All science, for instance, points to that the BMI is an outdated and, frankly, retarded scale.
And yet government still awards money and determines health, as do insurance companies, based on an individuals BMI.
That's not because of lack of power ascribed to scientists, that's because these groups save money and time that way. This is such an ignorant statement.
I also think that the scientific community is remarkably monolithic about many policies (in sort of the same way that some other broad interest groups, like "Christian evangelicals" are). For example, most scientists are relatively liberal on social policies, environmental issues, and even big moral issues like stem cell research, psychology, and some aspects of foreign policy.
If you think this, then you don't really know any scientists.
This is not true.
Also you're failing to make the connection between individual workers' personal beliefs and institute-level policy as informed by research. I'm pretty sure my boss' nominal catholicism hasn't informed his position on how best to analyse potential acid release from pyritic sediments.
I don't see how this anecdote addresses my point that you quoted.
I also think many people in this thread are ignoring the community aspect of the science. Individual scientists don't exist in a vacuum. What I had in mind was empowering the scientific community as a whole, not necessarily any individual scientists.
The first two rely on the hope that your dumb blind luck would just put the right people in power, and the third is a system that has been consistently shown to work all over the Western world.
I believe that was his argument, that democracy was, realistically, the best form of government.
I'm pretty sure my boss' nominal catholicism hasn't informed his position on how best to analyse potential acid release from pyritic sediments.
How is this related to policy making? Unless we're talking whether to prescribe pyritic sediments as medication because of it's cheap cost and relatively close chemical make up to a proper... this is absurd. How is this relevant?
That's not because of lack of power ascribed to scientists, that's because these groups save money and time that way. This is such an ignorant statement.
But... so it's OK to us a flawed system? It's either BMI or extremely costly and complex systems for brief health summaries? Really?
The first two rely on the hope that your dumb blind luck would just put the right people in power, and the third is a system that has been consistently shown to work all over the Western world.
I believe that was his argument, that democracy was, realistically, the best form of government.
Well, what's the argument then? If you want to talk about which form of government is favorable while ignoring reality you might as well mention the pie-shitting fairies of Candy Land. I'm sure they'd higher on that scale than a benign ruler.
Taking this thread title directly at it's name, with the interaction between science and politics, meshing the two together too closely could easily corrupt science. I mean this in similar sense that politics can corrupt the judiciary and how the US Federal courts have at least some insulation from direct political interference. This isn't directly a matter of power or information, which science should definitely have, but more how it interfaces with the political power structure.
I also think some on the left overstate how much science dictates their morality or political thought, even though there are some on the right who are distinctly antiscientific. Science isn't about making value judgments, but rather understanding phenomena and predicting future phenomena. In regards to how it should influence politics, it should only go as far as to predict what the results of difference decisions and policies should be, not determine which one is "right". There may be matters such that human morality is consistent enough that the results of those scientific predictions make it obvious which one is "right", but there is necessarily another nonscientific component in the equation.
I think it would be more important to protect science from the whims of the capricious or the ignorant, and maybe additionally have protections from the messages being twisted and turned on their heads in the political arena. But I don't see how the idea of scientific philosopher kings is all that relevant.
Why bother with anything unattached from reality, for that matter. Fantasy football would have to go, and probably my dream of a Street Fighter style Pokemon game.
That's not because of lack of power ascribed to scientists, that's because these groups save money and time that way. This is such an ignorant statement.
But... so it's OK to us a flawed system? It's either BMI or extremely costly and complex systems for brief health summaries? Really?
That has fuck all to do with what you said re: science and government.
Your original statements that Cat was replying to implied that a lack of power among scientists caused the BMI to be used by government, or that government ignores science when using the BMI. It isn't true, and it was pretty ignorant (did government invent the BMI for fucks sake? no, scientists did).
At the moment your arguments seem to go:
You: I think A results in B
Others: A doesn't result in B
You: How can you possibly deny C is true?!
Stop switching what you are saying half-way through an argument, and people might respond better.
Actually, I was using the BMI as an example for why a better consideration of current scientific thought in policy making would be more beneficial.
Cat's response was to imply that the BMI was used for its ease and low cost. I was asking why that should matter, if there was at all some dichotomy between what's right, and what's easy. As if the more correct answers couldn't also be cheap and easy. And if they could, why the hell would it matter that the BMI was if it was wrong.
So I fail to see how that at all deserves the vitriol, or is wrong or logically flawed.
I think that we're mixing science and something close to it: reason. Science is a form of reason but hardly the only kind. As it's been noted science is pretty indifferent to social consequences and often different fields will have biases conclusions. Reasonable conclusions are culled from scientific, social and economic ideas taking as many facts and considerations into effect as possible.
