You're not progressive if you don't accept science

[mudesi]

No, this is not a litmus test. It's a fundamental tenet of what it means to be a liberal and a progressive.

It doesn't really matter what the subject matter at hand happens to be. Whether it be UFOs or religious superstition or holistic medicine or astrology.

If science has discredited a long held belief, a progressive will change her mind and accept science.

If science illuminates the reality and mechanisms of a particular phenomenon, a progressive will adjust his previously held misconceptions and accept science.

[bonito]

1. Truth changes, beliefs don't.

I can dig it.

[Cronus Protagonist]

4. Beliefs change too

Once the truth butts up against them. For instance, I believe you're a nice person, but if you slap my kid, I'll very quickly change my belief.

[bonito]

5. True that n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

2. You're not open minded ,if tangibility is the only litmus test for every Phenomenon

I scoff at nothing, except closed cases.I also depend and believe in science.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. What you said

[TZ]

9. do you mean measurability?

Or perceptibility? There are plenty of things that can be measured but not perceived (we cannot perceive electrons with our senses, but we can "measure" them with photon detectors)
Tangibility in my book means perception by human senses. There are plenty of things that scientific methods can use to make the intangible measurable, IF there is something indeed to measure.

[orpupilofnature57]

12. Do you have faith Carbonization?

If there is something to measure ,and it cant be felt or Explained, Does it exist, And what are the reasons why it does or doesn't?

[blondeatlast]

39. Very well said. Thank you. nt

[Beelzebud]

40. Being open minded is great; just don't be so open minded that your brains fall out.

[orpupilofnature57]

60. True ,Discernment is a real plus. Eventually we have to judge in order..

to make intelligent ,safe ,beneficial Decisions.

[aikoaiko]

6. necessary, but not sufficient

[eridani]

7. According to the most progressive canons of basic logic--

"unidentified" always means "we don't know what it was."

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

8. Try on: you are progressive if you explore all possibilities and REJECT,...

,...EITHER/OR OPs.

Try it on, lynyrd_skynyrd.

I've noticed how you tend to do either/or,...A LOT.

Progressives AVOID either/or.

[TZ]

11. I wouldn't say that

There have been PLENTY of people who say they are progressives who have expressed either/or sentiments to me--as either I believe what they believe in OR I am closed minded.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

13. AH! Progressives say TORTURE is UNLAWFUL and BAD.

You are correct. Progressives do have limits and will call those who oppress others as "oppressors".

You got me.

Even progressives have limits. YUP!!!

[TZ]

19. nice

you have just validated the classic tactic that I get a lot- they don't like my point so in response is a comparison to the non-progressives. Love people's presumption (that I MUST be not a true liberal if I say something "unpopular"). Shows progressives are people like any others and do behave no differently.
I wonder if the few on the RW sites that disagree with the group think get called liberals?

[orpupilofnature57]

20. Thats irrefutable Proof of a Re-smug-ulan!!

[orpupilofnature57]

15. Ultimatums in logic are Dangerous to open minds.

[mudesi]

36. This is fundamental

It's the conservatives who stubbornly refuse to accept scientific facts. I don't see this as an either/or, I see it as a definition.

What is "progressive" about believing Earth is 6000 years old, for example? Science has proved that Earth is much older, and anyone who calls himself a progressive should be capable of changing his long held beliefs and accepting such a fact.

That logic extends to many other issues besides the false evangelical beliefs. Homosexuality being "unnatural" is another one.

But I don't care what the issue is. If science has disproved a long standing belief, I don't know how anyone who stubbornly remains ignorant of the facts can call himself a progressive.

[orpupilofnature57]

37. You lump all Christians as Fundies ,I'm not Ignorant or a homaphobe.

[hfojvt]

43. Science has proven that? Really?

As far as I know, science cannot prove that the earth is more than one week old. Or more than one hour old. It is only "proven" if you first accept certain postulates about the nature of reality. Postulates which must be assumed. They cannot be proven.

I think it's better to avoid some arguments. If I knock on a door or make a call, it is to convince person X to vote for my candidate. Whether they believe the earth is 6,000 years old or that Joshua fit the battle of Jericho or that Nostradamus predicted that the Patriots will win this weekend or that Fran Tarkenton was the greatest quarterback of all time, and many other ridiculous beliefs, are all beside the point. In fact, if I start arguing with them about it, they will probably become less likely to support my candidate.

[mudesi]

57. You are joking, right?

As far as I know, science cannot prove that the earth is more than one week old. Or more than one hour old.

It's hard to gauge humor or sarcasm on the Internet.

[DemGa]

10. Well that's it then, case closed....nt

[sendero]

14. How about..

.... you define progressive as you wish, and I'll define it as I wish.

