]]>
When it comes to conservatives & science however I've known something for many a long year; radio-carbon dating, as an example, is a great and wonderful thing when it confirms the age of artifacts that tie in with the need to sustain the biblical tales of old & new Testaments but when tied to events more than 12,000 years in the making, it's obviously absurd and no where close to accurate. I've seen similar logic afoot since my early teens; how scientific proofs and/or formula used to sustain the conservative (especially religious element therein) view on things is valid and indisputable. Yet, when that same science disproves or challenges such perspectives, it's suddenly demonic and deceptive -- man striving to place himself above god.
The conservative mind is easily confounded when faced with analytical fact, especially when tied directly to historic happenstance be it the brain dead ideologies of the Bush Jr presidency or discoveries in Egypt when it comes to the famed Angel of Death that finally broke the will of Pharaoh to let the Hebrew people go (which, in itself, is a questionable happening). Seems that the first son of Pharaoh (Ramses) actually had his head bashed with further investigation leading Egyptologists to believe he drown -- so was their a delayed effect where the dark angel is concerned and said lad actually died in pursuit of the escaping "slaves" . . . when the waters of the parted sea came rushing back in on the enemies of Israel . . . or are the archaeological & anthropological facts disproving the biblical claim?
Damned science! It's always confusing the facts with truth. . . or reasonable doubt at least.
Sure, I "challenge" some of the extremism within certain analytical positions. At the same time, I tend to agree with science far more than not; especially when it comes to proving that persons standing on the extreme edges of position are cracked, be it republican (conservative) or progressive (liberals). No extreme is healthy for anyone and more so, for any nation; history let alone science, has proven this fact for thousands of years.
Statistics: Posted by Craig Browning — 03 Jun 2012, 22:12
]]>
And a teaser.
May 29, 2012 |
Two months have passed since my new book, The Republican Brain, was published, and so far it has gotten a lot of media attention. However, the coverage has followed a noteworthy pattern: while progressives and liberals seem intrigued about what I’m saying, the so-called “mainstream” media—the CNNs of the world—have shied away from the subject.
What’s up with this? Well, a book with conclusions closely related to mine—Norman Ornstein’s and Thomas Mann’s It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism—seems as though it is being handled similarly by some in the press. And perhaps there’s a reason: Centrist (aka “mainstream”) journalists might well prefer that the findings of these books not be true.
You see, if I’m wrong, then the press can happily go on doing what it has always done: Splitting the difference between the political left and the political right, and employing “on the one hand, on the other hand” treatments that presume we’re all equally biased, all equally self-interested...just in different directions.
The trouble is, I’ve presented a substantial body of scientific evidence suggesting that this simply isn’t the case. More specifically, the science I’ve presented suggests that the political right and left are quite different animals; that they perceive the world differently and handle evidence differently; and most importantly, that the polarization and the denial of science in modern American politics are fundamentally the fault of the authoritarian right. (Mann and Ornstein argue something very similar about today’s Republican Party.)
In other words, if my book is right, we have to discard much that we thought we knew about politics. If the science of political ideology is right, then the ground shifts beneath us.
It is very natural, then, that a lot of people—centrist journalists perhaps most of all--don’t want to accept what I’m saying. The problem is, where is the scientific counterargument to what I’m saying?
By Chris Mooney
Statistics: Posted by Twain Shakespeare — 03 Jun 2012, 10:06
]]>