~~Economics~~ Finance is a social science. I suspect the crackpots that developed derivatives and other financial "short-term gain, long-term biggest economic crisis since 1920s" products vote for the party that is the **most** opposed to oversight in financial markets.
EDIT: I've been rightfully corrected that I'm talking about Finance, not Economics.
What % of economists come from the Chicago School of Economics is overweighted in our society for an institution that was literally founded by idealists funded by robber barons as a counter to the labor movements of the early 20th century.
They can p-hack their way to try to validate economic policies that in practice have never once benefited anyone but the rich, and they've been doing it for nearly a century.
> never once benefited anyone but the rich
Sounds like their research and methods work. They're just used to screw over 99% of the population.
TLDR: Chicago School of Economics is more successful than anyone imaged possible.
The irony is that their method that doesn't even work sounds bad on it's face. Trickle down economics means you get the chaff while the rich consume nearly everything and that is their positive PR spin version.
When its said by a charismatic actor/president people believe it anyway. People _still_ believe it, despite being demonstrably false, and it was sold to us by Reagan more than 40 years ago.
Are you educated at all in economics? It does not seem like you do if you think supply side economics was developed at U Chicago or that it is even considered scientific.
It might not have been invented there but the school was literally created as a way to pull favorable stats out of the air for the ultra rich to influence politics, and it has been very successful at doing so.
Pizza Hut didn't invent pizza but it's hard to argue that they didn't popularize it in the majority of the United States. And like the Chicago School of Economics they pumped out a trash product for corporate gains.
So you have absolutely no idea what economics is at all then.
Supply side aka trickle down aka Horse and Sparrow economics was first proposed years before the founding of The Chicago School. It would be difficult for the school to create something that pre-exists them.
Finally, there is no theory or science that supports this. Trickle down is entirely backed by politicians.
You have less reading comprehension than I have knowledge of economics.
>Finally, there is no theory or science that supports this. Trickle down is entirely backed by politicians.
This is the purpose of propping up morons like Laffers who will claim that the biggest problem with Kansas' massive budget cuts and gutting of the state budget was they didn't go far enough. His theoretical curve is the claim for a bunch of bullshit policy making in red states.
They just copied the schtick the Catholic Church has been using for millennia. Make up a bunch of bullshit about how everyone needs to give your money to this unfathomably wealthy organization or individual and at some undefined time in the future you will be rewarded for it greatly!
All of the monopolies in America are thanks to some dipshit Chicago school economist who said monopolies are good because they increase value for the monopolizer.
On the contrary, it's probably the fields that lean heavily into the belief of meritocracy. I would also guess that that 6% number is made up having spent a lot of time around physics and engineering departments.
"We can recreate the first language using statistics!" - the completely nails a certain type of academic that's gone so deep in their field that common sense has been lost.
In grad school a physics professor kinda out of nowhere declared how he was a conservative. We were like, 'OK, and?'. And his work was pretty much normal physics.
So it's not just wacky fields.
On the contrary I'm a chemist and have worked with several fellow PhD holding republican chemists. It blows my mind, especially hearing some of them spout off about covid/covid vaccines when we literally work in the pharma field.
Actually worked with a Young Earth Creationist geologist at one of my previous jobs and he was mega conservative.
Edit: Since it's been asked a few times: He got his Master's back in the late 80's and early 70's from a religious college in the Bible Belt. He was also a preacher.
It’s so strange, talking to people that are so divorced from reality because of their lifelong religious indoctrination starting at birth.
It’s a fucked up thing to do to a kid, you have seen the results of that.
This is it. Religious nut jobs can’t turn it off, even if they are scientists and have all the knowledge and ability to prove themselves wrong, their indoctrinated blind faith prevents them.
The super crazy part was I worked under him in road and bridge safety inspection ( both as a reviewer and as a construction inspector); he was responsible for making sure your bridge didn't collapse when you were on it in, our state has a D- on it infrastructure score and I have a clue as to one of (many of) the reasons why.
Are there YEC who are super progressive? One of my fellow MolBio students was a creationist back in the 80s. He refused to answer questions about evolution on exams. Lost track of him so don't know if his plans for med school worked out. In grad school, a guy in my lab got his PhD, post-doc etc and got to Assistant Research Professor track. Then dropped it all to work for Salvation Army. I don't know if they regret wasting their resources and time but I do resent the research training and funding wasted on these abrupt career changes.
