Election predictions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

There is absolutely zero scientific evidencebehind ID. It is religion and should be left to the chapel, it has no role in a science class.

---

That's just a matter of opinion. Can't keep good men down

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

E. You can try to spin things as much as you like, but when people turn on their TV or tune into their radio, they hear Republican pundits and politicians blasting away at secularism. What's the point? It's not going to get any more Evangelicals to vote Republican, but it will keep secular conservatives from voting Republican.

F. The last major amnesty was passed by the Paragon of Virtue himself, Ronald Reagan. Breaking the law is bad. Refusing to acknowledge reality is worse.

G. That's your problem. Science isn't judged by what "chunk of the population agrees with" it. Neither does science have a theory vs. fact dichotomy that you mention. The key distinction for scientists is between science and pseudo-science. By equating the two, you're turning a vast majority of scientists against the GOP (even those who don't give a damn about evolution). One, it shows that the GOP has a profound lack of understanding of what science is. And two, it shows a willingness by the GOP to compromise values like dedication to truth for the sake of getting the crazy vote. Rather odd when you're not willing to sacrifice your principles to help the weak, but are more than happy to do it to get more votes from the insane.

H. For most Americans, neither the UN nor foreign aid are issues of importance (a vast majority of Americans also don't have any idea how much we spend on either, and tend to overestimate both by several levels of magnitude). Any time the GOP blasts away at the two, it makes enemies in the policy community (and friends in the militia circles I suppose, if those are the votes you'd prefer). As a result, most of the top analysts want nothing to do with the GOP, which reinforces the idiotic foreign policy preached by many Republican politicians.

I. It's a rather odd trend when it's been broken for the last four decades. Or perhaps government revenue increased to pay for the creation of a welfare state, but has largely stayed the same since that took place in the 1930s to 1960s.

J. The difference being that the Tea Party extremists are dictating the debate in GOP circles, and even moderate Republicans have to make statements of support for the Tea Party (which inevitably backfire in the general election). I don't recall the Democratic leadership coming out in favor of WTO protests.

---

Okay, now that I've gotten most of the smug glee out of my system (most, not all), I think I'm now qualified to participate in serious discussions again. I find this introspection interesting! Anyhoo,

(bearing in mind my perspective is radically different from yours, so try to argue in good faith?) especially given E, G, H and J, wouldn't it honestly be easier for you to join the Blue Dog dems? The really libby-lib people vote Green or some other retarded never-gonna-happen-nationally-party anyway, you can hold your nose that much can't you?

To me it seems that just as the Pubbies keep lurching right-ward with the Teapers driving the clown car, the Dems have also shifted right-ward. Sure, on social issues the nation is changing as old white guys are dying out, but are the Dems really that repugnant to you fiscally (which I've assumed is your main political interest)? Saying, without qualifiers and sources, that Obummer is to the right of Saint Reagan is, of course, hyperbole and a little bit silly, but surely you don't see him as the socialist communist Bill and Sean paint him? I'm afraid I'm not that up to speed on your two houses of representatives and what each representative is doing, I can guess Pelosi makes you gag but outside of that I'm fairly clueless, but is Michele Bachmann really preferable to a Blue Dog dem?

The field isn't clear yet, of course, but it doesn't look like that much introspection has been happening on the national stage. Can't know what's going on behind closed doors, but right now it certainly isn't clear that the Teapers won't be leading the narrative. There's already been the predictable noises about Mittens being too moderate. 2014 will further shape the situation, and if it's a repeat of 2010 the Teapers will seem vindicated, and the GOP will go further down the path of frothing insanity. You're more on the inside than I am, perhaps you have a clearer view of the situation in the field, but from where I'm sitting it doesn't seem at all impossible that the crazy will win.

