Some thoughts about the “moderate” Jon Huntsman:
Nearly everything “liberal” about Huntsman is symbolic. His campaign’s iconic moment was an unprovoked Twitter comment in which he wrote: “To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”
While politically loaded, this statement is nearly substanceless. A president’s “Belie[f] in evolution” has not had any bearing on public policy in a good while. And scientifically, the statement doesn’t mean much — “believing in” something is more the business of faith than science.
And “trust[ing] scientists on global warming,” taken literally isn’t actually agreement with Al Gore’s fevered warnings of 20-foot sea-level rises or endorsement of Democrats’ big-government energy proposals.
Science involves detail, nuance, and acknowledgment of uncertainty. Bluster about “believing in science” is just a self-congratulatory liberal trope meant to denigrate conservative rubes from the red states clinging bitterly to their guns and religion.
It’s identity politics, and Huntsman is identifying as a liberal or a moderate. That MSNBC hosts and liberal writers fall for this trick is telling, but just as telling is how much conservatives also buy into it.
It comes back to the mistaken concept of many that “science” is knowledge, rather than a process by which we achieve it. It is my own belief in science that creates my skepticism about AGW, because the process is intrinsically flawed, and the leading practitioners of “climate science” have betrayed it.
[Update a few minutes later]
I often joke about firing up the SUVs to stave off the next glacial advance, but now there’s a paper that says greenhouse gases will do exactly that. Of course, they still think that global warming is worse than a mile-thick sheet of ice. Have to stick with the narrative.
Huntsman’s Tweet is illuminating: he’s affirming his loyalty to a couple of liberal shibboleths. Now it’s not actually true that conservatives all deny evolution, but liberals believe absolutely that they do, so by Tweeting that Huntsman is basically declaring that he’s not a conservative.
Trouble is, he’s running as a Republican. You know, the conservative party. Which means either he’s lying to Republicans or he’s lying to liberals and moderates about who he is and what he believes.
A conservative who understands Darwinian evolution wouldn’t need to affirm any “belief” in it. He could, for example, just shut his damned trap rather than gratuitously insult people he depends on to get elected.
I agree with pretty much what you say except:
“he’s running as a Republican. You know, the conservative party.”
What makes you say the Republicans are the Conservative party?
Likely because the other party is the clearly non-Conservative party. The GOP is the loose coalition of random odds and sods who have no place in the First Orthodox Church of Political Correctness. That doesn’t mean that Conservatives will always rule the coalition, of course.
As I recall, eleven years ago, Bellesiles was Established Fact.
Background here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bellesiles
Note that all the Huntsmans at the time were “distancing” themselves from the NRA–an organization now much more popular than either political party (and a substantial portion of those disapproving think it isn’t pro-2A enough).
Also, I suspect most MSNBC fans would describe the theory of natural selection like this:
“Survival of the fittest, baby!!!! That means Sarah Palin had NO RIGHT not to abort that fucking retard! You rednecks have NO RIGHT to breed and create more babies who will JUDGE ME just because I have never worked and because I got the taxpayers to pay for my twenty-four abortions.”
Leftists are evil, treasonous, orgy-hopping, welfare-sopping subhuman trash.
What’s wrong with orgy-hopping?
😉
Nothing, if you’ve earned it. Democrats didn’t serve in the military and don’t work at productive jobs. Not only shouldn’t they be able to have extramarital sex, they shouldn’t be allowed to be married in the first place. Especially not while there are millions of veterans who are alone, unmarried, and unhappy.
Note to women: if you’re spreading your legs for a leftist, at least get rid of the hypocritical “Support our troops” bumper sticker.
I sometimes differentiate between a belief in the benefits of the scientific process and “sciencism”, a strange religion where scientists replace priests and cardinals and whose pronouncements are infallible and unquestionable.
I’m sympathetic to your point On the other hand, “sciencism’s” miracles are really quite impressive — diseases cured, voices and pictures are sent through the air, people fly to the moon, and on and on and on. No other religion produces anything nearly as impressive or useful.
Here’s the synthesis of your point and my point: Sciencism’s followers are right to be wowed by science’s concrete rewards even while, ironically, missing out on the biggest benefit science has to offer.
Shorter me: http://xkcd.com/54/
Bob-1, I’m curious as to how you would define how science “works”. How does it work? What is it working -for-? Does it really function the way you think it does, or are you defending a nonexistent ideal? Can science ever “not work”?
What about science’s not-so-pleasent outcomes, such as eugenics, bloodletting, phlogiston, geocentrism? These were popular theories and practices of science and held to be true for a time – how do these false “truths” fit into the “science works” thesis? I think you may be cherry picking the data in favour of “science”.
I do think science and the testing of hypotheses have produced a great amount of good in the world – but I also agree with George in that “science” has escalated into a full-blown religion/philosophy. And it’s not good for science to be in this position, as I think it is causing the scientific method itself to be undermined in an effort to hold on to the power and authority bestowed by religious/philosophic status.