Why is the Right Wing Anti-Science?

[Revoltingest]

And they all day they " love," science and
extensively studied it, uphold the highest standards.

So long as science is politically correct.

 

[Audie]

So long as science is politically correct.

Right wingers are at least as dedicated to
correctness as a leftie.

 

[Heyo]

Take the LSAT

It's a good measure of logic and stamina

My informal logic is sufficient but I have forgotten most about formal logic.

 

[Truth in love]

I doubt if you even understand the concept of evidence. Here is a simple test:

Is "Lucy" evidence for human evolution?

I’m sorry your insulting why?


To answer your question a single find is not worth much. Lucy could simply be a anomaly.
Now a few dozen Lucies spread over a large area that would be a lot more useful.

 

[Truth in love]

You appear to be even more confused than usual. There is no evidence that Biden committed any crime.

Where and when did Biden violate the Constitution?

The same part Trump was accused of round 1.

One could also make a great cause for giving aid to the enemy with billions in military equipment he left in Afghanistan. The current conspiracy to destroy due process and the 2nd amendment. Any one of those should get him (and many others). Some serious prison time. But it seems only us confused people care about the facts or rule of law.

 

[Truth in love]

An insight I got from giving private lessons in maths is that the problem of the misunderstanding often lies deeper. Kids failing at quadratic equations often didn't understand fractions.
My guess is that @Truth in love doesn't have a problem with science but with logic.

Actually I do just fine. I do get a little tired on condensing remarks from people who can’t have an adult conversation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m sorry your insulting why?


To answer your question a single find is not worth much. Lucy could simply be a anomaly.
Now a few dozen Lucies spread over a large area that would be a lot more useful.

That was not an insult. The fact is that very very few creationists understand the concept of evidence.

And you just demonstrated that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. Too many creationists conflate "evidence" with "proof". You would be right that it is not proof, but you are wrong when you state that it is not evidence.

And do you even know how many "Lucy's" have been found? It is just a tiny bit over the number one.

I can support this with various sources but here is the definition of scientific evidence:

Scientific evidence are observations that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis.

That's it. So if given an observation there are only two questions you need to ask. Does the observation support or oppose the theory or hypothesis in question? In the case of Lucy, yes. If you need to know why I will gladly discuss that. And is the theory or hypothesis falsifiable. And once again in the case of evolution the answer is yes. There are various tests that could conceivably refute it.


Okay, is there any scientific evidence for creationism?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I’m sorry your insulting why?


To answer your question a single find is not worth much. Lucy could simply be a anomaly.
Now a few dozen Lucies spread over a large area that would be a lot more useful.

Lucy is not a single find. The remains of more than 300 Australopithecus afarensis specimens have been found and examined, to date. So there you go! That's more than a few dozen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The same part Trump was accused of round 1.

One could also make a great cause for giving aid to the enemy with billions in military equipment he left in Afghanistan. The current conspiracy to destroy due process and the 2nd amendment. Any one of those should get him (and many others). Some serious prison time. But it seems only us confused people care about the facts or rule of law.

What? How does that snippet support your claim? And you forgot, leaving Afghanistan was Trump's plan.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lucy is not a single find. The remains of more than 300 Australopithecus afarensis specimens have been found and examined, to date. So there you go! That's more than a few dozen.

Oh you brat!! At least put it int a spoiler!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh you brat!! At least put it int a spoiler!

Oh man, I always mess it up!

 

[Audie]

I’m sorry your insulting why?


To answer your question a single find is not worth much. Lucy could simply be a anomaly.
Now a few dozen Lucies spread over a large area that would be a lot more useful.

You find it condescending to be be corrected?
It would not happen f you did not say such
uneducated things.

How does one have an "adult" conversation with
someone who makes things up, posts misinformation
and falsehoods?

You did not bother to find out if there are more
Lucys. Just clained there are not.

"Anomoly," as if that is even remotely possible.

And as if single- find fossils are not the norm!
First one is usually, one.
Usually part of one.

It can be years before more are found.

