When it comes to politics, I've found that most people have a simple, circumspect viewpoint. Whenever I try to understand their underlying logic, I only have to drill down so far to realize that their belief is driven by someone else's conclusions they've pawned off as their own. But they take it as a given & can get really angry when challenged.
Anyhow, that is probably the best indication of how a weak foundation in math & science is afflicting our society today. There is no rigor in analysis nor is there any visible evidence of hypothesis testing. Hypothesis testing doesn't necessarily have to be formal, however, one can suspect they have a notion of how something works out and find out more about it to see if that really is so. By doing so, you complete a few iterations in understanding your underlying assumptions. And you no longer have a shallow understanding of the problem.
Why is that important? Well for one, if you're going to get so emotionally invested in a perspective, then you should spend some time understanding why you feel that way. Otherwise, you're just getting angry for no good reason. We also need to elevate our level of understanding because the complexity of our problems today is increasing.
Another result of my findings is that there is a tendancy to use a modified form of DesCartes's "I think therefore I am" as "I think therefore it is" & that is the end of the analysis. This should be the beginning of the analysis as this is essentially the hypothesis. Or more pointedly, this is a prematurely drawn conclusion.
Lost in all of this is the fact that we have an oversimplified explanation for a more complex problem. If we can't shake off this apple is red associative logic then we cannot possibly solve the problems of tomorrow. Kids use fast mapping where for example, they associate the color of an object such as the apple is red to learn things. We need to be more mature in our analysis and move beyond simply associating things. For example, saying that government deficit spending is like consumer over-spending isn't necesarily true. It is an over simplification of how it would affect the economy and one should spend some time in understanding it before drawing conclusions.
One can argue that we have a moral responsibility to understand the conclusions we're drawing because they carry the motivation of our actions. Keep in mind that in Ephesians 6:12 in the Bible, it tells us that: we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Stop spewing hate & racial slurs. Learn more about math & science and sit down with Excel and build a model first before you start drawing conclusions. At the end of the day, the fighting men & women of our armed forces want to fight for a noble cause. They don't have a choice in the battle they fight -- our Political Leaders make that choice. But in other arenas we have a choice. And there is nothing more ignoble than fighting for a cause you don't understand.
Spewing hate doesn't impress me! Pick up a gun and go defend our country! That'll impress the heck out of me!!!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!