This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Republican war on science

Republican war on science - Comments

Jay G's Avatar Comment 1 by Jay G

Science (I am writing as a person who is NOT a scientist and has no scientific background) has a public relations problem.

Science, as a method of investigation, is the reliable way of arriving at a correct understanding of the world. The scientific method, however, is not a guarantee that every statement made by a scientist will be "correct". This distinction is not being made clear to the "lay" public and, therefore, leads many to conclude that if "scientists" make statements that prove later to be wrong, that means that scientists have not greater claim to a correct understanding of the world than anybody else. That leaves the door open for other "equally valid" methods of cognition.

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:26:56 UTC | #933310

delToro87's Avatar Comment 2 by delToro87

Well all the stuff from Aasif Mandvi is clearly tongue in cheek, and very funny it is too. But the Republican strategist, I think she actually believes what she's saying, which is pretty worrying!

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:29:05 UTC | #933311

Helga Vieirch's Avatar Comment 3 by Helga Vieirch

I agree with both of you. Scientists do need better public relations. But what if the school system is not always communicating the scientific method properly? What if older discoveries are being presented as the final word in a subject, which no additional caveat stating that the discovery is not likely going to be the last, and that our understanding of the subject will evolve as new research is done?

I thought that was what most people have been taught already. But sometimes you wonder about the impact of having children taught that it was explorers like Columbus that "proved" the world was round, when in fact scientists had known this centuries earlier.

The show made me laugh, though. I don't know if the mods are going to let me start a discussion with this particular film, but I was very impressed by it, and also by the little quip he makes of Sarah Palin (who must be one of the most ignorant of the Republicans, ever).

There are moments when I have a small private fantasy involving kidnapping all Republications (heck, why not all the other guys too!) and holding them in a secret underground facility and not letting them out until they have passed courses on physics, chemistry, ecology, cosmology, evolutionary biology and genetics, and of course, shown they have mastered at least three of the main four subfields of anthropology). I could pose as a space alien and use one of those computer-disorted voice thingies, and tell them this was deemed necessary for them to help their planet survive. See, I would not have to tell a single lie. Anyone want to help? I wonder if we could recruit someone like Warren Buffet to help????

Hmmm. The tea tastes funny this morning…..

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:09:42 UTC | #933333

Red Dog's Avatar Comment 4 by Red Dog

I suppose we could always do with more and better PR for science but I think its wrong to put the blame on the scientific community here. Science was doing just fine up until a few years ago. That's when a group of political zealots decided that if facts didn't fit their narrative they would just ignore the facts. Saying that "science has a PR problem" in the US is blaming the victim. The problem isn't anything that scientists have done differently but that they are faced with a new challenge in the US.

I wonder how many people remember the geneticist Lysenko from the USSR. His theories were pseudo-science but for some reason they fit in better with Stalin's dogma than the actual science. As a result Soviet biology and agriculture suffered incredible setbacks for decades. Its ironic that the commie hating zealots in the US are more or less repeating Stalin's mistake and going for the dogma they like rather than where the science leads. The impact on the US could be equally devastating if we don't stop them.

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:52:35 UTC | #933347

paulmcuk's Avatar Comment 5 by paulmcuk

Makes you laugh...right up until it makes you cry.

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:35:53 UTC | #933374

Helga Vieirch's Avatar Comment 6 by Helga Vieirch

Do you suppose this kind of thing would help? Or this (ahem). Or perhaps the rawness of this?

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:56:42 UTC | #933380

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 7 by Neodarwinian

Counter? Making sure our scientific findings are just that. Solid as they can be made. A lot of what comes out of academia is setting itself up for attack by Republicans and a lot of it, though called scientific, is nowhere near the methods demanded of science.

I an reminded of a study done by Nature within the last two years about scientists working with social scientist and why those that had worked with social scientists would not do so again. Methodology was the number one reason sited.

So, what comes out of our Universities should be rigorous because many on the right will attack anything that does not agree with their ideologies and you do not want to lose all the fence sitters to them.

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:44:49 UTC | #933437

Red Dog's Avatar Comment 8 by Red Dog

Comment 7 by Neodarwinian :

Counter? Making sure our scientific findings are just that. Solid as they can be made. A lot of what comes out of academia is setting itself up for attack by Republicans and a lot of it, though called scientific, is nowhere near the methods demanded of science.

I an reminded of a study done by Nature within the last two years about scientists working with social scientist and why those that had worked with social scientists would not do so again. Methodology was the number one reason sited.

