[Strategerist]

But this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Scientists see water fluoridation, which particularly benefits the poor, as a major public health triumph. But not progressive activists in Portland, Oregon, who fought to prevent the fluoridation of their city’s water supply.

The Jon Birch Society thought fluoridation was a fiendish Commie plot.

Go far enough to the Left and Right and you end up in the same looney-tunes science-hating place.

[cripplecreek]

They’re doing a great deal of damage on both sides.

They’re causing conservatives to simply discount good science and causing liberals to have “faith” in junk science.

[Gene Eric]

>> Mooney’s book [explains] why Republicans are “smart idiots” and reality deniers. Herbert found Mooney’s book “convincing,”

This registered Republican would like to know 1) how these tools scored on their SATs, 2) their college grades in physics and mathematics, and 3) their IQs.

[rottndog]

It is certainly true that some conservatives embrace anti-scientific beliefs, most notably on evolution and climate change.

Dr. Alex B. Berezow is the editor of RealClearScience and co-author of Science Left Behind. He holds a Ph.D. in microbiology.


Dr. Berezow needs to brush up on his 'Climate Science' before casting aspersions on the many quite learned scientists who dispute AGW/Globull Warming/Man Made Climate Change.

[varmintman]

It is certainly true that some conservatives embrace anti-scientific beliefs, most notably on evolution and climate change.

Evolution and "climate change(TM)" are both ideological doctrines masquerading as science theories and people defending them are basically charlatans.

[exDemMom]

It is certainly true that some conservatives embrace anti-scientific beliefs, most notably on evolution and climate change. But some progressives also adhere to a set of dangerous anti-scientific beliefs.

When you go far enough in either direction, the anti-science beliefs tend to converge. On the right, anti-science takes the form of believing that God said a word and everything sprang into existence, with plants and animals popping fully formed out of dirt or water. On the left, anti-science takes the form of believing that aliens came to an existing earth and made all living things. On some issues, beliefs on the left and right are indistinguishable (for example, the anti-vaccination movement).

There is clearly a desperate need to bring up the level of scientific literacy in this country. Teaching people how to think critically and logically would help a lot, too.

[bmwcyle]

Facts, they don’t need no stinking facts.

[tbw2]

Another example: “Guns, Germs and Steel”. Short premise is: why did civilization develop in some areas but not others, accelerate in certain areas but not others and a few reach great heights? Civilization required high calorie domesticable grains, which many areas lacked. Agriculture provided the way to support a population, but draft animals provided labor. The Maya and Inca were held back by having no large draft animals, only the llama and dogs.
Then for civilization to truly advance, you need cultural interchange. Why reinvent the wheel if you can learn about it from your neighbors? China and India exchanged ideas with the Middle East. North Africa, the Romans and the Middle East exchanged ideas. This is why China, India and the Mediterranean reached the heights of civilization while MesoAmerica was one to two millennia behind - a lack of cultural interchange.
Sound theory, reasonable premises.

Now skip to the same author’s book. Stone age children rearing is superior to modern child raising, except for the child abuse, child mortality and lack of hygiene. No scientific studies to back his claims, only lots of anecdotes. “They seem happier,” though many children have burns on their fingers as a testament to parents letting them learn through painful experience to stay away from fire. Nor does he mention that many girls are raped while boys “naturally figure out sex”.