He got his degree back in the early 80's from a religious college here in the Bible Belt so probably. During one of my early conversations with him he referenced the great flood and I was thinking Katrina or something but nope he was talking Noah.
He got his degree back in the early 80's from a religious college here in the Bible Belt so probably. During one of my early conversations with him he referenced the great flood and I was thinking Katrina or something but nope he was talking Noah.
I highly doubt he was a real geologist if he thinks the earth isn't even 10,000 years old yet. Was he exclusively studying active volcanos? Even then it still wouldn't be compatible.
If an engineer is doing scientific work, I’d say that qualifies them as a scientist. I’m an engineer who doesn’t do science and I don’t consider myself a scientist.
This is the best reply to that dude.
I’m an Engineer who works on software models - not science.
I have a friend who works with student researchers to develop tools that gather data about the ocean - science.
Scientist:
: a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator
What of this precludes engineers from being scientists? They know natural sciences, and some do R&D using the scientific method. Heck, some are even published sometimes!
Different person here. I've never heard anyone use that first definition. In my world, a scientist is someone whose primary occupation is using the scientific method to learn about the natural word. Engineers *use* science to create things. It's related but different.
As a former robotics engineer and now programmer, I can say engineers tend pretty heavily to use the scientific method in problem solving when designing and testing new things.
That’s a narrow view of science. Applied physics, for instance is studying how to use physical phenomena for an application, rather than learning about the natural world. Computer science is more about logic than nature as well.
Lots of engineering r&d fits under applied physics
I'd say engineers aren't *necessarily* scientists, but their skillset overlaps with research science. It's a different way of looking at those problems but you can still direct them at "doing science."
I'm a research chemist and my boss is an electrical engineer. He's definitely a scientist.
That's literally the Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientist
If you do research using the scientific method, you're a scientist, sure. In my opinion, engineers do that, at least within the engineering discipline I'm familiar with.
They're always identifying a problem, coming up with a hypothesis, gathering data of how things are working, creating prototype processes, systems, and devices, then analyzing the results. If the prototype is better than what we had, it gets optimized and proliferated.
There's a grey overlap but yes, having worked with both kinds of people. Using the scientific method doesn't make you a scientist, it's simply a logic tool.
It kind of still is? Perhaps just not useful science because I think we've just collectively realize that genetic diversity is a good thing and that there is no ethical way to bred people like dogs.
Yeah. You can approach any goal scientifically. Spent make that goal ethical or worthwhile.
“I wonder what the most efficient way to spread mustard on homeless people is?”
Doesn't necessarily have to deny climate change/vaccines to be a republican.
Their political view could come from hating the other side or they strongly believe only a few things about republicans.
There are some other comments on this post about economics usefulness in creating policy. I'd argue its _extremely_ effective depending on goals. The disconnect is what the policy aims to do, and what the people proposing the policy designed it to do.
ie: Heritage Foundation lays out a policy and claims that its best for everyone, when it was designed to make the .1% wealthier. The policy works as designed.
That’s the weirdest thing about how economics is viewed to me. A lot assume economics is opposed to things like strong middle class or wealth redistribution when economists have been saying those things are good since forever. Its just that politicians listen to lobbyst, not economists
The Republicans also brand themselves as being good for the economy, [when the opposite is true.](https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2015/10/AER_revision.pdf)
A lot of conservative think tanks and legislation are influenced by intelligent, well educated, and generally correct economists. They just have vastly different goals than what is claimed. They're smart to keep their names and actual research quiet, and let their benefactors lie about the intended goals of their policy.
TLDR: good GOP economists aren't well known because the intent is to screw over the vast majority of humanity, so they don't advertise.
Political scientists: "We have robustly observed that low voter turnout causes an increased likelihood of Republican victories."
Republicans: "Political scientists aren't real scientists."
How does this belief that the world around us is unknowable and inscrutable persist? Or is it just another form of othering to claim only some sciences are worthy of being considered "true science".