So, what comes out of our Universities should be rigorous because many on the right will attack anything that does not agree with their ideologies and you do not want to lose all the fence sitters to them.

Its ironic. So many of you on this site never miss a chance to talk tough and macho about how stupid the theists are and how you don't care what they think and how awful it is to be an accomodationist, etc. But when it comes to politics suddenly you start apologizing and whining about how so many scientists don't live up to the anti-science crowds standards.

Then again I've also noticed that next to theist-bashing the second favorite sport on this site seems to be bashing anyone that tries to do research and isn't in the hard sciences. Sociologists seem to be a favorite target.

My perspective is different. It seems to me that the people in the soft sciences have the hardest job. For one thing its only been recently that anyone tried to use science to study things like sociology. Any new science is going to be immature and prone to mistakes and dead ends. For another its a lot harder to do science when you are studying people then when you are studying chemicals, particles, or non-human animals. I'm not denying that there is a lot of garbage sociology but there is some pretty interesting stuff as well and I think the worst thing the scientific community can do is to be manipulated to start turning on each other due to nonsensical criticism from science deniers.

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 22:31:24 UTC | #933455

Sean_W's Avatar Comment 9 by Sean_W

That was funny, thanks for sharing it.

I think it is strange that you can make up whatever you want and flat lie about science in the media, and still become a popular and respected source of expert opinion. One would think that a government would protect its citizens from the most prolific sources of blatant disinformation concerning the sciences.

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:02:00 UTC | #933461

raytoman's Avatar Comment 10 by raytoman

Comment 3 by Helga Vierich

There are moments when I have a small private fantasy involving kidnapping all Republications (heck, why not all the other guys too!) and holding them in a secret underground facility and not letting them out until they have passed courses on physics, chemistry, ecology, cosmology, evolutionary biology and genetics, and of course, shown they have mastered at least three of the main four subfields of anthropology). I could pose as a space alien and use one of those computer-disorted voice thingies, and tell them this was deemed necessary for them to help their planet survive.

Helga, wouldn't it be easier to ignore imaginary aliens, use your own considerable smarts and simply fully develop human cloning. Women have the eggs so no need for men, Republicans or otherwise.

This of course would leave you with the problem of finding rational women to clone.

It is women who conduct genital mutilation on their sisters. It is women who stone raped girls to death (for adultery). It is women who are the most religious.

Perhaps if you start with ridding the planet of the parasite that is religion you will not need the cloning solution.

All that is needed is a clear definition of science and an easily understood history of how it was developed and keeps developing to find and utilise knowledge - there is no knowledge in religion or superstition.

A simple explaination of the poweer and control mechanism that is religion and how it has held us back and a simple definition of what life is and how we can operate to ensure good lives for all and how this can be achieved as well as nurturing the little pebble whose very thin ecosphere we inhabit.

Damn, you've got me dreaming now!

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:29:33 UTC | #933465

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 11 by Neodarwinian

My perspective is different. It seems to me that the people in the soft sciences have the hardest job. For one thing its only been recently that anyone tried to use science to study things like sociology. Any new science is going to be immature and prone to mistakes and dead ends. For another its a lot harder to do science when you are studying people then when you are studying chemicals, particles, or non-human animals. I'm not denying that there is a lot of garbage sociology but there is some pretty interesting stuff as well and I think the worst thing the scientific community can do is to be manipulated to start turning on each other due to nonsensical criticism from science deniers.

Bullshit!

Human behavioral ecology studies people, human ethology studies people, sociobiology studies people, behavioral neurobiology studies people, and so on. Sociology is incoherent. It does not cohere. To try and defend the indefensible just plays into Republican/right wing hands. Turning on each other? Where did that come from except right out of relativistic sociology and cultural anthropology. I never have seen a scientific association censure researchers as social science has ( attempted on E. O Wilson and done on others refuting Mead ). Or make prescriptive announcements about scientific findings such as psychology does ( in reference to IQ and child development to name two )

Science had enough trouble speaking to ideologues without secular creationism, relativism and just shoddy science obscuring the message. When some right wing demagogue can point successfully to some sloppy work done in sociology and promoted by academia ( which they oppose on principle ) as bogus the uninformed might just take his word on climate change or evolution. I don't think setting ourselves up for this is at all helpful and I still say, " give me hard science or give nothing. " Soft science will stab you in the back and what difference whether it is deliberate or just sloppy work.

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:58:27 UTC | #933499

Shrommer's Avatar Comment 12 by Shrommer

Comment 6 by Helga Vierich :

Do you suppose this kind of thing would help? Or this (ahem). Or perhaps the rawness of this?