The evangelical politics of recent years is irrational for the most part. It starts with the conclusion and ignores or twists any facts that do not support it.
But... so it's OK to us a flawed system? It's either BMI or extremely costly and complex systems for brief health summaries? Really?
...with...
I was asking why that should matter, if there was at all some dichotomy between what's right, and what's easy. As if the more right answers couldn't also be cheap and easy. And if they could, why the hell would it matter that the BMI was if it was wrong.
To me, that just looked like you were ignoring the original point and going off on a completely different tack.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply can't express yourself, but it does make you extremely hard to understand. You sound like you are saying one thing, but it doesn't seem to be what you think you are saying.
I think that we're mixing science and something close to it: reason. Science is a form of reason but hardly the only kind. As it's been noted science is pretty indifferent to social consequences and often different fields will have biases conclusions. Reasonable conclusions are culled from scientific, social and economic ideas taking as many facts and considerations into effect as possible.
The evangelical politics of recent years is irrational for the most part. It starts with the conclusion and ignores or twists any facts that do not support it.
Well, yeah. You're right. My only real, solid stance is that, at the moment, I think the scientific part should play a larger role than it is now. Maybe it is playing just large enough of a role, and I'm over estimating the economic and social influence on Creationism and consent laws and such. I doubt it, but maybe.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply can't express yourself, but it does make you extremely hard to understand. You sound like you are saying one thing, but it doesn't seem to be what you think you are saying.
Well in some areas it's gotten really bad. Take like the EPA's response after 9/11/ An agency that should be pretty hard science based got twisted. It feared economic and political consequences and told people to return home even when the facts pointed towards a pretty scary evaluation(ie the air was fucking death).
Not 'more right answers', but 'better answers'. 'More right' is like saying 'more unique'. Something is either unique, or it is not. You do not have degrees of uniqueness. Saying 'more right' is both wrong and makes you sound pretty silly.
I know your President can't string two words together without killing one of them, but since you aren't too keen on his science policies, how about you don't copy his linguistics either.
I thought of saying better, but decided against it because it wasn't exactly what I meant. I was trying to be as specific as possible, because honestly, I seemed to be coming across as a moron or an asshole, and hair-splitting on the forums seems to be pretty bad as is.
I meant "more correct" or "most currently accurate." Something to that effect. Understanding of any given issue changes over time, paradigms and whatnot.
How is this related to policy making? Unless we're talking whether to prescribe pyritic sediments as medication because of it's cheap cost and relatively close chemical make up to a proper... this is absurd. How is this relevant?
Well. its difficult to respond properly to such an incoherent first post, but qingu spent a paragraph claiming that scientists were monolithic in their beliefs and that this was problematic and then went on to argue that in spite of their alleged non-representative nature they should somehow be in control of us all. This is silly. I'm pointing out that qingu's paragraph had almost no relation to the rest of his thesis, and was wrong anyway.
That's not because of lack of power ascribed to scientists, that's because these groups save money and time that way. This is such an ignorant statement.
But... so it's OK to us a flawed system? It's either BMI or extremely costly and complex systems for brief health summaries? Really?[/quote]
Obviously, I'm all about the false dichotomies. The point is that you can't force people to change purely on scientific grounds simply by giving 'scientists'* 'more power'#. Its already been pointed out in this thread that you can only hope for a more rational society by better education from the get-go. Your 'give researchers the keys to the country' ideas are not solutions. They are extraordinarily naive and silly.
* I'm sure in this case you mean medical professionals, right?
# You all have still failed to describe the nature and extent of these powers, how they are to be awarded, and what force will back them up.
Yes, but protip, joining individual adjectives and nouns together because each one best describes part of what you are thinking; this is not how the English language works. I could describe this post as brief advice word concern, but nobody would know what the fuck I was talking about.
How about we just elect politicians that aren't outright hostile to scientific thought.
How are we going to do that when a majority of voters are outright hostile to scientific thought?
Because that is a false over-generalization?
Is it? Are you playing the "we didn't really elect him ololz" card or do we just not go with who the majority voted for anymore?
The majority probably thinks science is cool but doesn't understand much of it or give a shit about it.
It seems to me more that they think something they refer to as science is cool but doesn't understand or give enough of a shit about it to find out what science actually is. If you were to go around asking people what science is, how many do you really think would know that it's a means and method of inquiry and investigation or something to that effect? How many would say "like physics and chemistry and stuff" (which isn't really an answer in any meaningful way)? And then there is the group that would say "teh SATAN!" which yeah is probably a minority. I see the majority of voters view of "science" to be something like "oh yeah I love punk-rock, look at all the Dashboard Confessional, APC and Jimmy Eat World CDs I've got!" I don't think they actually know what the word even means, and so while they say they're pro-science they're firmly opposed to actual scientific inquiry.