Another issue I've been thinking and reading about, and again please remember that I'm looking at this from the outside and through my crazy socialist lenses, is the relationship between Fox and friends and the party itself. Given how flabbergasted not only the voters but the insiders were at Mittens' loss, it appears that some people have bought their own propaganda. Again, it's possible Rove is a shrewd businessman who punked a bunch of billionaires, but his implosion on Fox could have been genuine. In all seriousness, you've dismissed these ideas before when I've voiced them in a less serious tone, Fox and the associated local talk radio hosts etc. manufacture an alternate reality where a lot of the GOP base lives. Anecdotes aren't evidence, but I've read so many people whose friends and families literally have that message poured onto them for nearly their entire waking life. Radio during the commute, Fox or radio on at the office, Fox on at home until they fall asleep. Does the GOP control the message, or does the message control the GOP? Or at least influence it.

You opined elsewhere that Maddow is on the level of Sean and Bill, and of course she is very openly partisan (she might be more justified on Comedy Central?), but MSNBC has talking heads that disagree with a lot of her message. I'm not saying it isn't possible for a libby-lib to create a similar libby-lib alternate reality bubble around them, with the Internet available anyone can find anti-Freep boards, but I think we can both agree that the US "left" is far more divided and incoherent about their message than Fox & Friends?

Again, you find my perspective bizarre if not diseased, but it doesn't seem impossible to me that the Party is going to run on the same path it's begun, and at some point they're gonna leave you behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

To me it seems that just as the Pubbies keep lurching right-ward with the Teapers driving the clown car, the Dems have also shifted right-ward. Sure, on social issues the nation is changing as old white guys are dying out, but are the Dems really that repugnant to you fiscally (which I've assumed is your main political interest)? Saying, without qualifiers and sources, that Obummer is to the right of Saint Reagan is, of course, hyperbole and a little bit silly, but surely you don't see him as the socialist communist Bill and Sean paint him? I'm afraid I'm not that up to speed on your two houses of representatives and what each representative is doing, I can guess Pelosi makes you gag but outside of that I'm fairly clueless, but is Michele Bachmann really preferable to a Blue Dog dem?

---

The easy answer is no, because Blue Dog Democrats are extinct. They were mostly elected to marginal seats, and got voted out in 2010. Even at the ideological level, the DNC has long abandoned centrism and the Bill Clinton wing of the party. It's not a coincidence that the last 2 Democratic candidates for the presidency were ranked as being more left wing than all but a handful of Democratic senators. The way I see it, the country as a whole is becoming more socially liberal, but it's not becoming any more economically/fiscally conservative. The GOP will face strong pressure to move to the center on social issues over the next few election cycles, while the DNC will not become any more moderate economically.

Now If I lived in the South, where the average Republican politician is bat-shit insane, I'd probably feel more compelled to vote Democrat. On the East Coast and to a lesser degree here in Illinois, it's the Republicans who are the moderates (and unfortunately, they keep on losing elections to far left wingers).

Quote:

---

The field isn't clear yet, of course, but it doesn't look like that much introspection has been happening on the national stage. Can't know what's going on behind closed doors, but right now it certainly isn't clear that the Teapers won't be leading the narrative. There's already been the predictable noises about Mittens being too moderate. 2014 will further shape the situation, and if it's a repeat of 2010 the Teapers will seem vindicated, and the GOP will go further down the path of frothing insanity. You're more on the inside than I am, perhaps you have a clearer view of the situation in the field, but from where I'm sitting it doesn't seem at all impossible that the crazy will win.

---

There are an equal amount of Republicans who believe the opposite. We'll see which of the two dominates in 2014. We'll also see where I'm residing in 2014.

Quote:

---

Another issue I've been thinking and reading about, and again please remember that I'm looking at this from the outside and through my crazy socialist lenses, is the relationship between Fox and friends and the party itself. Given how flabbergasted not only the voters but the insiders were at Mittens' loss, it appears that some people have bought their own propaganda. Again, it's possible Rove is a shrewd businessman who punked a bunch of billionaires, but his implosion on Fox could have been genuine. In all seriousness, you've dismissed these ideas before when I've voiced them in a less serious tone, Fox and the associated local talk radio hosts etc. manufacture an alternate reality where a lot of the GOP base lives. Anecdotes aren't evidence, but I've read so many people whose friends and families literally have that message poured onto them for nearly their entire waking life. Radio during the commute, Fox or radio on at the office, Fox on at home until they fall asleep. Does the GOP control the message, or does the message control the GOP? Or at least influence it.