That first link looks like an OK idea to me. Am I missing something?

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:17:10 UTC | #933509

Shrommer's Avatar Comment 13 by Shrommer

The debate should come down to matters of philosophy of science and scientific ethics, rather than one of making facts available vs. living in ignorance.

Regarding the ethics issues, there can be valid differences regarding how to prioritize the financing of projects. Is it better to dig wells for people with no clean drinking water, or is it better to send another satellite into space to study star formation? Is it better to do a multi-million dollar surgery to save one patient in America, at the expense of denying affordable preventative health care to thousands ... or should the one be allowed to pass away the natural way so that thousands can have affordable access to the basics? Should we be developing new pharmaceuticals when people are still dying from lack of mosquito nets and penicillin?

Just because science determines we can do something does not speak to whether or not we should do that. For someone who is abstinent, the risk of disease is increased by receiving the HPV virus, whereas for someone who has intercourse with a non-virgin, the HPV virus may save a life. Amniocentesis can determine if a baby has Down's Syndrome, but it the couple wants to have the baby regardless of Down's Syndrome, there is no benefit to amniocentesis and only added risks. Creating human embryos can help a sterile couple to have a baby, or grow new body parts, but if human embryos have to die in the process, is it really worth it?

Hitler was fond of experimenting on human beings just for the sake of finding out at what point people would die, or what effects different tortures would have. I think we'd all agree that this is unethical, even if it does add to our scientific knowledge. So if someone speaks out against Hitler-like experiments, does that make the protester somehow anti-science? Are people necessarily anti-science just because they want to live and die naturally without taking all kinds of medicines? Are people necessarily anti-science because they value the life of human embryos the same way they value the lives of adult humans? I would say not.

To say something happened is science. To say something happened by chance, is unscientific opinion. To say something happens with regularity is science. To say something always has happened that way and always will, is opinion.

Thankfully, western society was released from the belief that nature was subject to the whims of the gods and spirits, and at one time embraced a belief that a single God designed nature to work in faithful pre-ordained ways, so that people sought the reasons behind the workings. Many today have moved away from that to look at the reasons and the workings as ultimate truth, but there is no experiment we can do to determine what ultimate truth is. Different people pick different philosophies to justify what they view as ultimate truth.

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:36:42 UTC | #933515

Red Dog's Avatar Comment 14 by Red Dog

Comment 11 by Neodarwinian :

My perspective is different. It seems to me that the people in the soft sciences have the hardest job. For one thing its only been recently that anyone tried to use science to study things like sociology. Any new science is going to be immature and prone to mistakes and dead ends. For another its a lot harder to do science when you are studying people then when you are studying chemicals, particles, or non-human animals. I'm not denying that there is a lot of garbage sociology but there is some pretty interesting stuff as well and I think the worst thing the scientific community can do is to be manipulated to start turning on each other due to nonsensical criticism from science deniers.

Bullshit!

Human behavioral ecology studies people, human ethology studies people, sociobiology studies people, behavioral neurobiology studies people, and so on. Sociology is incoherent. It does not cohere.

That was just name calling and hand waving. Why is Sociology incoherent? Just saying its so doesn't make it true.

To try and defend the indefensible just plays into Republican/right wing hands. Turning on each other? Where did that come from except right out of relativistic sociology and cultural anthropology. I never have seen a scientific association censure researchers as social science has ( attempted on E. O Wilson and done on others refuting Mead ). Or make prescriptive announcements about scientific findings such as psychology does ( in reference to IQ and child development to name two )

So you are saying that some Sociologists have done dumb things. In my original post I said "I'm not denying that there is a lot of garbage sociology." One or even many dumb things don't necessarily discredit an area of study. Remember Piltdown Man? Are we supposed to say that all Paleontologists are frauds because at one point many of the most respected members of the field were complicit or taken in by a scientific fraud?

Science had enough trouble speaking to ideologues without secular creationism, relativism and just shoddy science obscuring the message.

You haven't demonstrated that all Sociology is shoddy science. You've only shown examples of shoddy sociology. I can do the same for Paleontology or many, probably most other disciplines.

When some right wing demagogue can point successfully to some sloppy work done in sociology and promoted by academia ( which they oppose on principle ) as bogus the uninformed might just take his word on climate change or evolution. I don't think setting ourselves up for this is at all helpful and I still say, " give me hard science or give nothing. " Soft science will stab you in the back and what difference whether it is deliberate or just sloppy work.