Who figures there only ever was just one?
It's an insult to intelligence.

 

[Heyo]

Actually I do just fine. I do get a little tired on condensing remarks from people who can’t have an adult conversation.

It isn't easy to keep up an adult conversation with someone who is ignorant of the facts and under the illusion to be not. Children at least know that they don't know and are willing to learn. Adults who have been indoctrinated since childhood are resistant to new learning. Some have to be told by a judge and to pay a hefty sum before they accept reality. (See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia)

 

[Stevicus]

My informal logic is sufficient but I have forgotten most about formal logic.

 

[Shaul]

I reject the premise that the “Right Wing”[sic] is anti-science. Some individuals who may be right wing may also be “anti-science” whatever that means. But mislabeling the entire group is itself unscientific. Furthermore questioning things doesn’t make one anti-science. Questioning is actually an integral part of science.

 

[LuisDantas]

The way I see it, the current usual understandings of what constitutes "right wing" are rather extreme. Their main goals include spreading and protecting certain myths about prosperity and personal ability to choose. And it turns out that we have reached a moment in history when it is no longer really possible to find much space to be respectful of the reality of facts while also having those specific values. The world is just too interconnected, too populated, too complex and yet too understandable for those values to make a lot of logical sense.

Science, particularly social and ecological science, points that out far too often for this current configuration of "right" to feel att all confortable. Being unwilling to accomodate, they have embraced irrationality and furious fear. Science is indeed their enemy, mainly because they have renounced honor, dignity and reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I reject the premise that the “Right Wing”[sic] is anti-science. Some individuals who may be right wing may also be “anti-science” whatever that means. But mislabeling the entire group is itself unscientific. Furthermore questioning things doesn’t make one anti-science. Questioning is actually an integral part of science.

Questioning still must be based upon evidence and very few on the right understand the concept of scientific evidence.

By the way, if one opposes the theory of evolution or AGW the odds are huge that the person opposing those sciences simply does not understand evidence and even worse is anti-science.

Lastly the thread obviously was talking about the majority of those on the right, not every single person, and for that accusation the OP appears to be correct.

 

[Shaul]

Questioning still must be based upon evidence and very few on the right understand the concept of scientific evidence.

By the way, if one opposes the theory of evolution or AGW the odds are huge that the person opposing those sciences simply does not understand evidence and even worse is anti-science.

Lastly the thread obviously was talking about the majority of those on the right, not every single person, and for that accusation the OP appears to be correct.

Wrong. The questions don’t have a prerequisite of scientific evidence. The scientific evidence follows the questions, not the other way around.

Before you criticize others for not knowing about scientific evidence you might make sure you know what it is yourself.

It is a great leap from questioning evolution or AGW to “opposing”. The odds are really huge against labeling all those who have a nuanced stance and questions as opposing either one.

Questioning doesn’t make someone the “opposition”. Nor does it make them deniers or some other category of people to be simply dismissed. Real science welcomes questions. It doesn’t try to discourage questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong. The questions don’t have a prerequisite of scientific evidence. The scientific evidence follows the questions, not the other way around.
View attachment 63870
Before you criticize others for not knowing about scientific evidence you might make sure you know what it is yourself.

It is a great leap from questioning evolution or AGW to “opposing”. The odds are really huge against labeling all those who have a nuanced stance and questions as opposing either one.

Questioning doesn’t make someone the “opposition”. Nor does it make them deniers or some other category of people to be simply dismissed. Real science welcomes questions. It doesn’t try to discourage questions.

So wrong. What is at the very top? Observation. Observation leads to evidence, But then I doubt if you know what qualifies as scientific evidence.

 

[Shaul]

So wrong. What is at the very top? Observation. Observation leads to evidence, But then I doubt if you know what qualifies as scientific evidence.

You really should stop. You clearly don’t know what you are talking about. As the figure shows the first step is to observe and formulate the questions. But the things observed are not scientific evidence. The scientific evidence must be gathered under controlled repeatable conditions. (Step four of the figure)

You can go away now. You don’t know what you are talking about.