Being a Republican doesn't automatically make someone anti-science. I know many Republicans who believe in science. It's one faction of the party, roughly a third of its members, that is anti-science. While I don't agree with their politics, it’s the radicalized portion of their party that needs to be purged immediately or stripped of citizenship. For the record, I'm not a member of any party because I generally don't like people. I prefer solitude. If I were to join a party, it would be the Democratic Party, given the current political landscape.
My friend's wife got an anthropology degree, had to memorize ape types and ancient hominids for tests and stuff.
Didn't believe in evolution.... But felt like getting a degree in it.
Really cheapened the degree value to me if you can get by without accepting anything you're learning.
Republican and rural values work well with engineering especially mechanical engineering specifically. Power to authority, hierarchy, valuing working with hands and hard work (think farmer fixing tractor). You leave your rural town to go to college and take 0 humanities because it's a tech school. You never experience other cultures or conflicting opinions because your peers are the same & college doesn't force you to learn otherwise.
They make a lot of money … it’s usually how people convert … they adopt all sorts of craziness to justify why they need to be republican… so that their taxes take less of a hit
I don't think scientists make that much money. Maybe a few with relations to companies (someone must create their fake studies).
But it probably depends on what you define as a lot. More than a average factory worker? Definitely. More than people in management positions or in companies? Probably not.
Definitely not enough for their education level and worth to humanity.
Same reason there are gay Republicans. And minority Republicans. And poor Republicans. And women Republicans. Hell Bruce Jenner is a Republican.
Some people hate other people more than they like themselves, and they're willing to fall on their sword if it means hurting the right people.
Not to be all woke or anything, but I think it would be more polite to refer to her as Caitlyn Jenner. We can despise someone without questioning their personal identity, I think.
Still a ghastly person, though.
EDIT: Words.
I am of the mind that if someone is horrible enough, they don’t deserve the same respect one would normally give unconditionally.
They rely on that to legitimize their hypocrisy.
There are always exceptions to the rule, and i feel like jenner meets the standard of “horrible fucking person” to the point of being an exception.
They lost their right to common courtesy when they have no common courtesy for others.
This would make sense in a vacuum, but she's not the only trans person in existence. When you use her gender and deadname as an attack vector, you're also inadvertently hurting the entire trans community by reinforcing the misconception that someone's gender identity is something that can be taken away by some random dick head.
I'm not calling you a dick head, but your way of thinking fuels some of the major issues the trans community has been fighting against. I think everyone deserves to have the comfort of determining their own self identity and not have it questioned by random people who have no business doing so.
just call they call themselves a scientist doesn't mean they are.
All those paid stoodges they trot out on fox news making up lies about climate change? Not scientists
The whole point of Conservatism is to deny evidence based reality in favour of authority based reality. Science is all about evidence based reality, so it is the natural enemy of the Conservative.
He was a communist that wanted everyone in Cambodia to be farmers. He didn't want anyone educated because that would make them unequal to the rest of the people.
He was probably the furthest left a world leader has ever been.
Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold.
You are not being removed for political orientation. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you.
Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/PoliticalHumor mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does.""
If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does.
Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3
You can check your karma breakdown on this page:
http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview
(Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message)
~
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold.
You are not being removed for political orientation. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you.
Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/PoliticalHumor mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does.""
If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does.
Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3
You can check your karma breakdown on this page:
http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview
(Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message)
~
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sometimes all it takes is for the party to pretend to care about that one thing for people to vote for them. In another thread a while back, a lot of people keyed in why they voted for this party and a lot of them said it’s because this party cared about ___ and the other didn’t and that’s why they are voting for the former even though the former got every other thing wrong.
These 6% are the "scientists" that work for ExxonMobil, Christian Science institutes, tobacco companies, etc....Just people who have a degree, and are willing to lie for cash.
My Dad is a Republican and he has a degree in Micro Biology plus retired from the EPA after about 20 years there doing toxicology research (worked for NIOSH before that). Most of that was testing potential cancer causing toxins in drinking water.
I've met a lot of engineers who are republican and that used to confuse me before I thought about it. Scientists are about discovery when engineers are about take those discoveries and make a lot of money off of them. Sure, some engineers devote their life to helping others but most are engineers to make money.
because a lot of them are tenured rich assholes who run big money shit. you think all scientists are poor noble hippies? plenty are rich fucking assholes.