Again, just showing that there are examples of bad Sociology does not prove that ALL sociology is sloppy.

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 03:49:16 UTC | #933529

Big Fat Heretic's Avatar Comment 15 by Big Fat Heretic

I just watched the video.

It's from The Daily Show, which is a comedy.

The video is a satire, a spoof.

Of course, what is real, is the fact that most Republicans do have an anti-science agenda and that really scares me!

The video, is an attempt to make fun of a very serious situation.

Personally, I didn't think it was all that funny.

Oh, and by the way . . . . .

As for not trusting experts in any field, well . . .

If I needed surgery, I would go to a doctor, and not a plumber.

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:08:58 UTC | #933589

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 16 by Neodarwinian

@ Red Dog

Do you know the meaning of " does not cohere? " Doubtful. The various " schools " of sociology are incoherent. Marxists vs structuralists for instance and as one small example.

All sociology is dumb and devoid of theory, So where is your example of " good " sociology?

Try showing that these other disciplines ( paleontology and many, if not most others?!?!? ) are as shoddy as sociology!!! I need a good laugh!

I don't need to " prove " things as I am not a mathematician, but sociology is a joke as is any discipline which can not field even weak theory after 100 + years of existence. Spare me further nonsense and I will not have to wear my fingers to the bone typing the myriad evidences supporting such an obvious position. Sociology sucks!

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:12:04 UTC | #933649

Big Fat Heretic's Avatar Comment 17 by Big Fat Heretic

Comment 16 by Neodarwinian :

@ Red Dog

Do you know the meaning of " does not cohere? " Doubtful. The various " schools " of sociology are incoherent. Marxists vs structuralists for instance and as one small example.

All sociology is dumb and devoid of theory, So where is your example of " good " sociology?

Try showing that these other disciplines ( paleontology and many, if not most others?!?!? ) are as shoddy as sociology!!! I need a good laugh!

I don't need to " prove " things as I am not a mathematician, but sociology is a joke as is any discipline which can not field even weak theory after 100 + years of existence. Spare me further nonsense and I will not have to wear my fingers to the bone typing the myriad evidences supporting such an obvious position. Sociology sucks!

I concur.

I prefer the natural sciences myself, like Astronomy (my favorite) or physics, geology, paleontology, biology, evolution, etc. etc.

But when it comes to sociology, or psychology, then you might as well be talking astrology, alchemy, and phrenology.

And, as for "political science" give me a break! That's an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.

The politics of our present Republican party is anything but scientific!

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:39:10 UTC | #933654

caseyg5's Avatar Comment 18 by caseyg5

It's amazing that the republican strategist's brain is able to generate enough energy to be able to make her legs move one step at a time.

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:40:03 UTC | #933655

Red Dog's Avatar Comment 19 by Red Dog

Comment 16 by Neodarwinian :

@ Red Dog

Do you know the meaning of " does not cohere? " Doubtful. The various " schools " of sociology are incoherent. Marxists vs structuralists for instance and as one small example.

Yes I do. I also know what it means to put forth an argument rather than just yell "bullshit" at people. Saying "Sociology is incoherent. It does not cohere." is not an argument. It is merely stating the same thing twice with no evidence. What would you think of a Creationist who said: "The theory of evolution is not Coherent! It does not cohere!"

You have offered no rational argument as to WHY or HOW sociology is incoherent.

All sociology is dumb and devoid of theory,

Again, just hand waving.

So where is your example of " good " sociology?

First I will repeat that I agree a lot of Sociology is incoherent. Its just people throwing sophisticated terminology around with political correctness and no testable models. However, just showing that a discipline contains some bad work does not prove that the discipline is therefor invalid to ever study. That is what my example of fraud in the world of Paleontology was meant to show.

As to good sociology, I'm not a sociologist, not even close. But here are some examples of books or classes I've come across recently that seemed to me to be good science and -- even though none of these are probably purely considered sociology -- they definitely intersect with it quite a bit:

  • Dawkins' idea of Memes first introduced in The Selfish Gene and then elaborated by others. Susan Latimers book The Meme Machine for example.

  • Stephen Pinker's recent book The Better Angels of Our Nature. He tries to show that contrary to conventional wisdom humanity is becoming more moral over time, less likely to engage in war to solve state problems and less likely to use violence to solve personal problems.

