Huntsman: Earth not flat; Christie: Sun does not revolve around Earth

[Jacobtm]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/huntsman-on-evolution-call-me-crazy/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61751.html

How long until the average American voter has anything close to a realistic view of reality? The nation will probably collapse before 50% accept evolution.

[minionofmidas]

Shocking. Communists.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Idiots. You can't win the Republican nomination by being the pro-science candidate.

[Lief 🗽]

Guys, we're witnessing an empire in, increasingly rapid, decline. Of course the citizens of the empire will reject reality (science) and desperately cling to a false world of mysticism and willful ignorance. And they will demand that their politicians share their views, and the empire will crumble faster and faster until we are all crushed under its rubble. And then the Chinese will pave over the rubble and build a giant dam.

[bore]

Its kind of sad that believing scientifically proven facts counts as being a moderate. You have to wonder what the republicans have come to.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm curious to hear Bachmann and Gingrich on these issues...


Oh wait. No, actually I don't want to know.

[Person Man]

Guys, we're witnessing an empire in, increasingly rapid, decline. Of course the citizens of the empire will reject reality (science) and desperately cling to a false world of mysticism and willful ignorance. And they will demand that their politicians share their views, and the empire will crumble faster and faster until we are all crushed under its rubble. And then the Chinese will pave over the rubble and build a giant dam.

Good thing I like Chinese buffets...

[minionofmidas]

Good, cause that's what you'll end up in.

[J. J.]

Guys, we're witnessing an empire in, increasingly rapid, decline. Of course the citizens of the empire will reject reality (science) and desperately cling to a false world of mysticism and willful ignorance. And they will demand that their politicians share their views, and the empire will crumble faster and faster until we are all crushed under its rubble. And then the Chinese will pave over the rubble and build a giant dam.

Good thing I like Chinese buffets...

How would you like it three times a day, for the rest of your life?

And you'll be one of the lucky ones.

(Actually, some vintage National Lampoon.)

[fezzyfestoon]

Yeah, I think Huntsman's reasonable approach to almost everything has done him in. Nobody in the Republican voting bloc appreciates a level-headed approach to politics anymore. They're more attracted to theatrics than the Democrats ever have been. They should have said the opposite and they'd both leap in the polls. Refreshing to see them not be afraid of science though!

[Landslide Lyndon]

Idiots. You can't win the Republican nomination by being the pro-science candidate.

What are you talking about? The Republican party is NOT anti-intellectual.  Inks will vouch for that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm just glad this isn't even an issue in my party.

[Frodo]

Yeah, I think Huntsman's reasonable approach to almost everything has done him in. Nobody in the Republican voting bloc appreciates a level-headed approach to politics anymore. They're more attracted to theatrics than the Democrats ever have been. They should have said the opposite and they'd both leap in the polls. Refreshing to see them not be afraid of science though!

It might pay off in 2016 or 2020, by which point the Tea Party would likely have burnt itself out. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm just glad this isn't even an issue in my party.

I'm just glad this isn't even an issue in my country.

[tpfkaw]

Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats.

[DrScholl]

It's not about literacy, Republicans who deny climate change know that they aren't being truthful, but they must deny it because their donors in industries want them to do that.

[Username MechaRFK]

Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats.

It's head to head on both parties, seeing how the Democrats have the poor minorities on their voting side, where the Republicans get the poor rural whites on their side.

[Хahar 🤔]

Guys, we're witnessing an empire in, increasingly rapid, decline. Of course the citizens of the empire will reject reality (science) and desperately cling to a false world of mysticism and willful ignorance. And they will demand that their politicians share their views, and the empire will crumble faster and faster until we are all crushed under its rubble. And then the Chinese will pave over the rubble and build a giant dam.

Reminds me of Asimov's religion of Scientism.

[TJ in Oregon]

I think an awful lot of the problem here is that politicians and mass-media outlets tend to present science in a "debate" sort of way rather than just reporting findings. This leads the general public to often lose actual results under a heap of political emotion.

On global warming, the reality is that the majority of data collected suggests that the earth's temperature on the whole is rising. The correct representation for viewing this is to evaluate a surface integral of temperature over the earth's surface. This cannot be evaluated in actuality of course, so we collect many data points and perform a sort of numerical integration/averaging on them to determine the earth's temperature. In recent years, it is almost (never say never) undeniable that there has been a temperature increase. To gather historical data is less straightforward because the availability of reliable temperature data from centuries ago isn’t perfect. We’ve used a variety of other techniques, such as fossil records and tree rings, to develop a fairly reliable estimate of temperature changes historically. The charge of data falsification aimed at a handful of scientists was primarily in this area of research. However, difficulties aside, it seems highly likely that the earth’s temperature has in fact been rising for a few hundred years.

The next question we need to ask is “Why?” There are several possible answers to this, although the consensus answer in the scientific community is the increased presence of greenhouse gasses. That is not to say there aren’t other complicating factors, such as minor changes in the sun’s radiation. But even after we ascribe to the ‘theory’ (see evolution discussion below for the definition of ‘theory’) that greenhouse gasses are in fact the cause of global warming, an accurate model of what will happen is still difficult to obtain. There are hundreds of complicating factors involved in creating a material balance for carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere. The largest counter-intuitive factor, however, that is the most difficult to understand is the increased amount of carbon dioxide uptake by plant life when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases. This is bound by carbon dioxide levels released into the atmosphere and the second law of thermodynamics would prevent the uptake increase to truly counteract the increase in carbon dioxide release. But, the two so nearly balance that the degree to which they are different almost entirely drives the concentration change. This discrepancy prevents too good a prediction from being made about what will happen in the future.

