aristocracy. Bourgeosie did not like pay taxes to landowners. So, bourgeosie wanted free trade and profit. I want to go free for land to land. The famous expression was “ laissez-faire” “ let us do”
• Liberals proclaimed individualism and individual freedoms; freedom of movement and trade, right and liberty, right to vote, right to private property, right to education so on

2007-08-18 07:04:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Funding and grants but liberalisim is not more scientific because Theory superceedes facts in the liberal point of view.

2007-08-18 06:50:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No, it's just more Liberal. That means that they're more willing to try new things, like Papaya Ice cream or Common ancestry with all Primates.

2007-08-18 06:44:34 · answer #9 · answered by Humphrey Beato 4 · 0 0

Typically, scientific thought requires the mindset of a master detective. True detectives allow the evidence to determine the outcome. Neo-cons have already made up their minds about the outcome, and only accept evidence that supports their neo-CONclusions.

Those who really like to think, desire to have all of the evidence to draw their conclusions. Those who prefer others to think for them, desire only that which validates their own, narrow thought process.

2007-08-18 06:40:18 · answer #10 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 4 1

fedest.com, questions and answers