[Bud]

Not ridiculous at all, although very predictable that this would be downvoted and controversial.

I didn't say "only" Tea Party folks or fundies, so I'd appreciate not being misquoted. I also didn't say anything about "understanding" the scientific method. I think a lot of those folks understand it quite well; they just choose to cynically lie about it for political reasons, which is the crucial difference here.

You bringing up Muslims or welfare moms says all we need to know about your particular attitudes. It's really not my fault if you have a problem acknowledging the factual reality here. The facts are, the Tea Party is actively hostile to science, the scientific method, and scientific conclusions in general. This isn't my opinion, it's not controversial, and it involves no tricky judgment calls. It's a fact.

[learc83]

This wasn't an argument on whether a Tea Party backed political party would be detrimental to science in general. Your assertion was that we should control for Tea Party members in a particular scientific study.

If what you say is true --That a certain subset of the population, that you find undesirable, will negatively impact the results of the study --Then, I will point out another subset of the population who, given you're apparent political leanings you won't find undesirable, that will impact the study in the same way.

I did this so that hopefully you would see the problem with arbitrarily deciding to exclude a group of people who you disagree with from consideration.

Btw I'm certainly not a conservative. I would also ask you to read my response to the comment below.

[lotharbot]

I wouldn't use the term "controversial" to describe your post. Instead, I'd say you made a pointless, unnecessary, partisan attempt to drag emotional baggage into the thread. You've been on Hacker News for over a year; you should know better than to engage in such douchebaggery.