Conservatives often think that science and universities have an agenda to turn people to the left, while what is actually happening is that people are just being taught to think rationally and are getting exposed to different cultures.
I lived in an Ivy League university town, and the guy across the street was a professor who specialized in the impact of heat on plant cells.
He definitely believes climate change is real. Linked to fossil fuel use.
He also doesn’t care much and votes GOP. He just thinks humans will find a way to fumble through, and he’s not overly concerned with the folks who will suffer along the way.
That doesn't answer the question.
On a topic about science you made the most unscientific statement a person could give: it is like it is, don't question it.
There are some wacky fields that still consider themselves science. I’m guessing they make up about 6%.
~~Economics~~ Finance is a social science. I suspect the crackpots that developed derivatives and other financial "short-term gain, long-term biggest economic crisis since 1920s" products vote for the party that is the **most** opposed to oversight in financial markets. EDIT: I've been rightfully corrected that I'm talking about Finance, not Economics.
What % of economists come from the Chicago School of Economics is overweighted in our society for an institution that was literally founded by idealists funded by robber barons as a counter to the labor movements of the early 20th century. They can p-hack their way to try to validate economic policies that in practice have never once benefited anyone but the rich, and they've been doing it for nearly a century.
Hoover Institute at Stanford, same problem. They're the bullshit engine powering the Heritage Foundation.
> never once benefited anyone but the rich Sounds like their research and methods work. They're just used to screw over 99% of the population. TLDR: Chicago School of Economics is more successful than anyone imaged possible.
The irony is that their method that doesn't even work sounds bad on it's face. Trickle down economics means you get the chaff while the rich consume nearly everything and that is their positive PR spin version.
When its said by a charismatic actor/president people believe it anyway. People _still_ believe it, despite being demonstrably false, and it was sold to us by Reagan more than 40 years ago.
Are you educated at all in economics? It does not seem like you do if you think supply side economics was developed at U Chicago or that it is even considered scientific.
It might not have been invented there but the school was literally created as a way to pull favorable stats out of the air for the ultra rich to influence politics, and it has been very successful at doing so. Pizza Hut didn't invent pizza but it's hard to argue that they didn't popularize it in the majority of the United States. And like the Chicago School of Economics they pumped out a trash product for corporate gains.
So you have absolutely no idea what economics is at all then. Supply side aka trickle down aka Horse and Sparrow economics was first proposed years before the founding of The Chicago School. It would be difficult for the school to create something that pre-exists them. Finally, there is no theory or science that supports this. Trickle down is entirely backed by politicians.
You have less reading comprehension than I have knowledge of economics. >Finally, there is no theory or science that supports this. Trickle down is entirely backed by politicians. This is the purpose of propping up morons like Laffers who will claim that the biggest problem with Kansas' massive budget cuts and gutting of the state budget was they didn't go far enough. His theoretical curve is the claim for a bunch of bullshit policy making in red states.
They just copied the schtick the Catholic Church has been using for millennia. Make up a bunch of bullshit about how everyone needs to give your money to this unfathomably wealthy organization or individual and at some undefined time in the future you will be rewarded for it greatly!
All of the monopolies in America are thanks to some dipshit Chicago school economist who said monopolies are good because they increase value for the monopolizer.
[удалено]
Guess American Economists are different from Dutch Economists, because especially our economics students are leaning more right of center.
Don't mistake finance for economics. Karl Marx is one of the most famous economists.
Are flat earthers typically Republicans? I'm pretty sure they are some "scientists" as well
I'd guess 50/50 with libertarians
I would have gone with 33/33/33, with sovereign citizens thrown in the mix. Of course there will also be some overlap between the three.
TrUsT mE! They do their own research!
On the contrary, it's probably the fields that lean heavily into the belief of meritocracy. I would also guess that that 6% number is made up having spent a lot of time around physics and engineering departments.
Older physicists have a weird tendency to fall into conspiracy theories. There's even a cartoon about it! https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2556
That's good Weiner. I was mostly thinking of the students, but yeah, professors too.
"We can recreate the first language using statistics!" - the completely nails a certain type of academic that's gone so deep in their field that common sense has been lost.
