Does This Translate Into 'republicans Tend To Lack Critical Thinki

[dairygirl4u2c]

"A Pew Research Center Poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans; 55 percent are Democrats, 32 percent are independent, and the rest "don't know" their affiliation."

 

sure, there might be some bias, given they often rely on funding from more progressive types. and a 'group think' mentality, to some extent. but given their positions and abilities, surely they overcome most of those biases and think objectively. these are some of the most intelligent people we have, and at the very least, the most valued in terms of their critical thinking.

 

shouldn't their meager support of the republican party tell us something?

[Perigrina]

It tells us that they went to university where they were immersed in liberal values.  There are probably a disproportionate number of scientists who are atheists and pro-abortion too. That is no indication that those views are correct.  Scientists know more about science than most people.  That does not make them more likely to be right about subjects outside their expertise.

[AccountDeleted]

Scientists want grant money for their research projects. Maybe the Democrats give them more  $$  ??

[Anastasia13]

How does having a degree in biology or chemistry mean they are the most qualified to judge economics or how well the government holds to the constitution?

[dairygirl4u2c]

here is something else that is telling....

 

 

"Didiots-Limbaugh's Legion of Fans 
Now, am I saying that dittoheads are ignoramuses? No. I don't need to. Listen to Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg School for Communications at the University of Pennsylvania:

We just concluded a study of 360 people, whom we watched watch the health care reform debate for nine months. And at the end of that period, we took the people who said they relied on talk radio, and by this, we mean primarily Rush Limbaugh. . . . And we asked them how well informed they felt. . . .Of all the people we watched, they said they were the best informed. And of all the people we watched, they were the least informed.

What a surprise, huh? Limbaugh listeners thought they were the best informed, and yet were the least informed.

How is such a thing even measured? Well, like all the other people studied, talk radio listeners were asked questions of "objective fact" such as: "Which groups (the elderly, poor, middle class, etc. "are most likely to be uninsured?" The Limbaugh listeners were "highly likely" to give an incorrect answer such as "the elderly" who, of course, are all covered by Medicare.

But why would people so woefully lacking in the basic facts of an issue think they were the best informed? Social scientists call the phenomenon "pseudo-certainty." I call it "being a fucking moron."

[blazeingstar]

I think you're going by feelings rather that facts.  For instance, ascribing intelligence to those who have received a higher level of education.

 

Sorry, but there are thousands of rural conservitiave americans, running small business, farms, heck, even computer companies that are highly intelligent but not only are not PHD scientists, but may not even have an associates.   And while most of those in "soft tech" industries like social media/google tend to have more liberal views, those in the "hard tech" industries, especially engineers tend to be FAR more conservative, with only something like 14% identifying as democrat/liberal.  Nunsense actually hit it on the head.  People theorize this is for 2 reasons, engineers don't rely on government funds and they are also problem solvers and not dwellers.

 

I'm sorry, but I find engineers much more intelligent and helpful than many of the scientists today who study completely useless how often cows fart or why birds like rap music.

 

"Talk Radio" includes NPR which has a far bigger audience than Rush Limbaugh.  

 

And while not exactly correct, medicare grossly underinsures most seniors, who have fewer options than younger people.  Can a family find private insurance payments crippling?  Sure, but they have access.  

 

In my state (a purple state) the rollout of Obama care has been a disaster for the rural poor and elderly as the whole "keep your dr" thing was a joke and people are driving upwards of 2 hours to get to the allowed specialist.    Plus, both conservative and liberal people are focused on the wrong thing.  Some of the most egregious cases of medical bankruptcy happened to people with typical to premium insurance...costs are too high and the FDA is too slow on some of the most important drugs.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i did say it in another thread. but this thread i admit is mostly just me trolling. it does bring up some interesting points, though.

[Nihil Obstat]

i did say it in another thread. but this thread i admit is mostly just me trolling. it does bring up some interesting points, though.

So stop. It is childish.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i did bring the second point up in a debate elsewhere. the idea, it seems somewhat objective that limbaugh's listeners are the least informed, generally. how would you argue against this? this isn't so much trolling as it is genuinely curious. the stylistic additions by the writer of that quote just adds some comic flare to it, to me. if it become a troll scenario, that's not necessarily bad, but that isn't my primary motive in this case.

 

i guess i could remove the comic elements and just debate the factual information....

(but where is the fun in that...

[blazeingstar]

i did bring the second point up in a debate elsewhere. the idea, it seems somewhat objective that limbaugh's listeners are the least informed, generally. how would you argue against this? this isn't so much trolling as it is genuinely curious. the stylistic additions by the writer of that quote just adds some comic flare to it, to me. if it become a troll scenario, that's not necessarily bad, but that isn't my primary motive in this case.

 

i guess i could remove the comic elements and just debate the factual information....

(but where is the fun in that...

 

If you know anything the sample size of 360 is laughable.

 

However one could say "Anyone who listens to a single source of news is least informed"  That goes for Limbaugh, ABC, BBC, DRUDGE, newspaper, NPR.  If you only get it from one source, you're going to be skewed.

 

And before you say...but but but... about NPR or BBC being "professional" they still make mistakes and have bent.  Remember the Irish baby story?  Big bad ole' Catholic Church burring infants en-masse in a septic, when really they were well recorded and died of childhood diseases that were common and unpreventable at the time.  http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/23/324941421/ap-parts-of-irish-mass-graves-story-exaggerated-by-media

[ChristianGirlForever]

The purpose of this thread seems to be to attack Republicans, which I not only don't see the point of, but find annoying and, if I took it more seriously, offensive.  A person does not become a Republican or a Democrat because of how intelligent or unintelligent they are, but because their beliefs/common sense lead them there.  And, yes, what scientists have to do with this I don't know.

 

No clue why this is in the debate section, as arguing over whether Republicans or Democrats are more intelligent is quite, well,  :lame:.  If someone wanted to debate the merits of either party, that would be a different story, IMO.