Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (8688)	12/2/2010 12:22:56 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

There are some broad assumptions in your thesis, which I'm going to over look so that I can jump to the comment on 'belief' in evolution. Evolution displays some interesting and remarkable variables in general. The processes of evolution are simple, observable, and subject to factual analysis ... which are not as subject to controversy as you suggest, origins are but that is another matter entirely. Living forms consistently, individually and as groups adapt and change in ways that are beneficial for the specific form of living thing or they cease to exist. This is not under dispute. Living things are subject to forces that leave them no option in this regard and they are not independent but interactively engaged in the process. The limits are endemic to each individual case, each group's condition, and with regards to life itself. Non-living entities which are material substance tend to do the opposite by tending more toward stagnancy and a return to singularity. Non-living entities which are not material. (thought, awareness, conscience, experience, philosophy, social systems, political systems, theological systems etc), however, do follow the basic rules of the evolutionary process with one exception... they are not subject to the limitations imposed upon biological forms.

To: koan who wrote (8688)	12/2/2010 5:11:28 PM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10087

we sort of have two sub species. I was going to comment on your original post but didn't. What I was going to say is that you are simplistically bifurcating something way more complex than that. You are lumping, together, for example, fiscal conservatism and social conservatism, two quite different concepts. As someone with a libertarian framework, I'm with the fiscal conservatives but can't abide the social conservatives. The reason I use the dictionary definition for liberal is that it describes exactly what a liberal is. Someone who is comfortable with change, science and logic. That's me to a "t", yet I don't identify with the liberals. I agree with them on gay rights, war, "happy holidays," and evolution, but utterly oppose PPACA and all their other big-government, authoritarian monstrosities. Simplistic definitions and simplistic bifurcation are beneath someone who professes to be on the side of logic. They are suitable only for lining up sides and shooting spitballs, not for thoughtful analysis. Ideas have color and texture and shape, not binary monotones.

To: koan who wrote (8688)	12/3/2010 2:16:16 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

Now 80% of scientists lean democratic (liberal) and only 6/12% call themselves/lean Republican (Gallup poll). 80% versus 6/12%. In statistics that is a powerful difference and statisticians would say represents two populations. My conclusion is that conservatives are the result of one of two things: either they are wired to think differently (nature)than liberals, or follow dogma at the expense of facts or logic. If your conclusion has any actual basis in argument or fact you don't present it even in the most skeletal form. Scientists are not in general paragons of perfect logical thinking. They are intelligent, but so are people in fields with very different political leanings like doctors (who are not so "liberal") and engineers (who lean conservative). They often have a lot of knowledge within their fields, but again so do others, and knowledge of say chemistry doesn't make you an expert in military issues or economics (In important ways even economists are not experts in economics, they are the closest we have to it, but alchemists used to be the closest we have to experts on chemistry. This isn't intended as a slam on economists, I have a lot of respect for some of them and have studied the field myself a bit; its more an indirect comment about the complexities of the field.) Even if scientists where clearly the best example of general knowledge and understanding (not just in their specific fields or even in the wider field of science), wisdom, and logical thinking, the fact that more scientists lean to the political left wouldn't be much in the way of evidence in support of the ideas of the political left. Scientists deviate from the norm in all sorts of ways, just because scientists are more likely to be something, do something, support something, act in some way, think in some way, doesn't imply that that way is better. most conservatives do not believe in evolution. That's a very questionable statement. Very few liberals do not believe in evolution. That's questionable as well. That is huge because evolution is a solid fact and quite simple to understand. Its far from the only example of such a thing. Liberals are far more likely to believe price controls work well, but they clearly don't. You can cherry pick your question, and then say "my side does better on this important question", but that doesn't do well in terms of leading us to an accurate wider understanding. it describes exactly what a liberal is. Someone who is comfortable with change, science and logic. . Many "liberals" are quite opposed to change, and to a reasonable application of science or logic, when it gets in the way of one of their favorite ideas, actions, or programs. Liberals support change, the way they support "tolerance". They tolerate what they think is acceptable, and support change they think are good ideas. Just like conservatives.