Why did I replace that poor old man with Terrance Howard in my head once the rambling shifts happened.
> belief of meritocracy 'belief' being the key word
Indeed.
Especially in the south.
All the psychologists that like to sell books about gender role being based on the caveman days while having zero evidence to back anything up.
There are psi and paranormal “research centers” that call themselves science. I am assuming it’s the kooky stuff like that.
Like the guys from Ghostbusters!
In grad school a physics professor kinda out of nowhere declared how he was a conservative. We were like, 'OK, and?'. And his work was pretty much normal physics. So it's not just wacky fields.
Exactly. Some people can't or won't apply science everywhere.
My Phrenologist identifies as a republican.
Poli-sci. Is political science. Theres your 6% between that and "Christian science " whatever tf that is.
Also, reminds me of the joke: “What do you call someone who graduates last in their medical school class? Doctor.” Same for all science degrees.
On the contrary I'm a chemist and have worked with several fellow PhD holding republican chemists. It blows my mind, especially hearing some of them spout off about covid/covid vaccines when we literally work in the pharma field.
Gerrymandering is a science of sorts.
Theology is a science, so is is ghost psychology
Simpler than that, scientist are still people and can be horribly ignorant outside of their field, also some are probably wealthy enough to not care
Career Expert Witnesses
Economics
No, this figure is from a poll of the natural sciences: biology, chemistry, physics, and geology. It's so high because it was from 2008.
Christian degree mills probably make up most of it.
Creationists??
petroleum engineers, and oil company geologists are still scientists.
Actually worked with a Young Earth Creationist geologist at one of my previous jobs and he was mega conservative. Edit: Since it's been asked a few times: He got his Master's back in the late 80's and early 70's from a religious college in the Bible Belt. He was also a preacher.
It’s so strange, talking to people that are so divorced from reality because of their lifelong religious indoctrination starting at birth. It’s a fucked up thing to do to a kid, you have seen the results of that.
This is it. Religious nut jobs can’t turn it off, even if they are scientists and have all the knowledge and ability to prove themselves wrong, their indoctrinated blind faith prevents them.
The super crazy part was I worked under him in road and bridge safety inspection ( both as a reviewer and as a construction inspector); he was responsible for making sure your bridge didn't collapse when you were on it in, our state has a D- on it infrastructure score and I have a clue as to one of (many of) the reasons why.
Are there YEC who are super progressive? One of my fellow MolBio students was a creationist back in the 80s. He refused to answer questions about evolution on exams. Lost track of him so don't know if his plans for med school worked out. In grad school, a guy in my lab got his PhD, post-doc etc and got to Assistant Research Professor track. Then dropped it all to work for Salvation Army. I don't know if they regret wasting their resources and time but I do resent the research training and funding wasted on these abrupt career changes.
Not from my experience but you never know.
How does a young earth geologist even function? I guess it's similar to flat-earther pilots?
My BIL is a Young Earth Creationist and has a geology degree. It boggles my mind to think about, so I try not to.
How did that person graduate? I’ld imagine at some point their beliefs would be contradicted by geology textbooks.
He got his degree back in the early 80's from a religious college here in the Bible Belt so probably. During one of my early conversations with him he referenced the great flood and I was thinking Katrina or something but nope he was talking Noah.
I worked at the fucking Jet Propulsion Laboratory and there were many, many fundamentalists and Trump Republicans both. People are complicated.
SINO?
What's SINO?
Probably Scientist In Name Only
He got his degree back in the early 80's from a religious college here in the Bible Belt so probably. During one of my early conversations with him he referenced the great flood and I was thinking Katrina or something but nope he was talking Noah.
I highly doubt he was a real geologist if he thinks the earth isn't even 10,000 years old yet. Was he exclusively studying active volcanos? Even then it still wouldn't be compatible.
He got his Master's back in the late 80's and early 70's from a religious college in the Bible Belt. He was also a preacher.
That's hilarious that there are pseudo-geologists out there. I figured the field would push that bullshit out.
There's low quality degree mills for every field out there
Engineers are not scientists.
If an engineer is doing scientific work, I’d say that qualifies them as a scientist. I’m an engineer who doesn’t do science and I don’t consider myself a scientist.
