# Republicans: A War On Science and how you are letting them win **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 5, 2012, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856 "2012-10-05T22:39:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/181 "2012-10-12T14:55:56Z")
I’m also on the record of not supporting the leftists that push organic or are against genetic engineering in food, but in the one item you linked is a bit different from what I understand “green grocer liberalism” is, I have to go for what John Mace posted: > [@Well-intentioned ideas that won't work in real life: green grocer liberalism](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/8): > > I don’t think you can say that encouraging something derives from the same impulse (do it) as banning something. > > And surely you know that Conservatives are just as enamored by the power to ban things they don’t like: Pornography, drugs, flag burning… And while it is true that I have my doubts on the Bloomber plan on restricting some soda sizes it is clear that there is plenty of scientific support to report that sugary drinks are one big ingredient of the current obesity epidemic. > **[Limits on sugary drinks backed by research - The Boston Globe](https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2012/09/21/harvard-research-strengthens-evidence-linking-sugary-beverages-obesity/DiEZ2MxeUTMyYDHrmY2BgO/story.html)** > > Three new studies, conducted at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston Children’s Hospital, and elsewhere, demonstrate how much sugar-sweetened beverages can expand our waistlines and provide strong evidence in favor of government policies to... So in this case, once again I would not be surprised that it will be mostly republicans that will oppose any controls. Still, I’m not so high on the ban of the big gulps, in this case I think an extra fee with the proceeds going to programs that educates and keeps kids to be active to prevent obesity are the way to go. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/182 "2012-10-12T15:03:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I’m also on the record of not supporting the leftists that push organic or are against genetic engineering in food, but in the one item you linked is a bit different from what I understand “green grocer liberalism” is, I have to go for what John Mace posted: > > And while it is true that I have my doubts on the Bloomber plan on restricting some soda sizes it is clear that there is plenty of scientific support to report that sugary drinks are one big ingredient of the current obesity epidemic. > > [http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2012/09/21/harvard-research-strengthens-evidence-linking-sugary-beverages-obesity/DiEZ2MxeUTMyYDHrmY2BgO/story.html](http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2012/09/21/harvard-research-strengthens-evidence-linking-sugary-beverages-obesity/DiEZ2MxeUTMyYDHrmY2BgO/story.html) > > So in this case, once again I would not be surprised that it will be mostly republicans that will oppose any controls. Still, I’m not so high on the ban of the big gulps, in this case I think an extra fee with the proceeds going to programs that educates and keeps kids to be active to prevent obesity are the way to go. Wait a moment – when did we go from being unwilling to accept scientific evidence – what I thought this thread was complaining about – to discussing the differences in impulse between banning and encouraging? My beef (ha!) with the vegetable initiative was simply that prior evidence had shown it was ineffective, and doing the same thing when the evidence shows it doesn’t work is ignoring the science. You do point out another example of liberals’ unwillingness to accept science – the organic movement, which does not show much in the way of scientific evidence in backing its supposed benefits. But discussing whether there’s some kind of “impulse” difference between encouraging and banning is a different subject, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/183 "2012-10-12T15:39:45Z")
This came to my attention in the morning, I get PMd to deal with items like this and while it is a bit flattering, I have to remind you guys that when there is a lot of good science sites to use you should use them as I’m not indispensable. (Recently I got a weird condition that may force me to use Romneycare soon as my current job does not offer health insurance, so yeah, do not count on me forever, just learn a little more on how to identify bad sources from the good ones) As I noticed there are many more Republicans supporting what Senator Inhofe (R) is doing against science. There is a new documentary, The Boy Who Cried Warming, making the rounds in climate change denier sites and it was posted in a Great Debates thread on the issue, the whole thread was removed so it is likely that the OP was a sock, as it turns out I do check the link to that “Documentary” and gave up after a few minutes because as Feynman could say, already several debunked 10:20:30 say so’s are used What are those numbers? It is based on a bloke’s advised to Feynman that was busy working to break a safe: “Have you tried the combination 10:20:30 on the Safe already Mr. Feynman?” And Feynman just would sigh as it was one of the first courses of action a person that had knowledge of safe cracking would tell you. I was going to post this on the thread to reply to that “documentary” when suddenly: [QUOTE=GIGObuster] Aaaaand, It’s gone. I suspect the OP was a sock, anyway, scientists like Richard Alley already pointed out that it is the people that tell us that we could risk our future