Because science, like all human endeavors, is neither omniscient or without biases.

[Odin2005]

24. It's still better and more objective then anything else.

Science is the least imperfect and least biased method of getting acquiring knowledge.

[The Straight Story]

16. total whacked out bullshit (nt)

[Riktor]

17. What I don't Accept...

... is a few people seeking to authoritatively inject their opinions into the definition of "liberal" and "progressive".

The progressive movement is defined by a desire to reform, and by extension, improve the quality of life for the sweeping majority of this country's citizens. One can desire this level of change without ardently believing in science. I think William Jennings Bryan, a chief figure in the formative years of the American progressive movement, serves as a decent gear in the cogs of your argument.

Bryan was an anti-imperialist, a pacifist, a populist, and an enemy of corporate America. He also happened to vehemently oppose Darwinism. Nevertheless, his opposition to Darwinism was most likely due, at least in part, to his fear of Social Darwinism. Nevertheless, the progressive movement owes much to his example.

[WillyT]

18. I've Always Found It Ironic...

That many who decry science, still take their kids and themselves to a doctor when sick or injured.

Yet many of those same folks poo poo, the idea of anything avantgarde or new age in dealing with health matters.

"How dare you waste your time on such new age pseudo science, when there is perfectly good science (that I don't believe in) right there at the doctor's office!"

:shrug:

[orpupilofnature57]

21. K&R!!!!

[mondo joe]

22. I'm impressed with the people who diss creationism and gay-conversion therapy,

but are happy to believe any woo woo claim about ghosts or aliens or ESP.

[WillyT]

25. People Are Entitled To Their Opinions, But Not To Their Facts !!!

And the fact is, Creationism is a load of 6000 year old doo doo.

Except that if I showed the carbon dating results to prove that, many would deny the science.

:evilgrin:

[Odin2005]

23. The New Age and Postmodernist enemies of Science are no progressives IMO.

They are just as much guilty as the Creationists in the assault on Reason.

Science is not a "dogma," it is a method. It is Reason it it's most pure form. Only Science can give humanity knowledge that is free from cognitive bias, delusion and wishful thinking.

[mitchum]

47. Agreed; Wendy Kaminer's "Sleeping With Extraterrestrials" rightly skewers...

both the snake handlers and the crystal fondlers for their assault on reason

[WindRavenX]

55. added to my to read list thanks

NT

[TAZller]

63. No, the opposite is true.

NOT even science can give us knowledge that is free from cognitive bias, delusion and wishful thinking.... For science evolves and is performed, misunderstood, and perverted by humanity which is rife with each of those failings (consider genetic engineering for example).

It is knowledge that is the Grail.... Science in spite of all failings is the best way to get there.

[IndianaJones]

26. what a load of crap. These posts make me proud that I don't fit these idiotic labels. nt.

[John Kerry VonErich]

27. Sounds like "You're either with us or against us" idea again

Lets not use the same tactics neo-cons use.

[Duppers]

29. well...you can be a dem, but not a 'progressive dem'

if you don't respect science.


Objectivity. Some folks aren't capable of it.

[Terran]

42. WTH...

does "respect science" mean exactly? You can't belive in god? You can't consider the possibilitty that there are things in the universe not explained by "science" as we know it? What utter crap.

[Duppers]

58. your opinion

there's a reason that 90%+ of Ph.D. physicists are atheists.

[mudesi]

59. Actually, I never said that in the OP

What I said was when science disproves a long held belief, a progressive will accept that his/her long held belief was wrong.

[mondo joe]

30. You mean like when DUers say Hillary Clinton is a Republican?

[Duppers]

28. Absolutely!

By my standards and definition.

:headbang:

[Swede]

31. Someone should give you a nice big hat and an armband.

You must have seen the polls the last couple of days,you just eliminated 70% of your fellow DUers.

[NorthernSpy]

32. No. My ethics are the fixed star.

The findings of science may inform my opinions, but cannot overrule my core values.

[rucky]

33. All those ultra-conservative herbalists out there agree.

:eyes:

[slowry]

34. Nazi

is a word I put in the subject line, to make you think I was going to flame you, or say something clever in lieu of flaming.

This post will do neither of those things. This post is pointless.

[Basileus Basileon]

35. True. Thank you. There's no substitute for fact. nt

[EstimatedProphet]

38. Speaking as a scientist, science has its own limitations

[DemExpat]

41. All of the progressive "New Agers" I know love and seek scientific inquiry

and progress in that field of knowledge. They just are most sceptical of SOME who practice science, SOME of the agendas (money and economics) behind it, and oppose ALL who want to ram SOME scientifically produced "products" down everybody's throats and prevent them from using others.

