Does Conservatism Have to Be Synonymous With Ignorance? - Lawrence Krauss

[pokerfan]

Lawrence Krauss is Director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, author of A Universe from Nothing (Free Press, 2012)

But it is Mr. Santorum whose vehement opposition involves not only emerging reproductive technology but also almost any form of medical intervention in reproduction, positive or negative. It would be tempting to chalk up Mr. Santorum's medieval views to a devout Catholic fundamentalism, but that is unfair to Catholicism. Mr. Santorum instead represents the very epitome of many among the modern breed of conservative Republicans: Ignorant and proud of it.

Mr. Santorum has steadfastly maintained throughout his career an almost perfect record of opposing the well-known evidence of empirical reality. When he was a political footnote this fact was at best amusing. Now that he has managed to win so many primaries, the more general question of why Republicans are so willing to take a giant step backward in the face of modern science to support such ignorance is of more concern.

Santorum has argued that evolution, the basis of modern biology, has no firm basis in fact. He has argued that climate change is a conspiracy among scientists who want to either ensure that government quashes free enterprise, or else who elevate, in his words "the Earth above Man." It is hard to know how to interpret this language in any way but to suggest that we do not need to develop new technologies to deal with emerging global challenges, and that somehow things are 'destined' to turn out OK.

Even these remarkably ignorant statements about the natural world pale when compared to his utterances regarding women's reproductive health, however. In 2005 he demonstrated confusion regarding the stages of human fetal development, describing the 50-ish cell microscopic blastocysts from which embryonic stem cells can be extracted for therapeutic purposes as a "person."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-m-krauss/santorum-science_b_1346111.html?ref=politics

[LisaL]

1. Ignorant and proud of it.

I'd say it describes Santorum pretty well.

[pokerfan]

2. a couple of recent frothy mixes...

I stood up and said the science is bogus... The danger of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant – how dangerous carbon dioxide is! -Santorum

Rick Santorum Tells Puerto Ricans To Speak English If They Want Statehood

[LisaL]

7. This sounds like something from the onion.

The mind is boggled.

[opihimoimoi]

3. "...ignorant and proud of it...."" how simple the thought level...never able to see beyond his nose

[Sinistrous]

4. If not ignorance, then mendacity.

[grasswire]

5. well, the man has a fancy education

So the ignorance is either feigned or he has lost his mind somehow.

[LisaL]

8. The fancy education must have gone into one ear and left right out the other.

[longship]

6. Krause gets it

Not only is he a brilliant physicist, he's an eloquent advocate for peace, justice, and (dare I say), the American way.

R&

[338 lapua]

9. propaganda

There was a time when leading scientists of the day thought the world was flat, and in their view the science was settled, until it wasn't.
Science changes all the time, new things are discovered and old beliefs are proven false.

Whenever I hear a Glittering Generality like "Does Conservatism Have to Be Synonymous With Ignorance?" I take a look at the person speaking it to see what his motives might be, or where their bias lies. In this case I found that the author served on Obama's 2008 presidential campaign science policy committee.

As a scientist he would do well to stick to his area of expertise, in his case theoretical physics, and leave the politics to the politicians.

[uppityperson]

10. What do you mean? Does evolution have a firm basis in fact? Is Global Climate Change real or a

conspiracy? Is a 50-ish cell microscopic blastocysts from which embryonic stem cells can be extracted for therapeutic purposes a "person?"

Do you agree or disagree with Santorum's stance on these or do you agree that science has changed, evolved, to show him ignorant? Do you want such an ignorant person as president?

[Morning Dew]

14. Who do you think would be a good pick for President?

I think Santorum is pretty conservative. I am voting for Obama.

The Republican field is pretty horrible - I can't imagine voting for any of them.

[pokerfan]

11. What leading scientists thought the world was flat?

Please be specific and also bear in mind that the ancient Greeks not only determined the world to be wrong, they measured it within an error of 1%.

[zipplewrath]

16. My question too

I love this bits of lore. What most people don't understand about science is they get things "wrong" but they rarely, if ever, get things "backwards".

We know the speed of light, and the gravitational constant more ACCURATELY today, but does that mean that the original values were "wrong"?

