The difference between Liberals and Conservatives

[Albion]

"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." --- Matthew 16:28 NIV

Yes, sure. But that allows for it to happen at any time over the better part of a century. That's not what most of those on your list were saying.

For example:

"All three predicted Jesus would return in the year 500.

793 Apr 6 Beatus of Liébana The Spanish monk prophesied the second coming of Christ and the end of the world on that day to a crowd of people.

800 Sextus Julius Africanus Sextus Julius Africanus revised the date of Doomsday to 800.

799–806 Gregory of Tours Calculated the End occurring between 799 and 806.

848 Thiota Declared that the world would end during that year."

 

[Gracchus]

Yes, sure. But that allows for it to happen at any time over the better part of a century. That's not what most of those on your list were saying.

For example:

"All three predicted Jesus would return in the year 500.

793 Apr 6 Beatus of Liébana The Spanish monk prophesied the second coming of Christ and the end of the world on that day to a crowd of people.

800 Sextus Julius Africanus Sextus Julius Africanus revised the date of Doomsday to 800.

799–806 Gregory of Tours Calculated the End occurring between 799 and 806.

848 Thiota Declared that the world would end during that year."

And it has been the better part of twenty centuries! And all those Christians you cited from the list, were wrong too. I would concede that if Jesus got it wrong, it is not surprising Christians get it wrong, too.

 

[brewmama]

Clearly, you are not an intellectual. I suspected such.

Aw, feel better? Feeling threatened?

The studies cited would seem to indicate that liberals and conservatives are born. However, just as in other primates, aging humans tend to lose the ability to learn. Humans, being neotonous, tend to retain mental adaptability longer than chimps, but conservatives "grow up" before liberals. Older people tend to lose their youthful playfulness and intellectual adaptability. This has been noticed: "Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." --- Matthew 19:14 NIV

Are you trying to make some sort of point here?

And yet you are the one using “intellectual as a pejorative.

That's correct. I use it as did George Orwell.

Bush and Reagan were never cowboys. They played at cowboys, just as they played at being in charge. Reagan, even in the grip of encroaching Alzheimer's remembered his lines better better than W, who had a tendency to ad lib.

And yet the ones frightened of Bush and Reagan were liberals. As I already pointed out.

I did mention that you could turn liberals more conservative, at least temporarily, by frightening them.But then you responded:
"Question:
Who is more terrified of mankind destroying the planet despite lack of any real evidence and continually false predictions?
Who is more afraid of Christians and conservatives than they are actual threats like terrorism?
Who is so afraid of radical Muslims, communists, and any other tyrants in the world that they dare not speak a word against them, and consider those who do to be "cowboys, dangerous, etc. and therefore to be feared also?
Who is terrified of allowing citizens to arm themselves or even to run their own lives without the elites dictating everything? In other words, afraid of freedom?
Answer to all: Liberals"
Hitler had the Jews, Donald Trump has the Mexicans, and you have the “liberals” to hate, fear, and rant against.
I did not, nor did the studies cited, indicate that conservatives are fear based. The reaction from the amygdala, un-moderated by the anterior cingulate cortex, may be either fight, flight, or paralysis. For instance, faced with overwhelming evidence of biological evolution or anthropogenic global warming, conservatives can simply deny and do nothing.
You hate and fear liberals, because they are intellectual and you are, by your own insistence, not.

Amazing how you see hating, fearing and ranting when I did nothing of the kind. I am merely pointing out correctly the numerous things liberals fear, which according to you, should make them conservative.
As I have already said, I neither hate nor fear liberals. Project much?
And there is no solid evidence for CAGW. You are the ones manufacturing it and running scared.

(Well, as Jesus found out, the authorities may object strongly if you go around doing good and saying politically and religiously incorrect things, no matter if they are true.)

Unable to come up with anything again? Is there a point here?

So your belief makes you superior? Got it!

Are you purposely twisting things or just unable to understand them? No, YOU are the one who believes you are superior. Your posts reek of it. I merely said I am not afraid, which negates your whole pet theory.

And yet the fear of reality is the beginning of wisdom. (e.g. Job 28:28, Proverbs 15:33, Proverbs 9:10, Proverbs 1:7, Psalm 111:10, et al.)
Or are you going to argue that your God isn't real? Or perhaps you are going to admit that you are not wise? Not wise is just one small step from not intellectual.

