Is the Democratic party the 'science' party?

SrA Art Siatkowsky — Mon, 16 Nov 2015 03:23:27 -0500

This stems from another post about defending partisan universities. The claim has been made by several in this forum,and by many democrats in then public eye, that the Democratic party is the rational party because they accept scientific explanations and believe what they believe accordingly while the Republicans tend to be the stubborn asss in this area and refusing to change their religious beliefs and also refusing to accept climate change.
I offer two points to the contrary.( probably more )
1). Natural law. Natural law is the name for how the universe works, the laws it obeys according to science. A person with a good understanding of evolutionary theory understands that's natural law is amoral showing no favoritism twords any form of life or even to life itself. Its been called survival of the fittest but more accurately it is survival of those who survive...fit or otherwise. This built in law is more simply common sense but a truth that stems from this is that those who capitalize on benefits, whether genetic, environmental, or simply being in the right place at the right time, those who have advantage of any sort and capitalize on this advantage tend to survive better than some others lacking that particular advantage or some who fail to capitalize on an advantage at hand. This is how capitalism mimics natural law. Those who are born with a genetic advantage, or financial advantage or simply in the right place at the right time...and who capitalize on that advantage often survive better than someone without. The right place at the right time could be demonstrated by say using a groundhog. If a particular ground hog wanders upon a well protected plentiful area with abundant food that ground hog could live well and if there are mating opportunities that family of groundhog could reproduce and flourish.....this example has many more factors but you get the point. Capitalism mimics natural law. Those who capitalize on an advantage have a better chance of flourishing. This is why I said in another forum post that the conservative party can be home to atheist who are athiest because of their belief that natural law is the only law of the universe. The core philosophy behind the conservative capitalist party is directly in line with natural law...it mimics natural law.
The joining of this philosophy with our constitution which derives human rights from a God, no matter if they don't believe in a God, it mandates that human rights are nonnegotiable. Combine these two philosophies and you have a free people who are free to capitalize on whatever opportunity they can without infringement upon another inalienable human rights.....this is the core belief behind the conservative party whether the followers are theist or athiest and it mimics natural law...the scientific law of the universe. The opposite is true of the Democratic philosophy. That's a massive new thread which we might discuss as we debate this topic bit the second point I wanted to make in defense of the conservative party in regard to its apparent opposition to scientific claims is that a thorough understanding of the claims that scientist make that conservatives question shows that the claims are not scientific facts bit simply an interpretation of data !Ade by scientist. One thing apparent is that many accept an idea if it is presented as acientific , at least liberal democrats have an easier time with this than conservatives and partially because them claims being made are usually at the expense of a conservative ideal or value. Evolution has been used by many liberal reporters to attack religious conservatives but a closer examination of evolutionary theory shows that it may present a problem to a 6 day creation belief but it really does nothing to infringe upon the idea that a God did created the universe. evolutionary theory does however do a lot of damage to the humanist ideals held by these very same liberal reports who weild it unknowingly. The greater point is that to accept something as scientific without fully understanding what it is, you are simply placing your faith in these scientist and blindly accepting that a) they really do know what they are talking about and b) they have no motives other than to inform you of a scientific truth. I should add c) that the conclusions these scientist reach about the philosophical consequences of this scientific observation are as valid as their science and this is where most of the scientific community gets it wrong. I will make the claim that a collective of scientist could give you very good science but get the conclusions completely off or give a completely biased report.
Now for generalizations.
A person confronted with some idea that is being called scientific fact but goes against everything that they believe in is not going to chance their mind simply because a group of scientific experts say it is true. A person in this situation would either deny it with the claim that it's not true but then simply deny it and do no foot work to find out for themselves or...... do the footwork. This is the challenge for conservative deniers if they feel strongly about an issue and it should also be the footwork for anyone accepting what these scientist are saying. I do not think conservatives are anti science they just don't like the science that is being used....incorrectly...to assault their beliefs.
The two scientific arguments used that conservatives don't bow down to are evolution, which is not a threat but still used that way by people who don't really understand it and feared by conservatives who don't understand it ,and climate change.
Such a political topic and my take is that I am not an expert or even knowledgeably enough to make a claim, but I do not this k science has mastered the complex nature of climate change enough to make accurate predictions and the growing polar ice cap is a great example of this. I will make one generalization that will cause an outcry but why not....I would say that liberal democrats worship scientist, its a culture of scientific worship that has replaced religion for liberals and it doesn't mean they are more scientific it just means that if you label it science they will accept it without doing the footwork they should be doing to determine if it is good science and more importantly are the conclusions made actually philosophically consistent.
The debate is that there are more relevant scientist making the claim that climate change is not the way Democrats are presenting it and the way democrats try to demonize and silence any opposition to their climate change theory simply makes me and many conservatives all that more skeptical.
Too much here for one thread, should be more but I don't have the time tonight. I will say that in conclusion the conservative capitalist philosophy is directly in accordance with natural law and that conservatives don't disagree with science but question science that is used as a political weapon ( wrongly so) and don't blindly follow every word out of a notable scientist mouth like a democrat does ( generalization) but maybe its just that the things being called scientific are used to assault their beliefs and we have seen in several of these threads how angry Democrats can get when confronted with science that contradicts their humanist beliefs. ( no time to edit sry)