  • Game Theory. I'm currently taking an online class (iTunes U) on Game Theory from Yale by Ben Polack. As an aside I would highly recommend this class to anyone interested in how you can get some rigor in the soft sciences. Polack is an amazing teacher. Several of his examples deal with sociological issues: how people vote (why things cohere to the center), how they behave when others try to eliminate racial segregation. And none of this class is "soft" its all rigorous math.

  • Try showing that these other disciplines ( paleontology and many, if not most others?!?!? ) are as shoddy as sociology!!! I need a good laugh!

    Well you haven't shown how Sociology is shoddy to begin with. You've just said that it is. But I would agree with you that there is a lot more bad Sociology than bad Paleontology. Again as I said originally, things like Sociology are inherently difficult to study scientifically. That is why IMO sociologists deserve our support not to be soffed at as a worthless group. And I'm not against scoffing at sociologists when they say incoherent things, I just think its wrong to slander ALL sociology as a discipline.

    A good distinction would be astrology. We can show that the core beliefs of any astrological theory don't make sense. You seem to be claiming that sociology is in the same class as astrology and to claim that you need to provide some rational argument to back it up.

    I don't need to " prove " things as I am not a mathematician, but sociology is a joke as is any discipline which can not field even weak theory after 100 + years of existence. Spare me further nonsense and I will not have to wear my fingers to the bone typing the myriad evidences supporting such an obvious position. Sociology sucks!

    If I said prove that was a poor choice of words. You don't have to prove your position but you do have to provide some actual rational argument. And just to be clear saying "bullshit" "Sociology is incoherent. It does not cohere." and "Sociology sucks!" do not count as rational arguments. Also, just showing some examples of bad sociology don't count either. What you need to do is provide some argument that shows why in principle its impossible to ever do a coherent study of the field of sociology.

    Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:42:48 UTC | #933678

    Big Fat Heretic's Avatar Comment 20 by Big Fat Heretic

    Comment 18 by caseyg5 :

    It's amazing that the republican strategist's brain is able to generate enough energy to be able to make her legs move one step at a time.

    The Republican candidates have been making a lot of stupid comments over the past year, and it looks like it's only going to get worse. (Or perhaps better!)

    Michale Bachmann once said that black families were better off under slavery.

    Rick Santorum says that a college education is indoctrination. What? You mean, as opposed to religious indoctrination?

    Then during a NEWS conference about global warming, Texas Governor Rick Perry said, Galileo was out-voted.

    Someone campaigning for Rick Santorum (can't remember his name) said, that for contraceptives, a woman should hold an aspirin between her knees.

    Another Republican said, that helping poor people to register to vote is like giving a burglar the keys to your home.

    I'm sure I can come up with more examples, but, I'm starting to feel sick right now, so I shall refrain.

    Anyway . . . . .

    Their comments have been getting dumber and dumber and more and more moronic with each passing week.

    So, I'm going to make a prediction.

    In the months ahead, in the 2012 election year, the Republican candidates will continued to make even dumber and dumber comments, until eventually, they will be standing there in dirty diapers talking baby talk, and nobody will listen to them anymore.

    Then, about a month before the November election, these Republican candidates will simply forget to breath, and they will all die in their cribs.

    There will be no one left in the Republican party to run against Obama since they will all have died crib deaths.

    And Obama, and the Democratic party, will win by default!

    We won't even have to vote!

    End of story!

    Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:13:03 UTC | #933685

    Helga Vieirch's Avatar Comment 21 by Helga Vieirch

    Comment 11 by Neodarwinian :

    Your attack on sociology is extreme. I hope you will refrain from embarrassing yourself further. I for one would be reluctant to consider you entirely lucid on this subject in future. There is only one thing to do: you simply must read two book by sociologists (I will be happy to send you a short exam to confirm that you have mastered the material therein ; ) ). Here are the books:

    Overshoot: the Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change, (1980) by William Catton

    Sociology as Life or Death Issue, 2012, by Robert Brym

    If you read these books, at least. you might find you have at least some way of telling the real social scientists from the mere academic warm-bodies. I might remind you, Mead bashing is repugnant: her work took place 70 years ago or more, and she is dead. There comes a time when a man does himself no favours by repeating unsavoury gossip intended to discredit other people or their work when they are no longer in a position to improve upon their research or to defend themselves.

    If you read these books, I would be delighted to discuss them with you on their merits. I would also read any two books you feel represent good science in your own field and discuss them with you.

    I do not see, however, any other way for me to recover much respect for the quality of your mind other than by means of the above outlined procedure. It is a great pity, as I certainly had quite a good opinion of you before this.

