How many Republicans attended a March for Science today?

What type of science are you referring to and what type(s) of science was at the root of the so-called marches?

 

Spent the day studying the science behind the golf swing.

 

Level headed republicans are at the same levels as level headed dems. Both are an endangered species.

 

Tank you Jimmy79, some people want to behave like it is one party who is a "hate-monger" who spread hateful things and has "divided" the nation. First of all, the nation has always been divided on several levels, and by both parties playing on the fears and hate of their constituents, they exacerbate a ready to blow powder-keg. The both do this to gain more and more dependency, which equates to more and more control. There is a song by the group Snot that is titled "Snooze Button'. I think people should read the lyrics of the song. Here are some of the lyrics:

 

It pays some back out, but not nearly as much as I pay into it, so I don't need it. For me, the government is a set of fangs connected to millions of deadbeat parasites, and they'll suck until the host is dead.

Maybe you get so much back from the government that you can't imagine anybody not bowing down and kissing Trump's feet for giving sooooo much back in return for the paltry amount of taxes you pay, but believe me when I tell you that your middle-man is a much more efficient leech than it is at being santa claus.

 

What The Hell Is A March For Science?

Well, it was a monstrous sea of virtue-signalling signs and hip clothing and wry facial hair, and not a single constructive thing other than widening the gulf between hyper-politicized agitation for "climate change" and...um...real science.

The idiocy that "consensus" should end the debate is insulting to everyone who understands the scientific method and isn't driven by partisanship or, probably more likely, the quest for funding.

Newton and Liebnitz and Pasteur and Einstein and Rutherford and Barry Marshall and Robin Warren (look 'em up) and Feynman and Mullis and a host of great scientists did not accept the status quo and the pronouncements of the herd.

Scientific investigation should take one wherever the data point. That the AGW establishment jealously guards its data is a testament to their ulterior motives, and a huge red flag. Show me your raw data, and show me how and why you "corrected" them to prove your hypothesis. Otherwise, you are a fraud and a liar and have no respect for the scientific method.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/369424.php

 

I guess it's important that people identify which political side supports science, and which just denies it. That way, those who chose to favor a rational way of understanding the universe will know which political groups not to support.

 

The MIT guys got a lot of their ideas about basic computer process and programming by watching the switching methods the local railroad club was playing with.

 

Of course a march is about politics! You seem to have just now figured that out. Marches are, obviously, not part of the scientific method. But they express political support for Science. Just like responses here like yours, and by so many Republicans, are political support for anti-science.

 

This was a stupid political gimmick and really a disgrace to science. If this was really a march for science, let's not only talk about the reality of evolution and climate change but also the reality of biology and how altering your genitals despite having XY chromosomes does not make you a woman.

The left now endorses child abuse where they consider it not only a good thing but a moral necessity to pump children full of hormones to try and transition their bodies towards their allegedly perceived gender identity, totally discounting the much more likely possibilities of mental illness or mere childishness as the cause. This is nothing less than anti-scientific child abuse of the worst kind. This is even more reprehensible than what anti-vaxxers do. Anti-vaxxer parents put their kids are risk from potential harm, parents who have bought into this transgender pseudoscience directly inflict harm upon their children.

A lot of people on the Right need to wake up on certain scientific issues, but so do people on the Left. We are going to look back on this gender transition hysteria and hang our heads in shame, it will be looked at like those surgical fads of the Victorian era. It's a scandal that the abuse of children with this Leftist pseudoscience isn't exposed for what it is.

 

1. As a matter of fact, not opinion, as has been documented in different sources in the thread, the voluntary, capitalist private sector is responsible for vastly more scientific discoveries, developments and useful intellectual property to human quality of life than the involuntary, confiscatory public sector.

2. As a matter of fact, not opinion, the involuntary extraction of more and more from the private sector retards its ability to conduct valuable research and development, therefore restricting the amount of "science" the private sector can conduct. OTOH, with respect to violent, involuntary fiat science, there is no guarantee of any scientific progress other than that a large amount of the money will be wasted via the graft, waste and incompetence of the -inferior- scientists of the public sector and the -inferior- human denizens of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex.

So by advocating for the -inferior- science of the public sector at the direct expense of the -superior- science of the private sector, it is actually -you- and -yours- (people who think that a "march" to inject more and more leftist politics into the conduct of science fools anyone) who are DENYING SCIENCE.

That's right, you are that which you condemn in your own silly thread... right here in print for all to see.

So, invoking your own 6th grade level logic, why are you and other leftists so ANTI-SCIENCE? Why do you consistently advocate taking from the valuable scientific research of the private sector to fund the suspect "science" of the public sector?

Would it happen to have anything to do with who signs your (and all the other virtue-signaling marching Marxists') paychecks?

 

I have no idea what you mean. There are no "types" of science. There is only science. The marches support funding of scientific research: ie: human inquiry seeking to understand nature using the scientific method. You either support that, or you oppose it. If you oppose it you are simply "anti-science". No pejorative connotation intended. It's just an accurate description.