---

Fox, like MSNBC, preaches to the converted. The people who care most about those channels are people who are already fanatics and have no intention of seeing moderation. I can accept that Fox and right-wing radio makes the fringe crazier, but I don't think it has much of an effect on your average Republican.

Quote:

---

You opined elsewhere that Maddow is on the level of Sean and Bill, and of course she is very openly partisan (she might be more justified on Comedy Central?), but MSNBC has talking heads that disagree with a lot of her message. I'm not saying it isn't possible for a libby-lib to create a similar libby-lib alternate reality bubble around them, with the Internet available anyone can find anti-Freep boards, but I think we can both agree that the US "left" is far more divided and incoherent about their message than Fox & Friends?

---

Fox regularly invites left-wingers to its shows. They're usually there to act as strawman, as is the case for right-wingers on MSNBC (with a few exceptions).

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I can't really argument against you on the blue dog issue since, as I said, I'm largely ignorant of the situation on the ground. I guess what I'd like to contest is the idea that it's the fringe that's mostly influenced by Fox & Friends, just like the libbyest of libs go Green or whatever the most fringe potential Pubbie voters are the Paultards and out-right libertarians. But Fox's message hits the Pubbie base hardest, the people you more or less have to get out on election day; my impression was that this is what went 'wrong' in 2010 that the nut-job Pubbie base went out and voted while the libby-libs smoked weed at home and the sensible Pubbie voters were outgunned. Now, all the rapey rape guys lost their races this time around, but they lost to Dems, so

Inside the Dems you could at least try and influence the process (their messaging is more incoherent and the 'left' is divisive and stupid), inside the Pubs you're a voice in the wilderness, destined to be a RINO at best, communist traitor at worst. The rapey rape guys didn't win the general race, but they did enamor the base. This tells us that the base loves rapey rape guys, right? Santorum did okay in some primaries, and conversely Christie got his ass chewed out (no mean feat) after he told Fox to fuck off. As you say, 2014 will tell, but it looks like the crazies control the narrative. *shrug*

Anyway, as I said, it was very interesting to see your honest and fairly in-depth introspection of the Pubsters, and it's appreciated :)

I think Tea Party had a lot of non-committed members who only supported it because of how bad the economy was doing. The situation should improve by 2014, and "crazy" will become less attractive to mainstream voters. Proportionally speaking, the crazy are more likely to vote in primaries, so that will always be a problem. No way to tell whether their influence will remain at the current level in 2014.

Regarding influence: it depends on what level. At the local and state level, there's no problem for moderate Republicans in parts of the country (much of the east coast above southern Virginia and parts of the midwest). At the national level, you're probably right (at least for now). I'm not convinced it's possible to reverse the left-wing move of the DNC at either the local or national level. The Clinton era was a blip on the radar. The party is pro-union, pro-high taxes, pro-economic demagoguery, and anti-free trade. I don't see that changing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Now If I lived in the South, where the average Republican politician is bat-shit insane, I'd probably feel more compelled to vote Democrat. On the East Coast and to a lesser degree here in Illinois, it's the Republicans who are the moderates (and unfortunately, they keep on losing elections to far left wingers).

---

Are the Democrats in the south similarly moderate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I'm not convinced it's possible to reverse the left-wing move of the DNC at either the local or national level. The Clinton era was a blip on the radar. The party is pro-union, pro-high taxes, pro-economic demagoguery, and anti-free trade. I don't see that changing.

---

Fair enough; we have such different ideas of 'sensible' that I don't think I can properly place myself in your shoes. But we tried!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Are the Democrats in the south similarly moderate?

---

Not really (well, they are more "moderate" on social issues, but that's not the kind of moderation I like), but the Republican politicians in the South are nuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

No, ID is not taught in public schools.

Since Kitzmiller v Dover showed ID for the creationism it is, back in 2005.