    I might mention however, that I myself am not a sociologist. However i do read widely in the sciences, including the social scientists. I find that there is good science and bad science being practiced in all branches of science. So, if you have had the misfortune to run into some bad examples so far in your life, I am sincerely sorry about it. But please do not let this sour you on all. On these forums we all eventually find we have all usually more in common than we have differences. Upholding the integrity of empirical research and the value of the scientific method is one of these common qualities, despite our different backgrounds. A profound distrust for organized religion, indeed, atheism, is often another. Let's please hold fast to these things we have in common, and resist the urge to turn our petty interdisciplinary differences into quazi-religious wars or insult and denigration.

    Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:53:39 UTC | #933697

    susanlatimer's Avatar Comment 22 by susanlatimer

    Comment 19 by Red Dog

    •Dawkins' idea of Memes first introduced in The Selfish Gene and then elaborated by others. Susan Latimers book The Meme Machine for example.

    I think you mean Susan Blackmore. :-)

    Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:34:52 UTC | #933718

    caseyg5's Avatar Comment 23 by caseyg5

    @Comment 20 by Big Fat Heretic,

    It is entirely possible that if Mitt Romney becomes the GOP candidate and loses, the republicans will blame his past moderation when he was Massachusetts governor, plus his tendency to say anything to anyone to get their votes, and become even more extreme than they are now. As inane as they are, yes, it could get worse after the election. I do plan to vote in order to offset one fundamentalist's vote!

    Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:08:30 UTC | #933725

    Red Dog's Avatar Comment 24 by Red Dog

    Comment 22 by susanlatimer :

    Comment 19 by Red Dog

    •Dawkins' idea of Memes first introduced in The Selfish Gene and then elaborated by others. Susan Latimers book The Meme Machine for example.

    I think you mean Susan Blackmore. :-)

    Yes. Thanks. Shouldn't drink and type... I must have just finished reading one of your comments or something.

    Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:17:54 UTC | #933741

    Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 25 by Neodarwinian

    @ Red Dog

    Speaking of embarrassing oneself! Verbose and devoid of any supporting evidence for your favorite discipline. Does not cohere means exactly what I gave as example. Get ten sociologists in a room and you get ten different passionately argued bits of nonsense.

    @ Helga. Laughable. I have a minor in sociology and it still sucks. I have no time to read tripe let alone discuss it with you. Your leanings are obvious to all and I am not really interested.

    Both of you start reading outside the bubble you are in.

    http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/burstein/Davis%20Whats%20Wrong.pdf

    http://www.bangladeshsociology.org/BEJS%205.2%20-%20Final.pdf

    http://mills-soc116.wikidot.com/notes:collins-why-is-sociology-not-a-science

    I can find hundreds more if need be.

    http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/Ehrenreich.html

    Old but relevant to discussion.

    Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:06:48 UTC | #933748

    xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 26 by xmaseveeve

    Ha ha thank you Red Dog! I love it when other people make daft mistakes too! (Susan should write a bestselling book though.)

    Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:18:52 UTC | #933751

    Moderator's Avatar Comment 27 by Moderator

    Moderators' message

    Can we keep the discussion civil and free of insults towards other users, please.

    Thank you!

    The mods

    Terms of Use

    Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:17:16 UTC | #933760

    Big Fat Heretic's Avatar Comment 28 by Big Fat Heretic

    Comment 27 by Moderator :

    Moderators' message

    Can we keep the discussion civil and free of insults towards other users, please.

    Thank you!

    The mods

    Terms of Use

    Yeah! I concur!

    This topic is titled Republican war on science

    So, let's reserve our name calling for the Republicans.

    Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:05:42 UTC | #933795

    xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 29 by xmaseveeve

    Could the person who mentioned sociology be taken out and shot?

    I saw a programme about Mitt Romney, and it was not pleasant! He is, er, a loony? He has a very shady past, waiting to be exposed further, and people don't trust Mormons. Is he not, in theory, a gift to Obama? The Republicans have already 'exposed' Obama all they can, to little avail.

    Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:19:10 UTC | #933802

    caseyg5's Avatar Comment 30 by caseyg5

    Mitt Romney seems to avoid commenting on his Mormon beliefs, probably a thoughtful move since Mormonism is ludicrous. It is ironic that in America Evangelical Christians regard Mormonism as a cult when by any one the various definitions of cultism the same could be said of all religions. But it will likely not be as big an issue in the campaign with Romney having to worry more about being perceived as an obscenely rich corporate raider taking over the USA with the help of the religious right wingers, who believe just about any anti-science fantasy they are told.

    Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:54:10 UTC | #933812