Republicans: A War On Science and how you are letting them win

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.

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?

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:

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.

After that, I realized there was no need to continue to see that FUDementary.

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.

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…)

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:

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)

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.

“I will always choose a lazy person to do a difficult job, because he will find an easy way to do it”. :slight_smile:

Attributed to Bill Gates, but several sources claim he never said it, search is not helpful on this, so anyone knows?

Thank you for your concern. I’ll PM you with more information.

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).

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: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Great OP…so great in fact, a fruit fly with Down syndrome could dance to this…

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.