Now, of course, most of you aren’t interested in that aspect of modeling, persay, but interested only in the way the debate has been framed and what the consequences will be. The Republican position in so much as it seeks to deny the existence of global warming is faulty. The Republican position that seeks to accept that global warming is happening but blame it on something other than greenhouse gasses is a bit disingenuous since political movements likely know very little on the subject. On the other side, the Democratic Party has taken the idea of global warming and moved toward a rally cry against fossil fuels when we really don’t have any legitimate alternatives. In my opinion, the entire global warming debate is framed completely wrong; it needs not to be about whether or not there is global warming, but what to do about it. I suspect part of our current economic issues can be attributed to attempts to address global warming using technologies that aren’t ready and/or aren’t suited for the role they’ve been used it.

On totally different note, evolution always seems to come up when discussing politics and science. More often than not, it is also framed in a way that suggests a poor understanding of what science is, what it tells us, and what it doesn’t. Too often I hear some kind of retort about how evolution is “a theory not a fact” or lambasting people for not “believing” in evolution. First of all, a theory is not a fact, nor is it an opinion; it is something of a nature completely different than both. A theory is a falsificationable hypothesis that has been tested and has not been proven wrong. The contrast between a theory and a fact or between a theory and an opinion is entirely semantic in nature and only seeks to distort the actual meaning of the subject in question.

To ask someone if they “believe” in evolution is a stupid question. No one who understands science at all “believes” in evolution. Evolution is simply accepted as the only falsificationable, scientific explanation we currently have for the history of life on this planet. That’s it, nothing more results from science because science can only answer questions which are falsificationable, which means that an idea or explanation is capable of being proven wrong. A belief in entirely different in nature, since it deals with ideas that cannot be proven wrong. Anyone who takes evolution as a “belief” violates the idea of what science is. Now, it is of course possible to believe that science provides all answers about our world and that no idea is true unless it can be proven wrong. This may sometimes be what is meant when someone says they “believe” in evolution but it answers an entirely different question. Science cannot ever determine “truth”. Any time I see the words “believe” or “truth” in a story about science I cringe.

In the realm of politics, these distinctions seem lost on everyone since framing the debate correctly and semantics can replace the intrinsic value of an idea in the minds of the public. Both parties are guilty on occasion of misrepresenting or just misunderstanding science for political positions. Heck, no one completely understands science. I do, however, find the idea that liberals are the sole purveyors of truth in the realm of science while conservatives are clinging to an alternate reality that doesn’t accurately portray the world. The two examples I used here are areas that Republicans generally take more flak over their opinions on, but there are other areas such as organic food or nuclear energy where the less scientifically sound position is more often taken by liberals.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I'm just glad this isn't even an issue in my party.

I'm just glad this isn't even an issue in my country.

[King]

I'm curious to hear Bachmann and Gingrich on these issues...


Oh wait. No, actually I don't want to know.

I imagine Gingrich believes in evolution and the Earth revolving around the Sun, but knows Republicans taking the counter on this relative non-issue gives him a solid voting block of dumbs to pass his own agenda.  People like Bachmann, Naso, and Teabaggers are no more than tragic accidents of a 30 year Republican electoral agenda.  This is why the establishment is so shocked.  They never thought people who actually believed this crap could gain power.

Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats.

No, it shows that the general populous is scientifically literate regardless of political affiliation (almost all of those results are within MOE of each other in a likely low quality poll), but a large group of blindly pastor controlled Americans has been sadly told to disregard biology.  Thankfully, Genesis is the only book in the Bible that seriously conflicts any major scientific theory.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm just glad this isn't even an issue in my party.

I'm just glad this isn't even an issue in my country.

Interestingly the leader of one of the Dutch left wing parties is a young earth creationist.

Of course she uses it to justify the exact opposite of Republicans, that that is why we should have respect for the planet and all its life.

[King]

I'm just glad this isn't even an issue in my party.

I'm just glad this isn't even an issue in my country.

Interestingly the leader of one of the Dutch left wing parties is a young earth creationist.

Of course she uses it to justify the exact opposite of Republicans, that that is why we should have respect for the planet and all its life.

Republicans do have a point.  If Genesis is correct, then so is Revelations and why bother carrying on when we are all doomed?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Very smart post TJ. I might quibble with the idea that science always requires falsifiability or that evolution ultimately meets this test. I tend to think "belief in evolution," (like to a lesser extent "belief in climate change") is a problematic concept more because there are so many variants of evolutionary theory and how far one takes its implications that to say whether or not one agrees with it ends up not telling very much.

[TJ in Oregon]

Very smart post TJ. I might quibble with the idea that science always requires falsifiability or that evolution ultimately meets this test. I tend to think "belief in evolution," (like to a lesser extent "belief in climate change") is a problematic concept more because there are so many variants of evolutionary theory and how far one takes its implications that to say whether or not one agrees with it ends up not telling very much.

That's a good point: there isn't a real concensus on a lot of specific details of many of the larger issues.

As far as falsificationism, a lot of science is trying to disprove theories, either as a true attempt to achieve it or just to check for consistency. I don't see how you can conduct experiments or collect data on a hypothesis that can't be proven false.

Evolution could be proven false by digging up human remains that contain the same carbon dating age as dinosaurs. Or if we had found that remains thought to be older aren't actually older after using carbon dating. Or if we show our entire understanding of dating is completely wrong. Granted, evolutionary theory does still contain a few holes big enough to ride a T-Rex through in that we are missing a huge amount of proof intermediate states of tons of organisms actually existed. But, the way evolution could be disproven is to collect a bunch of evidence that contradicts it. This would be further complicated that most of the Linnean classification system has been constructed around evolutionary theory. Yet, if we had clear data showing evolution did not actually happen, an awful lot would change.

These examples are particularly thorny; most of the time an attempt to disprove a theory is just taking data and seeing if it follows an equation.