Newton derived that F=MA (actually F - dMV/dt) was he wrong? Not really. Einstein added understanding to the expression, but really Newton wasn't all that far off. Electrons do orbit the nucleus, just not in clear orbital levels that were original taught (and often still are in "intro" or highschool classes).

Science rarely says "up" when the answer is "down", at least not for long. It might say "up faster" but you won't find "science" getting things really "wrong" in the "flat versus round" sense.

[pokerfan]

24. Our RW friend seems to have lost his voice

Last edited Thu Mar 15, 2012, 03:19 PM - Edit history (1)

or I would have steered him towards this 2500 word essay by Isaac Asimov titled [link:chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm|The Relativity of Wrong] originally published in the Skeptical Enquirer in 1989:

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.

However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so.

[missourilib]

26. Spam deleted by Ian David (MIR Team)

[uppityperson]

27. No. You are not. eom

[Bandit]

15. Your post pretty much proves the point, imo

[sendero]

17. Sure.

.. one of the more idiotic posts I've ever read here.

"Leading scientists" thought the earth was flat? No, the CHURCH did. There were very few scientists, and there was certainly no such thing as a peer reviewed journal.

Convervatism is synonymous with ignorance, and the back water states prove it over and over. They don't like Romney because he doesn't drool enough, so they pick an utter moron, Perry, then a sociopathic narcissist, Newt, then the great black hope Cain, and now Santorum whose brand of utter cluelessness is hard to categorize. Medievel comes pretty close.

Obama would have been EASY PICKINGS with a limping economy and all, but the Republicans are BOUND AND DETERMINED to hand him 4 more years because they are idiots.

Or maybe they really don't the presidency and this is all strategy, or maybe they plan to install Jeb at the last minute. I don't know and don't really care. It really doesn't matter that much who is president, it's clear that the presidency is just a puppets and no president can solve the problems we are now faced with anyway.

[Johonny]

20. you are correct 150 years ago Darwin planned on Obama being president

an created the myth of evolution. DAMN YOU CHARLES DARWIN!!!!!

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. Conservatism as such doesn't have to be synonymous with ignorance.

But in the US, the label "conservative" has been adopted by radical extremist reactionaries. The general shift to the right of the American political spectrum has left the US with a centre-right party (the Democrats) and a far-right party (the Republicans).

[libtodeath]

18. It is not only synonymous but required

No one with half a brain and the ability to think rationally would ever be a conservative.
You have to be able to stare facts and logic in the face and not grasp them.
Get people to throw away fear,greed and ignorance and progressives will be in power for as long as the eye can see.

[Brettongarcia]

19. Logically, there IS something in the concept "conservative," that logically implies stupidity

To be conservative, means to hold to, to conserve ... only things already wellknown, from the past. So that? The conservative is usually a person who 1) is not really capable of or interested in looking at new and better things; 2) who tends to understand and believe, only things overheard a thousand times.

In my opinion therefore? Conservatism is therefore, literally, the natural philosophy of ... stupid people. People who only understand things said over and over. Who cannot understand any new ideas.

[hifiguy]

22. I am more willing to accept Andrew Sullivan's definition

which is, more or less, that a true conservative believes in preserving that which still comports with the ongoing and inevitable changes that take place in a dynamic and evolving society. A "real" conservative realizes that change and adaptation is necessary.

But the Repuke party of the last 30 years has not been "conservative," it has been radically reactionary.

Mind you, I am VERY left, but a responsible and thoughtful party of the right is not a bad thing in a pluralistic democracy. Not that we've had a thoughtful and responsible party of the right since the radicals seized control of the Rs back in the Carter days.

[hifiguy]

21. No it doesn't, but today's Repukes are not conservatives.

They are radical reactionaries and religious fanatics. Neither of those things is synonomous or coextensive with conservatism. The last traditionally conservative presidents this country has had were Gerald Ford and Dwight Eisenhower. Nixon was a special and unclassifiable case in a category all his own.

[whistler162]

23. Jeez.. another Ann Coulter wanna be!

[Uncle Joe]

25. It doesn't have to be, but with the current state of affairs in U.S. politics, it is.

Thanks for the thread, pokerfan.