The point is that you can't force people to change purely on scientific grounds simply by giving 'scientists'* 'more power'#. Its already been pointed out in this thread that you can only hope for a more rational society by better education from the get-go. Your 'give researchers the keys to the country' ideas are not solutions. They are extraordinarily naive and silly.
Firstly, I realize it wouldn't be that easy. Also, I never suggested, or at least never meant to suggest that we give researchers the keys to anything. In fact, every proposal I laid out from the beginning was about increased correspondence. Never about ruling anything.
* I'm sure in this case you mean medical professionals, right?
# You all have still failed to describe the nature and extent of these powers, how they are to be awarded, and what force will back them up.
Yes, I realize I'm using "scientist" as more or less a blanket term for any researcher or professional of a field. And I don't know at all how it would work best, or at all, but I have listed ideas about how it couldwork. They were more like base suggestions than serious proposals, but they seemed to have come across badly.
Yes, but protip, joining individual adjectives and nouns together because each one best describes part of what you are thinking; this is not how the English language works. I could describe this post as brief advice word concern, but nobody would know what the fuck I was talking about.
Well, there's the idea that languages evolve and wordplay should be encouraged, that combining words in unique ways to describe thought would be something applauded. Though I don't think that's the subject here. I'm getting more that it's "You failed."
Still, I don't know that "most currently accurate statements" can be compared to "brief advice word concern," which by the way, in context, still makes sense.
but there's heaps of correspondence and communication and, yes, power! Its already there, you and qingu are only demonstrating your ignorance of how the world currently works.
The majority probably thinks science is cool but doesn't understand much of it or give a shit about it.
It seems to me more that they think something they refer to as science is cool but doesn't understand or give enough of a shit about it to find out what science actually is. If you were to go around asking people what science is, how many do you really think would know that it's a means and method of inquiry and investigation or something to that effect? How many would say "like physics and chemistry and stuff"? And then there is the group that would say "teh SATAN!".
but there's heaps of correspondence and communication and, yes, power! Its already there, you and qingu are only demonstrating your ignorance of how the world currently works.
Well, yeah. You're right. My only real, solid stance is that, at the moment, I think the scientific part should play a larger role than it is now. Maybe it is playing just large enough of a role, and I'm over estimating the economic and social influence on Creationism and consent laws and such. I doubt it, but maybe.
Unless everything really is just fine now, and legitimate scientific understanding is at perfectly satisfying levels.
Unless everything really is just fine now, and legitimate scientific understanding is at perfectly satisfying levels.
Culture also informs politics, and therein lies the flaw.
There is most certainly that. Even I have times where I stubbornly reject various scientific ideas, articles, etc.
I'm probably most guilty for being biased against articles arguing in favor of the detrimental effects of violent video games. I probably would not be right for any sort of decision making in that area.
The majority probably thinks science is cool but doesn't understand much of it or give a shit about it.
It seems to me more that they think something they refer to as science is cool but doesn't understand or give enough of a shit about it to find out what science actually is. If you were to go around asking people what science is, how many do you really think would know that it's a means and method of inquiry and investigation or something to that effect? How many would say "like physics and chemistry and stuff"? And then there is the group that would say "teh SATAN!".
Very few. I'd call it ignorance, not hostility.
I'd call it ignorance if their not knowing what science is was all there was to it. If they also oppose and vote to prevent inquiry and investigation they are opposed to science no matter what they say they feel about science. And that's what they've done. What they say they feel about science doesn't mean a goddamn thing since they don't even know what it is.
The majority probably thinks science is cool but doesn't understand much of it or give a shit about it.
It seems to me more that they think something they refer to as science is cool but doesn't understand or give enough of a shit about it to find out what science actually is. If you were to go around asking people what science is, how many do you really think would know that it's a means and method of inquiry and investigation or something to that effect? How many would say "like physics and chemistry and stuff"? And then there is the group that would say "teh SATAN!".
Very few. I'd call it ignorance, not hostility.
I'd call it ignorance if their not knowing what science is was all there was to it. If they also oppose and vote to prevent inquiry and investigation they are opposed to science no matter what they say they feel about science. And that's what they've done. What they say they feel about science doesn't mean a goddamn thing since they don't even know what it is.
So a lot of Americans are 'pro-life'. Boo-hoo. That suddenly makes the populace hostile to science?