This is the best reply to that dude. I’m an Engineer who works on software models - not science. I have a friend who works with student researchers to develop tools that gather data about the ocean - science.
Scientist: : a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator What of this precludes engineers from being scientists? They know natural sciences, and some do R&D using the scientific method. Heck, some are even published sometimes!
Different person here. I've never heard anyone use that first definition. In my world, a scientist is someone whose primary occupation is using the scientific method to learn about the natural word. Engineers *use* science to create things. It's related but different.
As a former robotics engineer and now programmer, I can say engineers tend pretty heavily to use the scientific method in problem solving when designing and testing new things.
I didn't say they didn't.
That’s a narrow view of science. Applied physics, for instance is studying how to use physical phenomena for an application, rather than learning about the natural world. Computer science is more about logic than nature as well. Lots of engineering r&d fits under applied physics
I'd say engineers aren't *necessarily* scientists, but their skillset overlaps with research science. It's a different way of looking at those problems but you can still direct them at "doing science." I'm a research chemist and my boss is an electrical engineer. He's definitely a scientist.
That's literally the Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientist If you do research using the scientific method, you're a scientist, sure. In my opinion, engineers do that, at least within the engineering discipline I'm familiar with. They're always identifying a problem, coming up with a hypothesis, gathering data of how things are working, creating prototype processes, systems, and devices, then analyzing the results. If the prototype is better than what we had, it gets optimized and proliferated.
James Watt, George Stephenson, Nicola Tesla, Alan Turing, Hedy Lamarr, Archimedes and Da Vinci have all entered the chat...
There's a grey overlap but yes, having worked with both kinds of people. Using the scientific method doesn't make you a scientist, it's simply a logic tool.
Well someone gotta develop new nerve gases, cluster bombs and mines.
Eugenics was once considered science
It kind of still is? Perhaps just not useful science because I think we've just collectively realize that genetic diversity is a good thing and that there is no ethical way to bred people like dogs.
Yeah. You can approach any goal scientifically. Spent make that goal ethical or worthwhile. “I wonder what the most efficient way to spread mustard on homeless people is?”
And technically, if you were to remove dangerous, sickness-inducing genes from the gene pool, it would be eugenics
It’s probably not all that ethical what we do to the dogs either
[What about incentive based eugenics?](https://youtu.be/ILXlKshp-kI?si=5MrxmctJcV97h_ne)
When 9 out of 10 scientists believe something intelligent, someone has to be the 1.
Hey sometimes that 1 person ends up being right! But when that happens it’s huge news.
That kind of thing happened a lot more when scientists were mostly rich kids with nothing to do all day
https://preview.redd.it/9zlx27cdia2d1.jpeg?width=852&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f3a087548c4cd5ae0e40a2f301e4933595b2bf83 Scientists in question
Is guess a mix of denial and compartmentalization.
So religion then.
Who would develop new torture techniques or novel forever chemicals? Thank those 6%.
Everyone clicks the wrong button sometimes.
Most underrated comment. Lol
Scientific racists
If they don't believe in modern science and medicine, then it should be denied to them.
I mean I'd still prefer them to be able to take vaccines since that does benefit everyone
Doesn't necessarily have to deny climate change/vaccines to be a republican. Their political view could come from hating the other side or they strongly believe only a few things about republicans.
Reminder that political science isn’t a real science. Neither is economics.
Economics is a perfectly valid science for explaining how a thing works perfectly in a vacuum and assumes no variables.
aren't there actually like a shitload of variables in economics?
Yes. But it's a joke in that economists pretend their models are perfect if only it weren't for the unquantifiable.
This is like saying I'd be handsome if I weren't so hideous
I think thats why it’s a joke.
That’s like saying I’d laugh at a joke if I weren’t too dumb to get it.
Only in Micro Economics. That’s why I specialized in macro.
"Assume the economy is a perfect sphere that encounters no air resistance."
Economics is useful for explaining what happened last year.
There are some other comments on this post about economics usefulness in creating policy. I'd argue its _extremely_ effective depending on goals. The disconnect is what the policy aims to do, and what the people proposing the policy designed it to do. ie: Heritage Foundation lays out a policy and claims that its best for everyone, when it was designed to make the .1% wealthier. The policy works as designed.
