How can The Left Call Conservatives Anti-Science When they Are So Violently Anti-Math?

Flopping Aces ^ | 01-31-16 | Brother Bob

[Starman417]

"Proof is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages. It's not for science." - Mann

Washington Posts's Steven Mufson and Joby Warrick gave a glowing account of President Obama's warnings on Climate Change:

"The growing threat of climate change could define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other," Obama said in a speech at the Le Bourget conference center in Paris's industrial outskirts. "What should give us hope that this is a turning point, that this is the moment we finally determined we would save our planet."

Obama, who has staked his legacy on the fight against climate change, struck an ominous tone in describing the ravages of a warming planet, declaring that "no nation large or small, wealthy or poor, is immune." He urged the leaders to take action even if the benefits were not evident for generations.

I find it interesting that leftists pride themselves on being pragmatic and pro-science when they so viciously reject mathematics at every turn. Why is this so? Before I go on to my main point I need to first address the 500 pound gorilla counter argument that lefties will race to respond with: evolution.

Evolution is one place where I have to concede that the lefties have some of us. I cringe every time I hear arguments for creationism, as these arguments ignore too much evidence to go against scientifically provable timelines. The more current version that we hear along this argument is for Intelligent Design (ID). In a nutshell, ID argues that (H/T to David H. for the source):

Michael Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, claims that over the past decades, biochemical discoveries at the nano-scale have thrown Darwin's theory of evolution into an unresolved crisis. It simply cannot account for the molecular complexity of life. Recent advances in science have in fact discovered evidence of intelligent design, though sociological and philosophical factors have caused this discovery to be repressed.

Personally, I don't agree with teaching this in a science class either, for the same reasons I'll be explaining why Global warming shouldn't be. While Behe brings up an interesting point that isn't as simplistic as Creationism as ID's detractors would suggest, getting into motive doesn't belong in a science classroom. I do think that this could be a good topic in a philosophy class, where ID could be presented alongside creationism and straight up random evolution. Speculating motive goes beyond the bounds of science class, which should stick to just provable facts.

That said, I do not believe that faith and science are incompatible. When the ID argument first got some national traction during the George W. Bush presidency my lefty DC pals were trying to dig at me on this issue one night when we were out for a few beers. My response was simple - the last biology class that I took was taught by a 70-something Catholic nun when I was a freshman in high school. When the subject of evolution came up she opened the lesson by stating something to the effect of, "The Bible says that the world was created in seven days, but it doesn't state how long those days were." And she proceeded to teach evolutionary theory that even the most rabid left wing atheist would have approved of.

Now with that out of the way let's get to the heart of this post. If there is one ironclad guaranteed way to annoy a leftist it's to ask them to quantify any kind of argument they're making. My favorite one to pester them with is on the cult of Global Warming, Climate Change, or whatever it will be called next month. I admit I'm being a bit disrespectful in referring to Climate Change as a religious cult, but frankly I've lost patience with an ideology that so casually labels me a "climate denier" when they can't even detail what it is I'm supposedly denying. Help me out here, but is it really radical or extreme that before declaring a crisis that you at least establish what the norm or steady state is, how much is change is acceptable, and how is it being measured?

A few years ago I wrote a post showing how we could balance the budget today with no tricks, gimmicks or BS. I used a few relatively simple spreadsheets to bridge the budget gap using a system where everybody pays regardless of income level, and the tax rate is savagely progressive enough to please even the Sandernistas. One of my lefty pals on Facebook took exception with my assertions and I asked for his plan of how we balance the budget. I even told him I wasn't looking for something as granular as what I did, but something showing where my math was wrong or if he could show a plan that was in the ballpark of a balanced budget, and he just retorted that he didn't need math. Really.

In another case, I posted the recent numbers showing that despite being years into Obamacare, America still has over 32 million Americans without health insurance. Another lefty pal tried snarking at me that we got 14 million people health insurance (which I would point out was mostly from expanding Medicaid), so how could this be a failure? I responded by asking him why 46 million uninsured was a crisis that demanded hasty, poorly thought legislation but 32 million was a success. For that matter, what made 46 million the crisis number? Had we started out with 60 million uninsured and reduced the number to 46 would you be calling it a success? Or if we had started out with 32 million would you have called it a crisis and deemed 18 million a success? While we're at it - on any scale I've ever looked at when your goal is 46 and you score a 12 that's a failure by any measure - what makes this different? As you may have guessed, he went silent after that.