Response by LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® made Nov 16 at 2015 3:28 AM

LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® — Mon, 16 Nov 2015 03:28:38 -0500

I know people in the Democratic party that are also spiritual. I think they try to be more scientific in response to the Republicans, but i have found that most Democrats focus on secular humanism, where in this postmodern culture anything goes...except if it is a Republican idea!

Response by SrA Art Siatkowsky made Nov 16 at 2015 3:49 AM

SrA Art Siatkowsky — Mon, 16 Nov 2015 03:49:22 -0500

Really wish I had an edit button....this post is a mess bit typing on self correcting phone...

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 16 at 2015 7:04 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:04:37 -0500

It always remind me of one statement .... "the silence majority don't count". Same with the Republican ... at least the tea party is making noises. lol

Response by SGT William Howell made Nov 16 at 2015 7:41 AM

SGT William Howell — Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:41:32 -0500

Here is my one and only shot at this. The GOP tends to be more bible based and we have our share of wack jobs. I am a Republican because I believe in taking care of the Middle Class, pure and simple economics. I don't care about the rich and my only concern about the poor is those that are now believe they are entitled. Welfare has became a full time job and it is wrong.

Democrats somehow have this stigma of being for the working class, while it is totally not true. Every body elected is rich and I don't mean regular rich I mean filthy. Hell, Sanders, the socialist, is filthy rich. How can you be a socialist and rich?

Dems talk about science and yet I can't find anybody that can tell me about economics. Most Dems I know vote off hearsay, what they heard from some guy down the street. They actually don't read or do any kind of research into what they are voting on (and quite honestly, the republicans are not much better). They vote with their heart not their head (or their wallet). So they may claim to be the party of science I just don't see it.

They spend uncontrollably with money we don't have, they claim to be helping the poor - yet continue to do nothing to bring those people out of a lifestyle of poverty, and claim to be for the working man and yet have never had to work. I tend to think of them as the party of oxymorons.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Nov 16 at 2015 8:05 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Mon, 16 Nov 2015 08:05:37 -0500

No. They are one of division.

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Nov 16 at 2015 1:36 PM

SSgt Christopher Brose — Mon, 16 Nov 2015 13:36:39 -0500

They want to claim to be the party of "science", but really what they are is the party of "crisis science." There is no money in science that doesn't result in panic, and there is no impetus for change. And of course they have complicit partners in media, since boring science isn't very newsworthy either.

Here's the thing -- you pick your scientists, you pick your science. Some people like to portray scientists as objective and unbiased, but that's not true at all. They are people, with all the same foibles as non-scientists, including biases.

Response by SFC Charles Temm made Jul 4 at 2016 4:22 PM

SFC Charles Temm — Mon, 04 Jul 2016 16:22:34 -0400

The Dems are the "Science Party" in the same way the Repubs are, that is if "science" supports their plans/goals.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2016 1:09 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jul 2016 01:09:39 -0400

NO!!!! hahaha

Response by Maj Rob Drury made Aug 14 at 2016 9:22 AM

Maj Rob Drury — Sun, 14 Aug 2016 09:22:57 -0400

No; they're the science fiction party (global warming, Darwinian evolution, a human embryo isn't human, etc.).