This has always been obvious

[jimntx]

Click here for article

 

[delldude]

Click here for article

There's study for liberal's too.

Got a link to the actual study?

Already a thread Jimmy

 

[jimntx]

Further proof...

I'm appalled.

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
~~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[delldude]

Further proof...

I'm appalled.

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
~~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Me too.......

 

[delldude]

Further proof...

I'm appalled.

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
~~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[Ms Tree]

I am not so certain between the link with conservatism but the ignorance link is surely obvious. Look at the reasoning behind racism. Lower brain volume. Lower reasoning skilled, coordination.... etc. All trotted out with out any scientific basis. Look at the reasons for sexism (a lot of religious bias involved in that one was well) and homophobia (religious bias as well as scientific ignorance). 'Just say no' is also scientifically unsound. Evolution. I do not see to many universities trying to support the idea that man and dinosaurs walked together or that the earth is 6,000 yrs old.

OK, reading what I just wrote it does seem to support the idea that conservatives tend to be behind this nonsense.

 

[Ms Tree]

I am a bit short on time so I cannot look it up. Has the O'Neil article been verified? I find it hard to believe that a state official would be so stupid as to send something like that out. If so, it reflects quite poorly on the good people from KS.

 

[SparrowHawk]

It's most assuredly non sense. These types of so called "Studies" have been around for centuries.

From the ones that purported that blacks were genetically inferior to whites, Dr Mengele's "Experiments" and that Criminals could be determined in advance do to the size of their head.

The above is one reason that People of Faith worldwide don't have all that much faith in science because of the way it can be manipulated to support a political agenda. Classic example today is the Global Warming rhetoric trying to be passed off as Science. In that example, what we KNOW is the Climate IS changing. The why and remedy is open to debate.

So I'm filing this study right next to the latest pontification by Carbon Footprint Al Gore's latest missive under "E" for Excrement.

 

[delldude]

I am not so certain between the link with conservatism but the ignorance link is surely obvious. Look at the reasoning behind racism. Lower brain volume. Lower reasoning skilled, coordination.... etc. All trotted out with out any scientific basis. Look at the reasons for sexism (a lot of religious bias involved in that one was well) and homophobia (religious bias as well as scientific ignorance). 'Just say no' is also scientifically unsound. Evolution. I do not see to many universities trying to support the idea that man and dinosaurs walked together or that the earth is 6,000 yrs old.

OK, reading what I just wrote it does seem to support the idea that conservatives tend to be behind this nonsense.

Watch yourself, you're crossing a two lane street.

 

[jimntx]

Ah, yes. The old tried and true approach. If the facts do not fit my theory, they must be discarded.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Ah, yes. The old tried and true approach. If the facts do not fit my theory, they must be discarded.

I haven't posited a theory! I mentioned that these types of studies have been around for centuries and MOST if not all have been refuted. IMO these type of studies are Universal Bullsh*t pure and simple, no matter whose view they support or skewer.

Since I'm a Libertarian, I'm not really part of the study. I believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence and the concepts of Natural Law that it is based upon. I've no time for the junk science foisted upon us by a modern day scientific version of the McKenzie Brothers.

 

[xUT]

Click here for article

It's not a 'study' (unless you include book reports), it's an 'opinion'.
Not verifiable other than a few 'believers'...

If I am incorrect, then give us a link to 'the study'.

B) xUT

 

[xUT]

Ah, yes. The old tried and true approach. If the facts do not fit my theory, they must be discarded.

What are the 'facts' Jim?
I like facts, empirical data, N'chit, but I don't see anything here but some cheer leaders grasping a straws.
Posting opinion pieces 'as fact' that are unvalidated is pretty unprofessional.

B) xUT

 

[tech2101]

What are the 'facts' Jim?
I like facts, empirical data, N'chit, but I don't see anything here but some cheer leaders grasping a straws.
Posting opinion pieces 'as fact' that are unvalidated is pretty unprofessional.

B) xUT

As much as I would like to agree with this, I also need a peer reviewed research study. I have not seen that here.

 

[xUT]

As much as I would like to agree with this, I also need a peer reviewed research study. I have not seen that here.

I would like to see the study.
Not a bunch of 'like minded theorists'.
Truth by 'popular' (political) agreement does not make it true.
We have enough of these 'facts' now where a grope of like minded people determine what is true or not.
But that is a problem with psychological/social/political 'sciences' as they are dynamic and not a 'hard science'.

Not saying these 'sciences' don't have their value, as (IIRC) 'The Wolf' had a BA in sociology, how did that work out for anyone but him?

B) xUT