Columns

Common sense will prevail in fight against science

Historically, it seems that Republican presidential candidates have always been at odds with science. And while the practice hasn’t contributed to their demise or benefit, it has separated them from the thousands of citizens who ask for little more than the consideration of common sense. It’s only natural that doubts have surfaced on issues like the heating of the Earth, proper pregnancy management and the politically correct method of marriage arrangement. But the most puzzling rejection of these candidates is the near-unanimous rejection of the theory of evolution.

In a nation that prides itself on constant advancement, the rejection of science isn’t a healthy practice. And if we are going to make any progress as a unified body, we will need to evaluate issues from all angles. Many of these candidates have made no attempts to temper their views, and some have refused to even look at the issues at all.

Discussion is the birthplace of realization, and the GOP presidential candidates have shown an apprehension for its location. Among the children of today, our society will find its future trendsetters and policymakers. The GOP candidates are setting a bad example for these future leaders.

The lack of an absolute isn’t a pass for ignorance: It’s only through our acknowledgement of uncertain variables that progress can be made. Innovation doesn’t occur without stress from every angle of observation. And with the upheaval of theories and suggestions projected by the professionals of contested fields, society closes the loop on one query after another. Ideally, these endpoints aren’t concrete, with room to negotiate for improvements in some areas and modifications in others.

Regardless of the facts discovered, it seems like there will always be doubt from one side. But before the illumination of any sort of truth, a party’s first obligation is to their constituents. It’s a relationship that exists even in the face of an absolute truth, and in some cases, one that is only solidified because of it. Despite the lack of a concrete doctrine determining the ways of the world, hints have been littered in our landscape, and intensive labor in research has yielded even more. Your opinion is your opinion, but common sense will exist nonetheless.

3 Comments

  • Right out of the gate, your slanderous and uninformed position stumbles:

    >>>Historically, it seems that Republican presidential candidates have always been at odds with science

    Yes, like that whacko William Jennings Bryan of Scopes Monkey Trial Fame, who is the only person to have run for President three times. Republicans like him.

    Wait, that's not right.

  • Generalizations will have at least one exception to the rule. This is the nature of generalizing something about humans as we tend to be a species of great variance. It is my understanding that the author was intending to point out the disconnect between absolutism and considering the viewpoints of those supposedly representing the civilian population. I could be wrong, but that was my take on it. Either way, it is clear that our reps do what they need to get elected (and not a single elected official is exempt from this) only to follow what those who line their pockets really think should happen. The system is unsustainable.

    • >Generalizations will have at least one exception to the rule.

      I think most people would "generally" agree that Republicans are in favor of more defense spending; Democrats are in favor of less. What most people don't realize is that approximately 75% of all research spending by the government comes from the Department of Defense. When Democrats move money from defense to social programs, noble as they may be, they are effectively reducing the share of government dollars spent on 'science.' Before you say it, your computer and the internet it is connected to both began as defense research programs. I'll not brook any "but defense kills and studies of environmental impact of a new wind farm is entirely wholesome" arguments.

      Further, let us examine the actions of Republican presidents and Democratic Presidents. George W. Bush – doubled the funding the NIH over his presidency. Bill Clinton cancelled the Superconducting Supercollider, a one-of-a-kind (that has yet to be replaced and won't be until 2025 at the earliest) experiment that set the pace of world knowledge back 20 years. George W. Bush proposed a new initiative for space exploration, which included landing on and *establishing a permanent presence* the moon. Barack Obama cancelled that program and replaced it with yet another LEO program, this time by giving taxpayer dollars to a private company in California (headed by a huge campaign contributor).

      Finally, let us also examine the *types* or research pursued. Democrats are more likely to support research into social programs like education, and sociology – because these are the programs that are ignored by private industry. They are more likely to support 'clean energy' technologies like solar energy. They are more likely to support technologies which improve the status quo by reducing environmental impact. Republicans are more likely to pursue 'hard' energy technologies, medical technology, and 'boundary' technology which gives the United States "I did it first!" nationalist pride (like the SSC, a Republican initiative).

      The problem with the research Democrats support is that it often ignores the technical realities of the situation in pursuit of some moral ideal: take solar energy. Democrats will tout the massive advances made in the efficiency of panels in the last 30 years. What they will not tell you is that this efficiency represents a *conversion* factor, not some kind of raw thermodynamic excellence as other power sources are held to. Using solar energy is like picking corn one kernel at a time: light is an inherently diffuse energy source; the effort required to gather enough of it to make a meaningful amount of energy is enormous. And yet Democrats pursue this entirely impractical source of energy because it fits their vision for humanity.

      So no, I really won't brook insults like this. Just like shutting down NASA centers located in Republican states doesn't indicate that Democrats hate science, Republicans in debates whining about research spending doesn't indicate the GOP is.

      The generalization fails, miserably. Anyone acquainted with the facts of the matter can see that.

Leave a Comment