Does this post contain dimethylpolysiloxane?
I’m not afraid of the food. I’m afraid of its EULA.
Too late, I’m already foaming at the mouth.
No, nor does it contain polydimethysiloxane. (The “poly” meaning many applies to the molecule dimethylsiloxane; dimethylpolysiloxane would have 2 methyl groups on a polysiloxane backbone, which doesn’t work.)
This is the molecular structure, note the two methyls on every siloxane
I wonder how much those gaps would tighten if you removed Fox News viewers.
Probably not much overall. The left tends to disregard biomedical science and energy policy science, while the right disregards climate and evolution science. While the left likes to get a chuckle out of the rights inabliity to grasp basic science like climate change, the same is not true for vaccinations. If you look at the states with the highest vaccination rates, they are mostly republican leaning states.
Ignorance seems to be the only thing willing to cross party lines.
On most of the items listed here I suspect the gaps would actually widen if you removed Fox News viewers.
Like @PeterKK says, although the Fox News crowd likes to deny climate and evolutionary science, I suspect their views align with scientists much more closely than the Left’s views on things like GMO and pesticide safety, animal research, nuclear power, etc.
Or if you polled members of the Union of Concerned Scientists vs the AAAS. In particular, I’m guessing that results for the questions about energy use might be different.
maybe, maybe not…
Speaking as a scientist, I see no reason I should treat another scientist’s opinions as a matter of “belief”.
Well, there are certainly issues with polling the AAAS, as basically AAAS is simply the set of people who subscribe to Science, a major cross-disciplinary journal. It’s true that not everybody who subscribes to Science is necessarily a professional scientist. But probably a high percentage are, as scientific journals wouldn’t be exactly light reading for the majority of the populace. But the Union of Concerned Scientists (despite the name) is just a political group requiring no more qualifications to join than similar groups like Greenpeace.
So, in essence: “We’re not really listening to what you scientists are saying or even really sure of how this “science” works, but as long as we’re beating the other countries at sciencing, we’re really proud of you!”
We are number one in science and stupidity! SUCK IT REST OF THE WORLD!
Sort of a “We’re number one with smart folks and Jesus!”
And guns. Don’t forget guns.
How is it possible that 2% of scientists would disagree that humans have evolved over time? This rubbishes the whole study for me.
well that 2% wasn’t given any room to elaborate on their position, so the reason they disagree with it could be based of off a technicality.
I wonder how many people who say they love scientists really mean engineers.