 

See? This is the problem I've seen with most on the right. They just don't understand what science is. Science only gives you the facts. The moral or social implications are of the realm of politicians, philosophers, etc. The marches support investing in Science research. We need to research Climate Change, we need tor research alternative sources of fuel, we need to research diseases,... The alternative is what this administration is proposing: we're not going to fund research on those things.

Now, if you don't think that Science is of any use, then ... say so! Being hypocritical will not win you many discussions.

 

Not sure what you're trying to prove here. I am most definitely in favor of scientific research by the private sector. However, and very understandably, they tend to investigate in areas where they can obtain a return for their investment in research. You see... for the most part, science is not profitable. Technology is, but not science. So wherever private enterprises feel they can invest in scientific investigation, I'm all for it. But governments will have to invest in the parts that are not profitable. Which are a large majority.

 

It couldn't be simpler.

You claim that Republicans (I'm not one) are "anti science."

Yet groups that conduct these hollow, politicized "march for science" events and the like are overwhelmingly leftists seeking to extract more resources from the private sector via high taxes.

Hence you are advocating extracting more (or even current levels) of resources from the private sector.

Since the private sector is a demonstrably better engine for science (as documented in the thread), you are advocating retarding its scientific efforts by taking more resources from it to fund nebulous public works.

So once again, why are you so anti-science?

 

Is that what's happening?
Because what I see is a bunch of political activists riding on the back of television-brand "Science!".
There is nothing intrinsically rational about most political beliefs because it's about value judgements, not scientific fact.
This was possibly the most counterproductive thing that could have been done if the goal was to increase respect in science among the general public.

Many, many people in STEM despise the social justice left.

 

Ah yes, so intellectual!

 

Bad start. I claimed that there are Republicans who are anti-science. As a matter of fact, I invite Republicans who are not anti-science to share their experience with the march. And some have. I should say "right-wing", not just Republicans. I'll give you that.

That's a red herring because what these people want is very simple: to not die. And if the trend in breaking heat records just about every other year continues, many people will die. They want to find out if there is something we can do so they don't die. Not too complicated...

Oh how funny...! You seem to be trying to "bait" me into some sort of ridiculous discussion about who can do research. Fact is that it's completely irrelevant. That, of course, depends on what the object of the research is. The main issue in research is not as much who does it, as it is where the funds come from. A private corporation will fund research if they see profits in, more or less, the short term. But most will tend not to want to spend the cash if they don't see the profits. Which is often the case in matters such as Climate Change. However, they might have great facilities, researchers, experience .... which are ideal for this not-so-profitable research. So, in these cases, the government comes in and funds the research, either totally or partially. Of course there are other cases in which public facilities (such as universities) might be more suited. But none of this is possible if, as this administration is doing, funding is being cut. Not only for the research itself, but for government agencies that can coordinate with those facilities in order to get the research done.

 

These people don't claim to be intellectual. They just don't want to die!

 

You mean they don't want to lose thier hardons!

 

Definitely that too!!!!!! Would you?

 

Well, sometimes the public sector does generate very useful product though -- eg, the ebola vaccine:

"rVSV-ZEBOV is a recombinant, replication-competent vaccine.[4] It consists of a vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), which has been genetically engineered to express a glycoprotein from the Zaire ebolavirus so as to provoke a neutralizing immune response to the Ebola virus.

It was created by scientists at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, Canada, which is part of the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC).[5] PHAC licensed it to a small company, NewLink Genetics, which started developing the vaccine; NewLink in turn licensed it to Merck in 2014.[6] It is unavailable for commercial use as of December 2016.[7]..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RVSV-ZEBOV_vaccine

 

Actually, the conclusion of a book on the subject reviewed on NPR the other night is that it is the political struggle to acquire government funding that is eroding the quality of much scientific investigation presently, so Trump's approach might actually be a good thing....

 

Yeah, your OP was a bad start. You made the moronic claim that people who didn't march in a political global warming march dishonestly titled a "science march" were "anti science," a common, dumb lie narrative of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex attempting to smear anyone who disagrees with the Complex on climate change. Several in the thread have pointed this out and been ignored.

Yet it's you and yours who are "anti science" because your position is robbing the private sector, via heavy taxes, to fund -inferior- public research. Real, competent scientists working for private sector innovators in the superior -voluntary- markets could have used those funds for R&D. For example, the most fruitful alternative energy science is ongoing in the traditional energy industry, not the corrupt, incompetent, inferior, less talented public sector (Solyndra and numerous other boondoggles). Public sector trough feeders seek to retard real scientific progress by taking more from the private sector to enrich themselves... under the guise of climate change and "green energy." So yeah, they are not only anti science, but greedy and corrupt as well, hiding personal self-interest under an overblown, hysterical response to what may or may not be a legitimate environmental issue.

So for the third time, why are YOU so ANTI-SCIENCE?

Don't like being called anti-science on shaky political ideology grounds? THEN DON'T DO IT TO OTHER PEOPLE. IS ANY OF THIS SINKING IN? Somehow I doubt it.

 

Exactly.