# We Should Have Known....



## birdy (Jun 20, 2009)

http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/06/14/political-engineers/


----------



## George Harris (Jun 30, 2009)

Taking just one quote: "According to polling data, engineering professors in the US are seven times as likely to be right-wing and religious as other academics, and similar biases apply to students."

No surprise, as seeing through phoney logic and irrational possibilities is a professional necessity, so either one, whether what is usually labeled a "right wing" political persspective, or being religious, at least if in a rational belief set, would be far more lilkely in an engineer, and I would think also most serious scientists.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 1, 2009)

That's a rather politically charged statement from someone who just advised leaving politics out of another discussion just this week. Liberalism now equals "phony logic" and "irrational possibilities"? That's so patently offensive I don't even know where to begin. While we're casting needless stones based completely on fantasy, I suppose the irony in connecting "being religious" and "rational belief set" appropriately highlights the massive and rampant hypocrisy characterized by the right since faith and rational thought live on opposite ends of the spectrum.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 1, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> That's a rather politically charged statement from someone who just advised leaving politics out of another discussion just this week. Liberalism now equals "phony logic" and "irrational possibilities"? That's so patently offensive I don't even know where to begin. While we're casting needless stones based completely on fantasy, I suppose the irony in connecting "being religious" and "rational belief set" appropriately highlights the massive and rampant hypocrisy characterized by the right since faith and rational thought live on opposite ends of the spectrum.


 HEAR!HEAR!Science and Logical thought are Natural partners!Whatever gets you through the night is

allright but ever since the right adopted the absurb notion of junk science in the name of religion has

anyone noticed that their zealot cantidates have been rejected by the people who are smarter than the

average "ditto head" or "black helicopter" conspiracy maven thinks they are!?? :lol:


----------



## jis (Jul 1, 2009)

IMHO the article pointed to by the OP is rife with confusion of categories, so one can read whatever catches ones fancy in it. IMHO the word "liberal" and "left" do not necessarily belong in the same category, nor for that matter does "religious" and "right". Since when is Stalin liberal, but he certainly was way left by at least some definition of left.

However, I don't think all this has anything to do with Amtrak or railroads either. So this will be my last post on this thread.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 1, 2009)

Jis, without being political (I'll try, atleast.) I kind of agree with your sentiment. Being left or right is one measurement. Being conservative or liberal is another- although I'd grant that there is probably a notable correlation, with some causality, between the two. Being religious or non-religious likewise- I think that people who are "religious" in the classic understood sense of the word- probably what people erroneously mean when they use the term- are more likely to be conservative due to their tendencies to view their world with much influence from books that are millenia old.

Granted, I disagree with using the term religious that way. I am pretty deeply religious in my beliefs of god, heaven, and earth- I have very strong beliefs that I try my damnedest to adhere to and hold myself accountable to. I do not, however, believe in many - perhaps most - of the things the so-called "religious right" believe in. Being religious, in my mind, means having a firm set of beliefs in how the universe works and - if including a higher authority - what that higher authority wants of you- and sticking to them. Some people who adhere to the general brand of religion I believe in would say I'm not religious because I don't believe in many of their interpretations, but I contest that.

We spend far too much time in this country creating labels for people, groups, or beliefs, in general categories. And then we apply our feelings as to people wearing that label strictly on those generalities. We use those labels to try and lower or raise public opinion of those "groups" as if they are some homogenous mass of identical siblings.

Not to mention that different groups chose different labels. Its all in the marketing. I remember once upon a time, two luxury car makers had different labels for communication from the road, engine, and suspension- Cadillac called it 'noise, vibration, and harshness', while BMW called it 'driver feedback'.

What do you call thinking based upon logically-derived (I've read the old testament, the new testament, and even the Quran) beliefs, logical processing of the information before you, and a tad of good old fashioned human emotion? I'm not liberal. I'm not conservative. I'm not right. I'm not left. I am religious, but not the way people use the label. I fall to the conservative, liberal, right, left, religious, and 'pagan?' side of various issues, depending on the issue. I can't help it, I don't try for one side or the other. Some issues are of no interest to me, and I can't be assed to waste mental energy forming an opinion of them.

People ask my opinion, and don't believe me when I say I have none. "But you have to have an opinion!" Ironic, since many of these people who say this seem to be the one with the nicely pre-packaged opinion handed to them by whatever group of blabbermouths they listen to. Can you really consider holding the opinion of FoxNews (Or MSNBC, or CNN, or CBS, or whatever) having an opinion? It takes diligent effort to collect the needed information to form an opinion. I'm not spending time researching something I don't give two **** about to form an opinion of it.

What does that make me? Sane? If I am sane, is the rest of the world bleedin' nuts?

Not that any of this is really on topic.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 2, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> That's a rather politically charged statement from someone who just advised leaving politics out of another discussion just this week. Liberalism now equals "phony logic" and "irrational possibilities"?


You are the one that said that. Not me.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 2, 2009)

Your statement that "seeing through phoney (sic) logic and irrational possibilities is a professional necessity" as an explanation for engineers and scientists being more "right wing" certainly implied that the converse was true.


----------

