“The moniker was a reaction to the Bush administration’s open embrace of Creationism, and its climate change denialism.”
I don’t recall Bush be explicitly Christian, it wasn’t a theocracy, but I do recall Democrats being exceptionally bigoted toward Christians, just as they are now. Disagreements over global warming were there but the “party of science” thing was heavily based on stem cell research and using aborted humans for scientific research.
Democrats shift into science as a form of religion began with global warming alarmism but not during the Bush years. It was already that way in the 90’s and you can trace the roots back to the Jim Jones and Charles Manson era of the Democrat party.
It certainly is great more people are recognizing what took place forty years ago. Not being sarcastic. It is a positive development.
“Yes, “faith in science” is an oxymoron.”
It’s worse than that. It’s a hydroxychloromoron.
It doesn’t get any worse than that…
Bush was labeled a scion of the Religious Right, despite being a United Methodist — which church these days is embracing woke-ism.
Being a Republican from Texas means your mislabelers never have to say they’re sorry.
“The scientific establishment, like the political establishment, is a human institution. It’s not an impartial supercomputer, or a transcendent consciousness. It’s a bunch of people subject to the same incentives and disincentives the rest of us are subject to: economic self-interest, careerism, pride and vanity, the thirst for power, fame and influence, embarrassment at admitting mistakes, intellectual laziness, inertia, and ad-hoc ethical rationalization, as well as altruism, moral purpose, and heroic inspiration.”
My wife and I are visiting nieces and nephews in Tennessee. They’re very young compared to us, and some have very young families – children 6 months of age to no more than 4 years. A couple don’t have children, and may not. But the young adults all came from nothing, and are achieving success in life – great success, in my view – by hard work motivated by “incentives and disincentives” which contain only two intersections with the list above: economic self interest, and pride – but only in what they have actually accomplished by their own effort. There isn’t another thing in that list that they “share with the rest of us.” The motivations they do have, uniformly, are an intense enjoyment of life (and of everything they do to live their lives), the knowledge that they can achieve a good life through their own efforts, a basic sense of decency, and respect for other people – until other people become unrespectable. You won’t find “enjoyment of life” in the list of any Progressive writer, or even most “conservative” writers.
Careerism, the thirst for power, fame and influence, inertia, unwillingness to admit mistakes, etc, are all awful human motivations which are not shared by any of these people. You won’t find “enjoyment of life” in the list of motivations of any Progressive writer, or even most “conservative” writers.
Our nieces, nephews, their spouses and families are the best people I know, and reflect, I believe, most of America. Just not the educated (indoctrinated) ones, such as even the semi-rational author of this article.
“The moniker was a reaction to the Bush administration’s open embrace of Creationism, and its climate change denialism.”
I don’t recall Bush be explicitly Christian, it wasn’t a theocracy, but I do recall Democrats being exceptionally bigoted toward Christians, just as they are now. Disagreements over global warming were there but the “party of science” thing was heavily based on stem cell research and using aborted humans for scientific research.
Democrats shift into science as a form of religion began with global warming alarmism but not during the Bush years. It was already that way in the 90’s and you can trace the roots back to the Jim Jones and Charles Manson era of the Democrat party.
It certainly is great more people are recognizing what took place forty years ago. Not being sarcastic. It is a positive development.
“Yes, “faith in science” is an oxymoron.”
It’s worse than that. It’s a hydroxychloromoron.
It doesn’t get any worse than that…
Bush was labeled a scion of the Religious Right, despite being a United Methodist — which church these days is embracing woke-ism.
Being a Republican from Texas means your mislabelers never have to say they’re sorry.
“The scientific establishment, like the political establishment, is a human institution. It’s not an impartial supercomputer, or a transcendent consciousness. It’s a bunch of people subject to the same incentives and disincentives the rest of us are subject to: economic self-interest, careerism, pride and vanity, the thirst for power, fame and influence, embarrassment at admitting mistakes, intellectual laziness, inertia, and ad-hoc ethical rationalization, as well as altruism, moral purpose, and heroic inspiration.”
My wife and I are visiting nieces and nephews in Tennessee. They’re very young compared to us, and some have very young families – children 6 months of age to no more than 4 years. A couple don’t have children, and may not. But the young adults all came from nothing, and are achieving success in life – great success, in my view – by hard work motivated by “incentives and disincentives” which contain only two intersections with the list above: economic self interest, and pride – but only in what they have actually accomplished by their own effort. There isn’t another thing in that list that they “share with the rest of us.” The motivations they do have, uniformly, are an intense enjoyment of life (and of everything they do to live their lives), the knowledge that they can achieve a good life through their own efforts, a basic sense of decency, and respect for other people – until other people become unrespectable. You won’t find “enjoyment of life” in the list of any Progressive writer, or even most “conservative” writers.
Careerism, the thirst for power, fame and influence, inertia, unwillingness to admit mistakes, etc, are all awful human motivations which are not shared by any of these people. You won’t find “enjoyment of life” in the list of motivations of any Progressive writer, or even most “conservative” writers.
Our nieces, nephews, their spouses and families are the best people I know, and reflect, I believe, most of America. Just not the educated (indoctrinated) ones, such as even the semi-rational author of this article.