prosperity if we act on this issue that are the ones crying wolf. As the historical example Richard Alley gave of industry and the people adopting very expensive ways to bring drinkable water to cities and disposing of sewage showed, civilization does not stop when we add the prices we have to pay to develop properly, like we do when we add the cost of providing good water and sewage disposal. That documentary at heart is just made by people who could not had minded if many of his future customers were dying of cholera if nothing had been done to control human waste and manage the water supply, the economical damage that will happen when we have to pay for the current and future droughts and many other items because we are not controlling emissions is never considered by that kind of people. That and the use of the already debunked 70’s myth that all scientists predicted that cooling was coming is enough to dismiss that FUDumentary. [/QUOTE] And that was related to the issue at hand because Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming (Republican, what a surprise) also appeared in that documentary mentioning and putting in the official record the “scientists in the 70’s predicted global cooling” myth. > **[What 1970s science said about global cooling](https://skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html)** > > A persistent argument designed to discredit the field of climate science is that scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s. So popular in fact that it ranks an impressive #7 in the most cited skeptic arguments. The logic goes that climate... After that, I realized there was no need to continue to see that FUDementary. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/184 "2012-10-12T15:43:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wait a moment – when did we go from being unwilling to accept scientific evidence – what I thought this thread was complaining about – to discussing the differences in impulse between banning and encouraging? > > My beef (ha!) with the vegetable initiative was simply that prior evidence had shown it was ineffective, and doing the same thing when the evidence shows it doesn’t work is ignoring the science. > > You do point out another example of liberals’ unwillingness to accept science – the organic movement, which does not show much in the way of scientific evidence in backing its supposed benefits. > > But discussing whether there’s some kind of “impulse” difference between encouraging and banning is a different subject, isn’t it? Of course it is not, but I did not complain about your say so on the vegetable initiative as there is little to go on that science wise. I only mentioned that the dismissal of the big drinks ban is also ignoring very good scientific reasons \*\*why \*\*we should do something against the unhealthy big sugary drinks. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/185 "2012-10-12T16:56:28Z")
Oh, no you don’t! Nosir! No way! You are the go-to **GIGO** for climate change stuff. You are the guy with cite tsunami at your fingertips, and the rest of us are quite content to let you shoulder the burden. Lazy? Well, of course, lazy is smart! (All snark aside, I am sure I speak for many of us when I say that we all hope that your health concerns are minor, transient, and inconsequential. _Ewwww!_ I hate being sincere! Somebody else’s turn next time…) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/186 "2012-10-12T17:03:56Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What are those numbers? It is based on a bloke’s advised to Feynman that was busy working to break a safe: “Have you tried the combination 10:20:30 on the Safe already Mr. Feynman?” And Feynman just would sigh as it was one of the first courses of action a person that had knowledge of safe cracking would tell you. Unless there were two such incidents, that didn’t happen quite the way you’re telling it. The “10 20 30” incident was actually “50 25 50,” and it happened after Feynman had developed a reputation as a safecracker and had been asked to open a safe whose owner was away. > [@](#): > > That same summer after the war, the guy from the property section was trying to take back some of the things the government had bought, to sell > again as surplus. One of the things was a Captain’s safe. We all knew about this safe. The Captain, when he arrived during the war, decided that the > filing cabinets weren’t safe enough for the secrets he was going to get, so he had to have a special safe. > The Captain’s office was on the second floor of one of the flimsy wooden buildings that we all had our offices in, and the safe he ordered was a > heavy steel safe. The workmen had to put down platforms of wood and use special jacks to get it up the steps. Since there wasn’t much amusement, > we all watched this big safe being moved up to his office with great effort, and we all made jokes about what kind of secrets he was going to keep in > there. Some fella said we oughta put our stuff in his safe, and let him put his stuff in ours. So everyone knew about this safe. > The property section man wanted it for surplus, but first it had to be emptied, and the only people who knew the combination were the Captain, > who was in Bikini, and Alvarez, who’d forgotten it. The man asked me to open it. > I went up to his old office and said to the secretary, “Why don’t you phone the Captain and ask him the combination?” > “I don’t want to bother him,” she said. > “Well, you’re gonna bother me for maybe eight hours. I won’t do it unless you make an attempt to call him.” > “OK, OK!” she said. She picked up the telephone and I went