---

http://theweek.com/article/index/211...c-high-schools

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

There is absolutely zero scientific evidencebehind ID. It is religion and should be left to the chapel, it has no role in a science class.

---

Who makes the determination? Tread carefully because your answer should be consistent with the previous 200 years and a willingness for the answer to be the same in the next 200 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Who makes the determination? Tread carefully because your answer should be consistent with the previous 200 years and a willingness for the answer to be the same in the next 200 years.

---

Scientists who study the matter. What is science and what is not is decided not by the results but by how those results are obtained. Just because scientific theories are constantly adjusted to take into account new knowledge says nothing about the scientific nature of those theories. The problem with ID is that it does not use scientific methods. Ergo, it's not scientific. The question isn't over whether it's correct or wrong.

Describe for me your understanding of "scientific methods" - and I'll see if I come up with any example that doesn't fit but its still regarded as scientific work. Sound fair?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

http://theweek.com/article/index/211...c-high-schools

---

Quote:

---

Why is evolution being taught this way?
The study's authors believe that many high-school teachers do not have a deep enough scientific education to properly teach their subject. "You can take very little science and get a degree and be teaching in high school," says Steven Newton, the Programs and Policy Director at the National Center for Science Education, as quoted by LiveScience. And "the quality of what [students learn] is so dependent on the teacher you get" that it's a crapshoot as to whether students learn what they should." Another factor may be that teachers don't count on support from school administrators, and don't want to wade into a teaching controversy by themselves. Thus, Newton says, "it would be beneficial for there to be more support from the administration, so [teachers] don't feel out there all alone."

How can schools put the focus on science?
Berkman and Plutzer recommend training teachers before they step into a classroom. But Randy Moore, an evolution expert at the University of Minnesota, says the extra training won't help — many teachers will "simply reject" the scientific consensus. In the meantime, says Chris Dawson at ZDNet, we should stop talking about Creationism as an equal argument to evolution. You can "believe what you want," but "teaching Creationism in our public schools not only violates the U.S. Constitution, but infringes on a student's right to learn objective, research-based, state-of-the-art science."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Describe for me your understanding of "scientific methods" - and I'll see if I come up with any example that doesn't fit but its still regarded as scientific work. Sound fair?

---

Here's a simplified version: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_gui...leId-8579.html

Great to know that you think yourself a better judge of the scientific method than people who actually employ that method for a living.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Describe for me your understanding of "scientific methods" - and I'll see if I come up with any example that doesn't fit but its still regarded as scientific work. Sound fair?

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelli...fining_science

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Here's a simplified version: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_gui...leId-8579.html

Great to know that you think yourself a better judge of the scientific method than people who actually employ that method for a living.

---

*
Hypothesis, experimentation, and analysis
Next, a hypothesis is formed, meaning that the scientist proposes a possible solution to the question, realizing that the answer could be incorrect. The scientist tests the hypothesis through experiments that include experimental and control groups. Data from the experiments is collected, recorded, and analyzed.
*

Clarify this for me. Does this mean a hypothesis must be falsifiable in order for it to be a theory? Since the key component is testing something, if impossible to test are you saying its not science?

If something isn't falsifiable, then it's not a hypothesis. Anything that is inherently untestable is by definition not scientific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Since the key component is testing something, if impossible to test are you saying its not science?

---

The test doesn't have to experimental in the traditional sense, although such tests can be more persuasive. The tests are of a hypothesis's ability to explain known observations and to predict future observations.

I technically live in "the South" and Creationism was never taught in my school. To be fair, evolution was barely touched, more of a footnote in biology class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio..._United_States

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

If something isn't falsifiable, then it's not a hypothesis. Anything that is inherently untestable is by definition not scientific.

---

So because we are not able to test the macro evolution of mammals into humans...

We are able to test evolution. It is science.
We're not able to test ID. It is not science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

We are able to test evolution. It is science.
We're not able to test ID. It is not science.

---

We are able to test some evolution.
We are not able to test evolution of mammals to human.

Also some of the theoretical quantum stuff isn't really testable (at least not with current technology). Is it part of science? Sure is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

So because we are not able to test the macro evolution of mammals into humans...

