Good news is that studies, experiments, and data usually nullify personal bias. The catch, however, is there is a group of you special snow flakes who choose to ignore it anyway.Its confirmation bias, a human cognitive error. Its a human thing, not just conservative. Its a thing.
Daniel
Good news is that studies, experiments, and data usually nullify personal bias. The catch, however, is there is a group of you special snow flakes who choose to ignore it anyway.
You bring up a good point. You see, the difference between science and personal beliefs is science has the luxury of being able to change based on new evidence and ideas. Science has solved a lot of things. Let me know when religious thought creates a new vaccine or tries to cure cancer.Yup! Good old science! Hardly completely trustworthy? Today's theories become yesterdays old news.
Let me know when religious thought creates a new vaccine or tries to cure cancer.
You bring up a good point. You see, the difference between science and personal beliefs is science has the luxury of being able to change based on new evidence and ideas. Science has solved a lot of things. Let me know when religious thought creates a new vaccine or tries to cure cancer.
Correct, however one gets it's knowledge from documents aged thousands of years while another gathers it's knowledge from current experiments, theories, and exchanges."Thought" exists in the minds of both religious and non-religious persons.
Correct, however one gets it's knowledge from documents aged thousands of years while another gathers it's knowledge from current experiments, theories, and exchanges.
You bring up a good point. You see, the difference between science and personal beliefs is science has the luxury of being able to change based on new evidence and ideas. Science has solved a lot of things. Let me know when religious thought creates a new vaccine or tries to cure cancer.
I wouldn't say we are exempt, but many of the camps leading the charge against current scientific theory (climate change, vaccinations, etc) are based in conservative ideologies.Do you honestly believe this wild caricature to be accurate?
I believe Father Georges Lemaitre would like a word with you about that. He was the father of the big bang theory. It was not the church that opposed that idea, rather it was atheist scientists like Fred Hoyle (a brilliant scientist himself), who thought it was a little too close to the religious idea of creatio ex nihilo, so he prefered the view of the universe as eternal. Just goes to show, rejecting ideas that goes against our biases are not a religious phenomenon, it is a human one.
That is like discrediting the arts for not providing information about automobile maintenance or improving cell phone technology. That would only be a fault in religious thought if the aim of religious knowledge and study was the development of vaccines.
And opposing vaccination os certainly not exclusively a conservative phenomenon. That form of idiocy is found all along the political spectrum. You are engaging in dangerous self-deception when you think that your group or you yourself are exempt from human biases and irrationalities.
Good news is that studies, experiments, and data usually nullify personal bias. The catch, however, is there is a group of you special snow flakes who choose to ignore it anyway.
I wouldn't say we are exempt, but many of the camps leading the charge against current scientific theory (climate change, vaccinations, etc) are based in conservative ideologies.
:chuckle:
Thanks to my favorite troublemaker, Hank Campbell, the "who is more anti-vaccine" debate has sprung up again. In 2012, we co-authored a book, Science Left Behind, in which we argued that the anti-vaccine movement began with the political Left, but spread to religious conservatives and libertarians. However, because the most visible public spokespeople for the anti-vaccine movement (e.g., Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Bill Maher, and Jenny McCarthy) are mostly on the political Left, we continue to believe that the Left should bear most of the blame. However, some writers argue that the anti-vaccine movement is truly a bipartisan phenomenon.
New CDC data helps shed some more light on the issue. The CDC has compiled an updated list which depicts vaccine exemption rates in each U.S. state. (See map.)...
....As shown above, 11 states have 4% or more of the kindergarten population exempted from vaccines. (Generally speaking, the number of religious/philosophical exemptions dwarfed the number of medical exemptions.) The worst 11 states are listed below, from most exemptions to least, in addition to their Obama-Romney 2012 presidential vote margin (as a quick-and-dirty proxy for how liberal or conservative the state is):
Oregon (7.1%); Obama +12
Idaho (6.4%); Romney +32
Vermont (6.2%); Obama +36
Michigan (5.9%); Obama +9
Maine (5.5%); Obama +15
Alaska (5.3%); Romney +14
Arizona (4.9%); Romney +9
Wisconsin (4.9%); Obama +7
Washington (4.7%); Obama +15
Colorado (4.6%); Obama +5
Utah (4.4%); Romney +48
....Which states are the most pro-vaccine (i.e., the states with exemption rates below 1%)?
Mississippi (<0.1%); Romney +11
West Virginia (0.2%); Romney +26
Virginia (0.6%); Obama +4
Alabama (0.7%); Romney +23
Delaware (0.8%); Obama +19
Louisiana (0.8%); Romney +17
New York (0.8%); Obama +28
Kentucky (0.9%); Romney +22
....The award for the most anti-vaccine state in the country goes to Oregon. This is not a surprise; the citizens of Portland are also afraid of fluoride. Thus, 4 of the 5 most anti-vaccine states are solid blue. (If Illinois is included, 5 of the 6 most anti-vaccine states are solid blue.) Including Illinois, 8 of the 12 most anti-vaccine states voted for Obama....
...The bottom line is that the CDC data makes it very difficult to argue that conservatives and liberals share equal blame in the anti-vaccine war. Anti-vaxxers are clearly more associated with the political Left.
A very abstract, slanted conclusion but I will let you have it.Are Liberals or Conservatives More Anti-Vaccine?
:chuckle: Too bad you lefist didnt use google to find out the facts before your op.
Fair point.Ignorance isn't limited by political boundaries.
While some anti-science conservatives have been known to deny the facts of climate change, Jon Stewart had another target in mind on a recent show: the generally liberal, upper-middle-class, highly educated parents who make bogus claims about vaccines being dangerous — and put lives at risk by doing so.
Last week on the Daily Show, correspondent Samantha Bee spoke with Dr. Paul Offit, the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, who explained that we're seeing a resurgence of diseases like measles, mumps, and rubella in coastal progressive enclaves like California, Oregon, and New York. In places like this, thousands of parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children, against all scientific evidence.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-samantha-bee-vaccination-2014-6#ixzz3h7RvRQmd
This is why I was SO CONFUSED by the OP: It is liberals, and always liberals , who have been on the vaccines-cause-autism bandwagon.Are Liberals or Conservatives More Anti-Vaccine?
:chuckle: Too bad you lefist didnt use google to find out the facts before your op.
This is why I was SO CONFUSED by the OP: It is liberals, and always liberals , who have been on the vaccines-cause-autism bandwagon.
A very abstract, slanted conclusion but I will let you have it.