into the other room to look at the safe. There it was, that huge, steel safe, and its > doors were wide open. > I went back to the secretary. “It’s open.” > “Marvelous!” she said, as she put down the phone. > “No,” I said, “it was already open.” > “Oh! I guess the property section was able to open it after all.” > I went down to the man in the property section. “I went up to the safe and it was already open.” > “Oh, yeah,” he said; “I’m sorry I didn’t tell you. I sent our regular locksmith up there to drill it, but before he drilled it he tried to open it, and he > opened it.” > So! First information: Los Alamos now has a regular locksmith. Second information: This man knows how to drill safes, something I know > nothing about. Third information: He can open a safe cold–in a few minutes. This is a real professional, a real source of information. This guy I have > to meet. > > I found out he was a locksmith they had hired after the war (when they weren’t as concerned about security) to take care of such things. It turned > out that he didn’t have enough work to do opening safes, so he also repaired the Marchant calculators we had used. During the war I repaired those > things all the time–so I had a way to meet him. > Now I have never been surreptitious or tricky about meeting somebody; I just go right up and introduce myself. But in this case it was so > important to meet this man, and I knew that before he would tell me any of his secrets on how to open safes, I would have to prove myself. > I found out where his room was–in the basement of the theoretical physics section, where I worked–and I knew he worked in the evening, when > the machines weren’t being used. So, at first I would walk past his door on my way to my office in the evening. That’s all; I’d just walk past. > A few nights later, just a “Hi.” After a while, when he saw it was the same guy walking past, he’d say “Hi,” or “Good evening.” > A few weeks of this slow process and I see he’s working on the Marchant calculators. I say nothing about them; it isn’t time yet. > We gradually say a little more: “Hi! I see you’re working pretty hard!” > “Yeah, pretty hard”–that kind of stuff. > Finally, a breakthrough: he invites me for soup. It’s going very good now. Every evening we have soup together. Now I begin to talk a little bit > about the adding machines, and he tells me he has a problem. He’s been trying to put a succession of spring-loaded wheels back onto a shaft, and he > doesn’t have the right tool, or something; he’s been working on it for a week. I tell him that I used to work on those machines during the war, and “I’ll > tell you what: you just leave the machine out tonight, and I’ll have a look at it tomorrow.” > “OK,” he says, because he’s desperate. > The next day I looked at the damn thing and tried to load it by holding all the wheels in my hand. It kept snapping back. I thought to myself, “If > he’s been trying the same thing for a week, and I’m trying it and can’t do it, it ain’t the way to do it!” I stopped and looked at it very carefully, and I > noticed that each wheel had a little hole–just a little hole. Then it dawned on me: I sprung the first one; then I put a piece of wire through the little > hole. Then I sprung the second one and put the wire through it. Then the next one, the next one–like putting beads on a string–and I strung the whole > thing the first time I tried it, got it all in line, pulled the wire out, and everything was OK. > That night I showed him the little hole and how I did it, and from then on we talked a lot about machines; we got to be good friends. Now, in his > office there were a lot of little cubbyholes that contained locks half taken apart, and pieces from safes, too. Oh, they were beautiful! But I still didn’t > say a word about locks and safes. > Finally, I figured the day was coming, so I decided to put out a little bit of bait about safes: I’d tell him the only thing worth a damn that I knew > about them–that you can take the last two numbers off while it’s open. “Hey!” I said, looking over at the cubbyholes. “I see you’re working on Mosler > safes.” > “Yeah.” > "You know, these locks are weak. If they’re open, you can take the last two numbers off.. > “You can?” he said, finally showing some interest. > “Yeah.” > “Show me how,” he said. I showed him how to do it, and he turned to me. “What’s your name?” All this time we had never exchanged names. > “Dick Feynman,” I said. > “God! You’re Feynman!” he said in awe. “The great safecracker! I’ve heard about you; I’ve wanted to meet you for so long! I want to learn how > to crack a safe from you.” > “What do you mean? You know how to open safes cold.” > “I don’t.” > “Listen, I heard about the Captain’s safe, and I’ve been working pretty hard all this time because I wanted to meet you. And you tell me you don’t > know how to open a safe cold.” > “That’s right.” > “Well you must know how to drill a safe.” > “I don’t know how to do that either.” > “WHAT?” I exclaimed. “The guy in the property section said you picked up your tools and went up to drill the Captain’s safe.” > “Suppose you had a job as a locksmith,” he said, “and a guy comes down and asks you to drill a safe. What would you do?” > “Well,” I replied, “I’d make a fancy thing of putting my tools together, pick them up and take them to the safe. Then I’d put my drill up against > the safe somewhere at random and I’d go vvvvvvvvvvv, so I’d save my job.” > “That’s exactly what I was going to do.” > “But you opened it! You must know how to crack safes.” > “Oh, yeah. I knew that the locks come from the factory set at 25-0-25 or 50-25-50, so I thought, ‘Who knows; maybe the guy didn’t bother to > change the combination,’ and the second one worked.” > So I did learn something from him–that he cracked safes by the same miraculous methods that I did. But even funnier was that this big shot > Captain had to have a super, sup er safe, and had people go to all that trouble to hoist the thing up into his office, and he didn’t even bother to set the > combination. > I went from office to office in my building, trying those two factory combinations, and I opened about one safe in five. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/187 "2012-10-12T17:15:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Unless there were two such incidents, that didn’t happen quite the way you’re telling it. > > The “10 20 30” incident was actually “50 25 50,” and it happened after Feynman had developed a reputation as a safecracker and had been asked to open a safe whose owner was away. Feynman used 10:20:30 in this lecture: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/uJ76aomTnTA/hqdefault.jpg "PseudoScience") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ76aomTnTA) > [@](#): > > Sometimes people think they have theories that scientists have not thought about, **this is not a problem if the standard methods are applied usually through peer reiewed publications, but you get in many times people who are ignorant of many of its fields and act as a wise guy, in this clip, Feynman characterizes their dribble in the class of 10 20 30** The context is indeed on his method of not wasting precious time replying to Ad nauseam solutions\* that many people who are not involved in the issue come with. As soon as one of those 10 20 30 points appear in a note sent to him (or posted in these message board for as long as I’m alive) Feynman just added them to the dismissal pile. \*Or seeing the rest of a FUDementary (A documentary only made to seed Fear Uncertainty Doubt) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/188 "2012-10-12T17:27:16Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > This thread is sadly typical of the SDMB. Someone posts a load of half-baked partisan bluster and is shocked when it attracts opposing viewpoints. > > Harkin and Broun are singing from the same sheet: “I’m no scientist, but the scientific consensus is so at odds with a personal conviction of mine, that the scientists must be wrong. Conventional scientists are too lazy or corrupt to question their dogma.” That is not false equivalence, it’s equivalence. Or it would be, except that taxpayers are coughing up a hundred million dollars a year to fund Harkin’s band of charlatans, while any harm done by Broun is as yet potential. > > You care nothing about science, only about partisan politics, or else you would condemn Harkin as strongly as you do Broun. > > This phrase is probably right up there with Hi Opal and 1920s style death rays, but threads like this are why I don’t visit the site much anymore. I agree (having googled him as you suggested a few pages back) that Harkin is just as bad as Broun. The problem is that Congress is _full_ of Brouns, while Harkin seems to be more or less unique. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/189 "2012-10-12T17:48:47Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, no you don’t! Nosir! No way! You are the go-to **GIGO** for climate change stuff. You are the guy with cite tsunami at your fingertips, and the rest of us are quite content to let you shoulder the burden. Lazy? Well, of course, lazy is smart! “I will always choose a lazy person to do a difficult job, because he will find an easy way to do it”. 🙂 Attributed to Bill Gates, but several sources claim he never said it, search is not helpful on this, so anyone knows? > [@elucidator](#): > > (All snark aside, I am sure I speak for many of us when I say that we all hope that your health concerns are minor, transient, and inconsequential. _Ewwww!_ I hate being sincere! Somebody else’s turn next time…) Thank you for your concern. I’ll PM you with more information. ---
**Author:** ![Morgyn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/morgyn/32/3041_2.png) [@Morgyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgyn)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/190 "2012-10-13T00:22:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > “I will always choose a lazy person to do a difficult job, because he will find an easy way to do it”. 🙂 > > Attributed to Bill Gates, but several sources claim he never said it, search is not helpful on this, so anyone knows? Don’t know the source of this quote, but Frank Galbraith used to ask for the laziest man in a factory when he went to improve its efficiency, because, he said, the laziest man has already figured out the most efficient arrangement of tools at his workstation. And there is also, of course, Robert Heinlein’s story of the lazy man (see _Time Enough For Love_). ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/191 "2012-10-13T01:36:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My beef (ha!) with the vegetable initiative was simply that prior evidence had shown it was ineffective, and doing the same thing when the evidence shows it doesn’t work is ignoring the science. I don’t have firm opinions about the Philadelphia Experiment, but I’ll note the following: a) It’s well timed. We have health care challenges ahead of us and interest rates are low. So investments in high-risk/high-payoff research make sense. b) [The study is carefully monitored](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/will-philadelphias-experiment-in-eradicating-food-deserts-work/2012/06/08/gJQAU9snNV_blog.html): Temple University’s Center for Obesity Research is working with the city to study how shopping habits do, or don’t, change when healthy options are introduced. Last year, before stores added nutritious options, researchers stopped 7,000 shoppers on their way out of the store to look at their purchases. With the new foods now available, researchers are doing another 7,000 stops. “I don’t think we know much about how well this works,” says Gary Foster, director of the center. “It’s a field in its infancy  . . . nobody has really done at such a big scale.” Foster expects the research on urban corner stores to publish in about a year and, when it does, it will be “the largest study by a long shot.” Conservatives still make ridiculous claims, wholly lacking in empirical evidence, about the incentive effects of multi-billion dollar tax cuts for the rich, financed through borrowing. They show no interest in tweaking their ideas, making distinctions, upping their game: it’s all ideology to them.[1] Liberals favor experimentation, the gathering of data, careful analysis and the shaping of policy with an eye at the results. Now I’m pretty dubious about this study that costs just under a million dollars. I don’t think it will work and at best it will only uncover a small indication of what _does_ work. But as policy errors go, these sorts of pilot studies are literally orders of magnitude smaller than conservative policy errors such as unfunded tax cuts and the Iraq War. [1] Not 100% true of course. One of the architects of Kemp-Roth thinks there’s a big difference between dropping top rates from 70 to 40% and dropping them from 40 to 35 percent. But for voicing such opinions, Bruce Bartlett was summarily fired from his think tank last decade and made into a _persona non grata_. As a result, empirically oriented conservatives learn to self-censor. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/192 "2012-10-13T22:13:08Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I don’t have firm opinions about the Philadelphia Experiment, but I’ll note the following: > > a) It’s well timed. We have health care challenges ahead of us and interest rates are low. So investments in high-risk/high-payoff research make sense. > > b) [The study is carefully monitored](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/will-philadelphias-experiment-in-eradicating-food-deserts-work/2012/06/08/gJQAU9snNV_blog.html): [INDENT]Temple University’s Center for Obesity Research is working with the city to study how shopping habits do, or don’t, change when healthy options are introduced. Last year, before stores added nutritious options, researchers stopped 7,000 shoppers on their way out of the store to look at their purchases. With the new foods now available, researchers are doing another 7,000 stops. > > “I don’t think we know much about how well this works,” says Gary Foster, director of the center. “It’s a field in its infancy  . . . nobody has really done at such a big scale.” > . Why don’t the previous attempts to do the same thing elsewhere count towards “knowing much about how this thing works?” ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/193 "2012-10-14T01:38:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why don’t the previous attempts to do the same thing elsewhere count towards “knowing much about how this thing works?” Well, I can’t speak for Dr. Gary Foster, Professor of Medicine and Public Health at Temple University and Director of the Center for Obesity Research and Education. But in medical circles a single study or even three rarely settle anything: fighting ignorance with research is a process of accretion. The WAPO article was decent, but it didn’t drill down into the details as much as I would like. From his quote though, it appears that Dr. Foster didn’t think the previous studies had sufficient scale, possibly sufficient sample size. I honestly don’t know whether this thing is a white elephant or not. I do know that it is pretty small scale and that 100 dubious uses of $1 million are but the merest sliver of the sorts of fundamental policy errors Republicans routinely make. That said, I thought you put your finger on an Achilles Heal inside the liberal mentality in that other thread. You can see it a lot clearer in Britain and the Netherlands though – and there was some of it in the US during the 1970s, when Republicans complained about liberals wanting to throw money at every social problem that arises. My point is that today, such instincts are kept firmly in check, mostly by center-left policy wonks, backed by fear of media embarrassment. This won’t remain the case forever. It is the state of affairs now. Staunch conservatives should resign from the Republican Party and do one of 2 things. Either join the Libertarians and become irrelevant or join the Democrats and concern troll. Those who enjoy liberal hair rending should opt for the latter. The faster the Republicans suffer electoral collapse, the better the chances for empirically backed policy driven by sharp pencils and a skeptical eye. ---
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/194 "2012-10-14T16:42:57Z")
> **[Questions abound before Wisconsin's wolf hunt](https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/environment/questions-abound-before-wisconsin-s-wolf-hunt/article_0d239a64-149c-11e2-9d06-0019bb2963f4.html)** > > As the state prepares for its first wolf hunt, scientists say they don't know what affect the five-month hunt beginning Monday will have on Wisconsin wolves. Walker’s DNR in Wisconsin to allow a wolf hunt that, according to naturalists, will put the wolf back on the endangered species list again. Bowing to the hunting-gun lobby. ---