Along with the fact that personal experience will trump any other kind of evidence presented, scientific or other, progressives can, and will, if they so choose, embrace varied evidence, not just science.

DemEx

[sandnsea]

44. instant karma's gonna getchu n/t

[KittyWampus]

45. You're not progressive if you don't accept there are two basic philosophies of science

both are equally valid. Both have flaws and strengths.

That some DU'ers would dispute that is really pathetic.

[conscious evolution]

46. I consider myself to be a progressive

who believes in science and the Vedic scriptures and teachings.
There are so called mumdo-jumbo superstitions that science cant prove at the present time due to the fact that scientist just have not learned how to prove them.Or disprove for that matter.Their knowledge and tools of their trade have not advanced enough yet.

Could Gallileo have proven the existance of black holes with the tools and knowledge of his time?

I doubt it.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

48. I totally agree

but maybe would have worded this Op a little differently.

Whatever you do.. do not be rational around here... You have caused some people to get all bothered by the notion that if science proves something, making it a FACT then, by definition a progressive will, by default accept the new fact. (that is exactly what the term progressive means.) Science has not proven anything regarding a God. It never will. To come full circle on the God issue and realize that God is a creation of humans seems to be out of most peoples fundamental grasp. I accepted several years ago that God is a myth. I did this after many years of trying to find who or what God is. I realized that faith in a God is totally irrational. This makes people who have faith in a god very uncomfortable and they want to challenge my non-belief... They want me to prove that there is no god. This is the same thing as asking me to prove that numerology is a crock of shit. People who have faith in random numbers being somehow magical wanting me to prove that their illogical faith is foolish has no basis in science.

Good luck on this one.

You make perfect sense to me.

All lynard_sknyrd did was define a word, progressive. That is the meaning.

Main Entry:
1pro·gres·sive
Pronunciation:
\pr?-?gre-siv\
Function:
adjective
Date:
circa 1612
1 a: of, relating to, or characterized by progress b: making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c: of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression2: of, relating to, or characterized by progression3: moving forward or onward : advancing

[EstimatedProphet]

53. Faith in God is totally irrational, but that doesn't disprove God

God can be a creation of humans and still exist. Science doesn't disprove God at all - the question isn't addressed by science.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

61. I believe that is what I was trying to say.

Maybe I didn't do a great job but that is what i said.

[EstimatedProphet]

65. Ah. I agree with you then.

[bridgit]

49. that's odd, many, even here at DU, consider Jesus among the ultimate liberal/progressives...

yet he seemed to have cared little for science per se, assuming of course he ever existed :shrug:

[QueenOfCalifornia]

50. I don't know

if anyone believes that "Jesus" was a "progressive."

If anything he was a liberal.

The OP said nothing about liberals. Nor did he combine the terms.

[bridgit]

51. "It's a fundamental tenet of what it means to be a liberal and a progressive."

[mudesi]

62. Since Jesus was most probably a very gifted magician...

...I think science might have been more important for him than meets the eye.

[bridgit]

68. a "very gifted magician"? The Amazing Randi could knock that one out of the park...

you don't need to be a scientist to have the faith of a mustard seed O8)

[mondo joe]

52. I wish more people would apply the same sort of standards of proof to their beliefs that they would

expect to see applied to pharmaceutical testing.

[WindRavenX]

54. I don't see it as a Progressive V Conservative issue

Instead, I see it as a Reason V Unreason issue. Both progressives and conservatives have plenty of unreasonable people who, for whatever reason, be it religious or other, reject the principles of reason and empirical science.

There are plenty of "reasonable" conservatives, but they often are the ones that are not religious in nature.

The right has the religious nuts, the left has the new age nuts. Same shit, different label. Both are not scientific, and both are not based on reason.

[spoony]

56. What? Do you still have a bug up your arse about the UFO threads?

Welcome to November. Move on.

Or, alternately, go start a website and you won't have to put up with all those people who are so obstinate they won't just accept that you're right about everything.

[okasha]

64. Weel, now, Grasshoppah,

Dorothy Day and the Berrigan brothers and Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernethy and John Walker and others too numerous to mention were liberals and progressives long before you were ever whelped. And they'll be remembered as progressives and liberals long after you're forgotten.

[Guaranteed]

66. Just like conservatives- they aren't conservative unless they accept Jesus into their heart.

Right?

I think what you're saying has profound implications and is incredibly dangerous.

[treestar]

67. Why try to disqualify people as progressive?

Make it an exclusive club? Why do that?

If people are progressive yet believe in UFOs, why be exclusionary towards them?

What good does it to to create a purified, but minority and therefore unable to affect the world, group?

It help your ego to belong to this exclusive group, but said group is useless.