---

Mammals never evolved into humans. Humans are mammals.

Do you dispute the existence of biology or genetics? No matter how much breeding is replicated, its not possible to replicate the birth of someone with your fingerprints: Does that mean genetics doesn't exist? Or you don't?

You exist. We can test genetics, we can test evolution. Humans are just one of many things to evolved, there is nothing in science to say we're a special case that should be viewed any different to the many, many testable species to have evolved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

So because we are not able to test the macro evolution of mammals into humans...

---

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

So because we are not able to test the macro evolution of mammals into humans...

---

Stop reading ID websites. The whole macro thing is a bogeyman. You get lots of micro changes, and at some point, the new organism becomes significantly different from those before it.

What test can we run to confirm this? Its not like we can sit and watch monkeys for a few million years and see if a human pops out eventually.

We can and do watch other organisms do that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

What test can we run to confirm this? Its not like we can sit and watch monkeys for a few million years and see if a human pops out eventually.

---

That's where you're wrong. We can and have done it with other species. The science is the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Also some of the theoretical quantum stuff isn't really testable (at least not with current technology). Is it part of science? Sure is.

---

You're missing the very point you accidentally make. Good theoretical physics makes very specific falsifiable predictions that are testable (through experiment or observation) in principle. Physicists can often even specify the conditions under which their predictions may convincingly be confirmed or falsified.

There are ideas in physics that unfortunately don't make testable predictions (although they are very specific? :o), and those ideas are not regarded as being science in the same sense as the rest of the body of physics is.

For those interested in a wonderful and kinda timeless online summary:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

We can and do watch other organisms do that...

---

But we can't test it for humans. I'd still say it's science though but with your rigid definition it wouldn't be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

But we can't test it for humans. I'd still say it's science though but with your rigid definition it wouldn't be.

---

It would be considering we have a fossil record and also a few possible answers to the question of "why would things be different for humans?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/bu...tincts.html?hp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

What test can we run to confirm this? Its not like we can sit and watch monkeys for a few million years and see if a human pops out eventually.

---

The span of the test doesn't mean its not something we can't watch, record, and learn from. This is why some things are theories. This is why we have the theory of gravity but at the same time Newton's law. Not because certain concepts don't follow the scientific method of understanding, but because we as humans, don't kid ourselves into thinking we have the complete and full picture about all things.

We do run tests for evolution, we've already had a thread where we watched how 44,000 generations of an organism evolved under controlled scenarios. In fact the monkey response was the same response that DBZ middle schooler gave the CC back then. Step up your game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

The span of the test doesn't mean its not something we can't watch, record, and learn from. This is why some things are theories. This is why we have the theory of gravity but at the same time Newton's law. Not because certain concepts don't follow the scientific method of understanding, but because we as humans, don't kid ourselves into thinking we have the complete and full picture about all things.

We do run tests for evolution, we've already had a thread where we watched how 44,000 generations of an organism evolved under controlled scenarios. In fact the monkey response was the same response that DBZ middle schooler gave the CC back then. Step up your game.

---

You can prove organisms can evolve. You can't prove humans evolved that way. Its not falsifiable there is no test to say yes this happened or no it didn't. And yet evolution is considered science, my point is that something does not need to be falsifiable in order to be science. A lot of science is prediction based on other events that are based on observation. The testing component is critical to much of science but don't kid yourself and think it applies to the entire body of work.

You're confusing something being falsifiable with something being directly observable. We might not see humans evolve, but we can hypothesize that for the theory of evolution to work a certain way with humans, it must work a similar way with other organisms. If we found that other organisms did not evolve in a manner prescribed by evolution, that would falsify the hypothesis that humans evolved from other lifeforms. Or do you also have a problem with astronomy?

Loki, didn't you once employ a line of reasoning very similar to Lewk's to try to prove that Humans were alone in the universe?

Yeah, there's no major difference between using data from millions of organisms to say something about one and using data from one entity to say something about millions.

Wow, this spambot just made OG and GGT obsolete. :o