Meanwhile physicists always start solving a problem by assuming a spherical horse.
A spherical horse? That's ridiculous! It's a spherical cow.
I mean... most leading economists are not Republicans.
That’s the weirdest thing about how economics is viewed to me. A lot assume economics is opposed to things like strong middle class or wealth redistribution when economists have been saying those things are good since forever. Its just that politicians listen to lobbyst, not economists
The Republicans also brand themselves as being good for the economy, [when the opposite is true.](https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2015/10/AER_revision.pdf)
A lot of conservative think tanks and legislation are influenced by intelligent, well educated, and generally correct economists. They just have vastly different goals than what is claimed. They're smart to keep their names and actual research quiet, and let their benefactors lie about the intended goals of their policy. TLDR: good GOP economists aren't well known because the intent is to screw over the vast majority of humanity, so they don't advertise.
Political scientists: "We have robustly observed that low voter turnout causes an increased likelihood of Republican victories." Republicans: "Political scientists aren't real scientists."
Just out of curiosity. Why/how is political science not a real science?
How does this belief that the world around us is unknowable and inscrutable persist? Or is it just another form of othering to claim only some sciences are worthy of being considered "true science".
Yes, let's all casually dismiss huge areas of research, just like conservatives do with climate science, immunology, epidemiology, etc. Irony is dead.
I would love to see some real numbers on that figure.
Being a Republican doesn't automatically make someone anti-science. I know many Republicans who believe in science. It's one faction of the party, roughly a third of its members, that is anti-science. While I don't agree with their politics, it’s the radicalized portion of their party that needs to be purged immediately or stripped of citizenship. For the record, I'm not a member of any party because I generally don't like people. I prefer solitude. If I were to join a party, it would be the Democratic Party, given the current political landscape.
Mengele was a doctor.
My friend's wife got an anthropology degree, had to memorize ape types and ancient hominids for tests and stuff. Didn't believe in evolution.... But felt like getting a degree in it. Really cheapened the degree value to me if you can get by without accepting anything you're learning.
I am a scientist and I endorse this message.
Scientific Explanation: outliers exist
It's engineering sadly. At my southern State school the professor of BIOLOGY asked the engineering students who believed in evolution. 1/2 said no.
Republican and rural values work well with engineering especially mechanical engineering specifically. Power to authority, hierarchy, valuing working with hands and hard work (think farmer fixing tractor). You leave your rural town to go to college and take 0 humanities because it's a tech school. You never experience other cultures or conflicting opinions because your peers are the same & college doesn't force you to learn otherwise.
They make a lot of money … it’s usually how people convert … they adopt all sorts of craziness to justify why they need to be republican… so that their taxes take less of a hit
I don't think scientists make that much money. Maybe a few with relations to companies (someone must create their fake studies). But it probably depends on what you define as a lot. More than a average factory worker? Definitely. More than people in management positions or in companies? Probably not. Definitely not enough for their education level and worth to humanity.
One girl i know that’s an antivaxxer is also a science teacher in Arizona
Those poor students!
59% of stattistics are made up. Scientists can't prove that statistic either.
100% of spelling is made up. (not an attack, just a joke)
Same reason there are gay Republicans. And minority Republicans. And poor Republicans. And women Republicans. Hell Bruce Jenner is a Republican. Some people hate other people more than they like themselves, and they're willing to fall on their sword if it means hurting the right people.
Not to be all woke or anything, but I think it would be more polite to refer to her as Caitlyn Jenner. We can despise someone without questioning their personal identity, I think. Still a ghastly person, though. EDIT: Words.
I am of the mind that if someone is horrible enough, they don’t deserve the same respect one would normally give unconditionally. They rely on that to legitimize their hypocrisy. There are always exceptions to the rule, and i feel like jenner meets the standard of “horrible fucking person” to the point of being an exception. They lost their right to common courtesy when they have no common courtesy for others.
This would make sense in a vacuum, but she's not the only trans person in existence. When you use her gender and deadname as an attack vector, you're also inadvertently hurting the entire trans community by reinforcing the misconception that someone's gender identity is something that can be taken away by some random dick head. I'm not calling you a dick head, but your way of thinking fuels some of the major issues the trans community has been fighting against. I think everyone deserves to have the comfort of determining their own self identity and not have it questioned by random people who have no business doing so.