I don't think I'm particularly wise, and I'm quite sure God is real, and yes I do fear God, which is what I assume you meant. But then, anyone who doesn't is a fool. (Psalm 14:1)
And it has nothing to do with political leanings.

 

[Chicken Little]

it is just another liberal load using their so called science to be control freaks their way .

 

[Albion]

And it has been the better part of twenty centuries! And all those Christians you cited from the list, were wrong too. I would concede that if Jesus got it wrong, it is not surprising Christians get it wrong, too.

Of course they got it wrong. Christians overwhelmingly are NOT into "date setting" of that sort. While we all believe there will be a Second Coming of Christ and the end of the age, most Christians scoff at and, in fact, ridicule such narrow predictions.

THAT BEING THE CASE, for anyone to suggest that what those people on that list did is somehow typical of Christianity or built-into the Christian faith itself is very wrong.

 

[The Outlier]

Look it up. Or start with these:
Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults
R Kanai, T Feilden, C Firth, G Rees - Current biology, 2011 - Elsevier

Red brain, blue brain: Evaluative processes differ in Democrats and Republicans
D Schreiber, G Fonzo, AN Simmons, CT Dawes… - 2013 - dx.plos.org

"The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:

A is an authority on a particular topic.
A says something about that topic.
A is probably correct"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Actually, each argument must stand on its own. As Lawrence Krauss remarked, "In science there are no authorities, only experts."

I will look at that and get back to you. I see your definition of appealing to authority, and you did appeal to authority, just below that. You quoted Lawrence Krauss. He may be a smart, well-respected person. That doesn't mean that whatever he said is automatically science. The "peer review" argument is a mix between appealing to authority and the bandwagon argument. Its saying that because a group of people agreed on an idea that it must be right, and that if it was peer reviewed by scientists, that the authority of those scientists made it scientific. Not the way it works. It may be how society works, but its not how science itself works. In other words: any employer in a scientific field wants to hire the right people. He has a stack of 100 resumes, doesn't feel like reading all of them, so he makes criteria to weed out those he "assumes" are unqualified. Degrees help with the research step of the scientific method, so he assumes the degree is the best criteria, although it depends. Work experience helps too. But for all he knows, they got fired from their last job because they were dishonest. Someone with no degree can still apply the scientific method to solve problems.

 

[The Outlier]

It also depends on the level of peer review. If 100 scientists with PHDs read over research you did and say it looks good- that is not very thorough, although I would not go as far as to say its worthless. If 10 scientists with PHDs have already tried exactly the same experiments and then look over your research and approve of it, then that's worth more than the word of the 100 scientists who just read over your research.

 

[Gracchus]

I will look at that and get back to you.

I won't hold my breath.

I see your definition of appealing to authority, ...

I cited the source of the definition. It is a generally accepted definition, and not unique to me.

... and you did appeal to authority, just below that. You quoted Lawrence Krauss. He may be a smart, well-respected person.

What he said was that in science there are no authorities. He isn't an authority. No one has to believe him. He is an expert. Expert opinions are worthy of consideration.

That doesn't mean that whatever he said is automatically science.

Are you trying to be silly?

The "peer review" argument is a mix between appealing to authority and the bandwagon argument. Its saying that because a group of people agreed on an idea that it must be right, and that if it was peer reviewed by scientists, that the authority of those scientists made it scientific. Not the way it works.

You're right. That is not how it works. That is a straw man. No one claims that any scientific claim must be right. It might be right, but that is open to challenge. That is why it is published for everyone to see and criticize. Science is quite competitive.

It may be how society works, but its not how science itself works. In other words: any employer in a scientific field wants to hire the right people. He has a stack of 100 resumes, doesn't feel like reading all of them, so he makes criteria to weed out those he "assumes" are unqualified.

Maybe that is how you would do it. But someone qualified to hire scientists would look at degrees and publications, and see if the degrees theses and publications were in the applicable fields.

Degrees help with the research step of the scientific method, so he assumes the degree is the best criteria, although it depends.

Strangely enough, just having a degree is not the best criteria.

Work experience helps too.

Obviously!

But for all he knows, they got fired from their last job because they were dishonest.

It is unlikely that dishonesty, would pass unnoticed. Politicians, preachers and priests can lie and their peers will say nothing. Scientists are more intolerant. They let it be known.

Someone with no degree can still apply the scientific method to solve problems.

That is so. But without a basic understanding, it is unlikely that an un-degreed individual would have the ability to do work on the edge. And that is more true today than it was a century ago.