But months before this last guy I got into it with two more leftists, the argument over success of Obamacare. This led to two more questions from me, the first involved trying to get one guy to explain how he determined that "the curve is bending downward." When he kept regurgitating White House talking points I asked him to what data or study he used to quantify that claim his response was:

"There are figures (Bob), I have seen things; suggest you Google them. I speak in generalities only to point you in the right direction. I'm not doing hours of research to try to convince someone who is motivated only by hatred if the president"

The second guy responded to my question of how many enrollments in Obamacare were needed to considered a success. The response I got was:

"A large number of people who previously didn't now have insurance. That was the goal. That was the success. Period. Full stop."

Basically the two responses were "I'm right - go google it", and "It doesn't matter. The law is awesome because I say it is". Not coincidentally, this was the point where I realized both of these guys were completely full of dung and stopped taking anything they said on the subject seriously.

A couple of Facebook food fight anecdotes hardly equate research, but they illustrate the general problem with the left's war on math.Washington Examiner's Mark Tapscott explains that Feds lack the data to determine how well key Obamacare provisions are working:

[Uncle Miltie]

[Baynative]

Isn’t math considered a science?

[Boogieman]

“I cringe every time I hear arguments for creationism, as these arguments ignore too much evidence to go against scientifically provable timelines.”

Opens with a (correct) quote that science isn’t about proof, then goes on to talk nonsense about things being “scientifically provable”.

[nascarnation]

Lefty’s are EXTREMELY good at election math.
At least in years divisible by 4.

[Truthsearcher]

Because they lie about everything.

[BitWielder1]

It's not the question or the answer or any of the facts in between, it's how you can make people feel about it to make it politically useful.
That's how Science works for the Left.

[Slyfox]

"A large number of people who previously didn't now have insurance. That was the goal. That was the success. Period. Full stop."

Success? The truth is a large number of people who had health insurance were pulled off their plans.

Fifteen million people we were told had no health insurance and that was the given reason for pulling why millions of others were knocked off their plans.

Somehow after the Obamascare implementation insurance companies are rethinking their involvement because they are losing a lot of money and ay least one is trying to figure out how to disengage themselves from ACA.

So, after all the calamity dust settles, there still are 5 million people who don't have health insurance.

All that money and pain for 15 million people who had the ability to walk into any emergency room and get care when they absolutely needed it.

Give me a fleeping break.

[baltimorepoet]

Liberals hate math.

Bjorn Lomborg’s critique of global warming and environmental issues, “The Skeptical Environmentalist” was largely based in statistics, and he was quite viciously attacked.

It reminded me of the persecutions of Galileo and later of Ignaz Semmelweis.

[getitright]

indeed;

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.”

So how long were days 1 through 3? How could there be vegetation on day 3 when no sun till day 4?

[Boogieman]

No, math is the “language of science”, but not a science itself.

[longfellow]

Simple answer, cause they are retarded.

[Baynative]

Thanks, I think I understand. Somewhere I heard that science was debatable and conclusions were flexible. I didn’t think that sounded right. But, with math there is no debate, right?

[Daveinyork]

Liberal claim to believe in evolution, but object to letting it work.

[onedoug]

The ordinal structure of existence is one of the greatest arguments for God.

[mjp]

I find it interesting that leftists pride themselves on being pragmatic and pro-science when they so viciously reject mathematics at every turn.

Discovering causal connections between an object's nature and its actions is the way to produce inductive generalizations that can be considered objective knowledge. Mathematics is the language for expressing causal connections in the world.

[justa-hairyape]

Leftist hate and ignore science when it does not support their political views. Just like math. They are political creatures that should be living in trees eating bananas. It is easy to understand their point of view by just adopting the mindset you had when you were about 17 years old.

[ifinnegan]

The perception that conservatives are anti-science and liberals/left are pro-science is one of the most amazing slight of hands the propagandist dominant media culture has ever pulled off.

It’s absurd on the face of it. Liberals and the left have been Malthusian with regard to new technologies and advances with their anti-industry, anti-capitalist and superstitious beliefs.

[American in Israel]

The same way there be sun on day one when there was only darkness before? That is why it is called creation.

[sparklite2]

“Liberal claim to believe in evolution, but object to letting it work.”

I believe in non sequiturs but don’t have time to refute them all.