I don't think most Republicans can tell you why they are Republican.
”Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Sauce?
just call they call themselves a scientist doesn't mean they are. All those paid stoodges they trot out on fox news making up lies about climate change? Not scientists
"They blinded me...with science!" - every MAGA in existence
Those are the ones that torture rabbits while testing cosmetics. That kind of thing.
Pilots that are flat earthers exist so not surprising.
Do your own research!
money? is probably the reason
6% of scientists are paid off by "R's" and like another 6% bought out by drug companies to push fake research.
Every profession has its worst 6%.
The whole point of Conservatism is to deny evidence based reality in favour of authority based reality. Science is all about evidence based reality, so it is the natural enemy of the Conservative.
Reality has a liberal bias
Pol Pot was aware of this…
What does this comment mean? I know who the Cambodian lunatic was but don't understand your reference
Pol Pot was extreme left.
Thats why he killed all the educated people. I wonder if he ever said "I love the uneducated" on the campaign trail?
He was a communist that wanted everyone in Cambodia to be farmers. He didn't want anyone educated because that would make them unequal to the rest of the people. He was probably the furthest left a world leader has ever been.
[удалено]
Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold. You are not being removed for political orientation. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you. Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/PoliticalHumor mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does."" If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does. Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3 You can check your karma breakdown on this page: http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview (Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message) ~ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold. You are not being removed for political orientation. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you. Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/PoliticalHumor mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does."" If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does. Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3 You can check your karma breakdown on this page: http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview (Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message) ~ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sometimes all it takes is for the party to pretend to care about that one thing for people to vote for them. In another thread a while back, a lot of people keyed in why they voted for this party and a lot of them said it’s because this party cared about ___ and the other didn’t and that’s why they are voting for the former even though the former got every other thing wrong.
Chaos theory
What about doctors
You have to maintain a control group. Thank you to the 6% for your heroic sacrifice.
Ha ha! I laughed out loud! No surprise whatsoever.
These 6% are the "scientists" that work for ExxonMobil, Christian Science institutes, tobacco companies, etc....Just people who have a degree, and are willing to lie for cash.
I suggest a study on the amount of lead in their drinking fountains.
My Dad is a Republican and he has a degree in Micro Biology plus retired from the EPA after about 20 years there doing toxicology research (worked for NIOSH before that). Most of that was testing potential cancer causing toxins in drinking water.
106% of statistics are made up
Monsanto and Lockheed scientists
Social scientist here with an explanation! Money. Also sometimes market, business, and liberal econ get lumped into science.
Business majors: we know
Science and gopee SHOULD NEVER be used in same sentence,, omGGG.
I can’t wait until the great shift where democrats become republicans and republicans become democrats just to spite the other.
Money is a powerful motivator, pay me enough, and I’ll say whatever is written on the page
I've met a lot of engineers who are republican and that used to confuse me before I thought about it. Scientists are about discovery when engineers are about take those discoveries and make a lot of money off of them. Sure, some engineers devote their life to helping others but most are engineers to make money.
Ooh I know! They’re employed by oil companies.
because a lot of them are tenured rich assholes who run big money shit. you think all scientists are poor noble hippies? plenty are rich fucking assholes.
Taxes, probably
Margin of polling error.
Scientists come in, scientists go out. You can't explain that!
Or why republicans deny their proclivity towards homosexual tendencies.
Conservatives often think that science and universities have an agenda to turn people to the left, while what is actually happening is that people are just being taught to think rationally and are getting exposed to different cultures.
Hahaha republican_bad.exe
I lived in an Ivy League university town, and the guy across the street was a professor who specialized in the impact of heat on plant cells. He definitely believes climate change is real. Linked to fossil fuel use. He also doesn’t care much and votes GOP. He just thinks humans will find a way to fumble through, and he’s not overly concerned with the folks who will suffer along the way.
Many scientists are also monotheistic also water is wet.
That doesn't answer the question. On a topic about science you made the most unscientific statement a person could give: it is like it is, don't question it.
Stocks