Differing assumptions that are the basis of liberal and conservative positions

[Ruken]

@adaher

You’ll also notice that on the issues where liberals do not accept the science(Fracking and nuclear power), that the scientific community is hard at work attempting to confirm liberal fears of both.

Cite? For “the scientific community”, not a handful of shills and wackadoodles.

[adaher]

@nachtmusick

Scientists are no more partisan than Science itself. They are not out to get you.

Not out to get anyone, but bias certainly plays a role in what questions are asked and how seriously the results are taken when not ironclad. There’s also the politics that surround getting grants. No one’s going to pay for research that is politically toxic. Some questions must never be asked.

[BrotherCadfael]

@Lumpy

Conservative: “Life isn’t fair”
Liberal: “Then we’ll make it fair”

At gunpoint, if need be.

[Fear_Itself]

@adaher

this study shows that liberals and conservatives both have problems with science that doesn’t back up their point of view:

Both liberals, conservatives can have science bias

You’ll also notice that on the issues where liberals do not accept the science(Fracking and nuclear power), that the scientific community is hard at work attempting to confirm liberal fears of both. Conservatives just don’t get that kind of service.

Are you suggesting there is some sort of equivalence between the resistance to science by liberals and conservatives?

[adaher]

No I give liberals a clear edge in being reasonable and willing to consider contradictory evidence. I just dispute that the edge is as big a gulf as they like to claim. I’d also note that liberals are the undisputed kings of the ad hoc hypothesis when it comes to why government programs don’t work out as planned:

“Not enough money!”
“the problem was worse than we thought!”
“Who could have foreseen scenario X!?”
“Republicans ruined it!”

Whatever happened to Occam’s Razor? If a program doesn’t work, it’s probably because it either could never work, or was poorly thought out. But liberals will almost never admit that about any government program.

[Fear_Itself]

@adaher

No I give liberals a clear edge in being reasonable and willing to consider contradictory evidence. I just dispute that the edge is as big a gulf as they like to claim.

What are liberals claiming? You cite says conservatives are four times more resistant to science than liberals. I think that is pretty significant. Is anyone claiming a higher ratio?

[Fear_Itself]

@adaher

Whatever happened to Occam’s Razor? If a program doesn’t work, it’s probably because it either could never work, or was poorly thought out. But liberals will almost never admit that about any government program.

Any program? Liberals don’t support corporate welfare programs. Or perhaps you are limiting “any program” to programs that liberals support. Tautology much?

[adaher]

Sure they do: Export-Import Bank, green subsidies, bailouts for failing industries that employ union workers…

[Velocity]

@iiandyiiii

No problem bumping my thread!

I don’t buy the second one – if that’s true for any people who commit criminal acts, it’s very, very few, IMO. I think most people who do so commit criminal acts because they think they don’t have any other choice, whether to provide for themselves or family, build or maintain enough of a reputation to survive/thrive in their neighborhood (which may include impressing and/or intimidating others), feed an addiction or dependency, etc. I think the best way to fight this is both to make sure that there are, in fact, other opportunities out there for a decent and successful life, and make sure that those most vulnerable and most likely to get involved in crime are well enough educated to recognize these opportunities exist.

If we’re talking about crimes for pecuniary gain - theft, robbery, etc. - then that’s one thing, often due to financial need, but crimes such as arson, rape or sexual assault don’t benefit the criminal financially and have different basis/motive.

[iiandyiiii]

@Velocity

If we’re talking about crimes for pecuniary gain - theft, robbery, etc. - then that’s one thing, often due to financial need, but crimes such as arson, rape or sexual assault don’t benefit the criminal financially and have different basis/motive.

Yes, that’s true. And I think property crimes like those are much, much more common than ‘benefitless’ crimes like rape/arson/etc. do, but I don’t have the stats in front of me.

But you’re right about separating them, though I think your characterization of how liberals feel about these crimes is still wrong. I and most liberals (as I understand their views) think that it’s probably psychiatric problems that drive most such crimes. This doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be prosecuted, just that I think that’s the best explanation for a big portion.