**Author:** ![Nazarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c57346/32.png) [@Nazarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nazarene)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/195 "2012-10-14T16:59:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why don’t the previous attempts to do the same thing elsewhere count towards “knowing much about how this thing works?” What previous attempts? Link to the studies, please? I’m sure you’re aware, of course, that science does not operate by doing one or two studies anyway. You are not finished with understanding something after one study. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/196 "2012-10-15T03:22:21Z")
> [@Jesus of Nazareth](#): > > What previous attempts? Link to the studies, please? They are in the WAPO article, the one I quoted above: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/will-philadelphias-experiment-in-eradicating-food-deserts-work/2012/06/08/gJQAU9snNV\_blog.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/will-philadelphias-experiment-in-eradicating-food-deserts-work/2012/06/08/gJQAU9snNV_blog.html) There were a total of three studies casting doubt on these sorts of interventions. The preponderance of the evidence in the article indicated “White elephant” IMHO, but the article wasn’t of the level as applied by the Economist say, never mind a real academic journal. Bricker makes an interesting point in my view, but if a dubious $1 million study addressing a very hard and expensive matter of the public interest is all you’ve got, you haven’t gotten much. Obesity has risen since about 1980 or so IIRC, so clearly there was something right that we did during the 1960s-1970s that we are doing wrong now. Those wanting to lower health care costs emphasize the importance of lifestyle choices. But shaping policy around that observation is a difficult research challenge. Just as the motor industry has produced numerous ridiculous concept cars, so it is _appropriate_ for some research programs to fail spectacularly. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/197 "2012-10-15T06:25:29Z")
> [@kambuckta](#): > > I grew up in a time when the US was considered THE world leader in all things. The US Way of Life (as far as my contemporaries and I were concerned: think 1960’s - 1980’s) was something to aspire to, economically, politically and intellectually. The United States of America brought the rest of us in the backward-world some hope for the future, and I for one was certain of its promise (and not just a little bit envious either). > > Not any more. What the hell happened?. Well, someone in the GOP realized conservatism goes hand in glove with the religious right, so, someone decided to leave the door wide open. And boy howdy did that gain them a huge percentage of the voting population. Science is quite literally demonized in a lot of Christian institutions. They feel it a threat to their closed dogma, so they spread lies and propaganda as facts, because they know the majority of the American public are hardly literate in science and technology, even as much, if not more so than their own ignorance—so they can get away with it quite easily, even if they know it’s bunk. It’s become an increasingly huge problem, especially now that everything from physics, biology and medicine has become so much more esoteric than it ever was. Most people just want to blindly believe in something, rather bother with wasting time questioning it or employing research or even common sense, then being “proud for having faith”. Ignoramuses. ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/198 "2012-10-15T21:03:35Z")
Great OP…so great in fact, a fruit fly with Down syndrome _could_ dance to this… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/199 "2012-10-19T21:38:59Z")
Let’s add another relatively prominent Republican to the anti-science mix: > [@](#): > > Wonderful news this morning, ladies!! According to Tea Party Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), abortion is no longer needed to save the life or health of the mother, thanks to advances in modern technology and science. Hurrah!! > > Reporters asked Walsh after the debate whether he was really meaning to say that it was never medically necessary to conduct an abortion to save the life of a mother. Walsh responded, “Absolutely.” > > > [@](#): > > > > “With modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance … There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing.” > > [Daily Dolt](http://www.thedailydolt.com/2012/10/19/joe-walsh-abortion/) I would love to know his cite that pregnancy never (“you can’t one instance” :eek: ) can threaten the life or health of the pregnant person… I mean, it would be nice and all. But once again, reality is quite different than what I would like and what many Republicans seem to demand. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856/200 "2012-10-19T22:21:45Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Let’s add another relatively prominent Republican to the anti-science mix:I would love to know his cite that pregnancy never (“you can’t one instance” :eek: ) can threaten the life or health of the pregnant person… I mean, it would be nice and all. But once again, reality is quite different than what I would like and what many Republicans seem to demand. I’m guessing his take is an abortion is not necessary if there is a 1% chance a mother will live without it, because even then it’s elective. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-a-war-on-science-and-how-you-are-letting-them-win/636856.md?page=11)