The majority probably thinks science is cool but doesn't understand much of it or give a shit about it.
It seems to me more that they think something they refer to as science is cool but doesn't understand or give enough of a shit about it to find out what science actually is. If you were to go around asking people what science is, how many do you really think would know that it's a means and method of inquiry and investigation or something to that effect? How many would say "like physics and chemistry and stuff"? And then there is the group that would say "teh SATAN!".
Very few. I'd call it ignorance, not hostility.
I'd call it ignorance if their not knowing what science is was all there was to it. If they also oppose and vote to prevent inquiry and investigation they are opposed to science no matter what they say they feel about science. And that's what they've done. What they say they feel about science doesn't mean a goddamn thing since they don't even know what it is.
So a lot of Americans are 'pro-life'. Boo-hoo. That suddenly makes the populace hostile to science?
I don't recall saying anything about abortion and I don't see how it's relevant.
The majority probably thinks science is cool but doesn't understand much of it or give a shit about it.
It seems to me more that they think something they refer to as science is cool but doesn't understand or give enough of a shit about it to find out what science actually is. If you were to go around asking people what science is, how many do you really think would know that it's a means and method of inquiry and investigation or something to that effect? How many would say "like physics and chemistry and stuff"? And then there is the group that would say "teh SATAN!".
Very few. I'd call it ignorance, not hostility.
I'd call it ignorance if their not knowing what science is was all there was to it. If they also oppose and vote to prevent inquiry and investigation they are opposed to science no matter what they say they feel about science. And that's what they've done. What they say they feel about science doesn't mean a goddamn thing since they don't even know what it is.
So a lot of Americans are 'pro-life'. Boo-hoo. That suddenly makes the populace hostile to science?
I don't recall saying anything about abortion and I don't see how it's relevant.
I read into things. It's simpler that way. If you want to be specific, go ahead.
I don't recall saying anything about abortion and I don't see how it's relevant.
Unless you mean the stem-cell legislation, which has jack-all to do with abortion.
It still has to do with the pro-life movement.
Not really. The legislation doesn't make any distinctions as to how the stem-cells are obtained. You could synthesize them in a laboratory and never let dead-babies within a hundred miles of the facility and your federal-funding is still pulled entirely.
I don't recall saying anything about abortion and I don't see how it's relevant.
Unless you mean the stem-cell legislation, which has jack-all to do with abortion.
It still has to do with the pro-life movement.
Not really. The legislation doesn't make any distinctions as to how the stem-cells are obtained. You could synthesize them in a laboratory and never let dead-babies within a hundred miles of the facility and your federal-funding is still pulled entirely.
I thought that was a direct result of the religious moral considerations again trumping pragmatic or... realistic thought. I mean, there was even a bill that came to Bush's door and he vetoed it, right? I don't remember ever hearing an argument against stem cell research that wasn't in part influenced by the pro-life movement.
Bush, for instance, praised the recent advancements in stem cell research, being able to create stem cells from adult skin tissue, I believe. His claim was that his administration's laws brought about this scientific discovery. Kind of like the Agents acting proud, dignified and responsible for Neo becoming The One.
But I"m a nerd. I'm sure there are better examples.
I don't recall saying anything about abortion and I don't see how it's relevant.
Unless you mean the stem-cell legislation, which has jack-all to do with abortion.
It still has to do with the pro-life movement.
Not really. The legislation doesn't make any distinctions as to how the stem-cells are obtained. You could synthesize them in a laboratory and never let dead-babies within a hundred miles of the facility and your federal-funding is still pulled entirely.
So what? Did I say the movement had its head on straight?
Go look up any pro-life organization and look for their position on stem-cell research. Find a pro-choice organization, and try to find their position. You really think pro-lifers don't everything to do with opposition to stem-cell research?
So what? Did I say the movement had its head on straight?
Go look up any pro-life organization and look for their position on stem-cell research. Find a pro-choice organization, and try to find their position. You really think pro-lifers don't everything to do with opposition to stem-cell research?
Whether they have their head on straight is completely irrelevant. If I go stab a guy to death for looking at my sister the wrong way and then say "I would never murder anyone, this was an honor-duel!" does that make me not a murderer?
Posts
That's not because of lack of power ascribed to scientists, that's because these groups save money and time that way. This is such an ignorant statement.
I don't see how this anecdote addresses my point that you quoted.
I also think many people in this thread are ignoring the community aspect of the science. Individual scientists don't exist in a vacuum. What I had in mind was empowering the scientific community as a whole, not necessarily any individual scientists.
I believe that was his argument, that democracy was, realistically, the best form of government.
How is this related to policy making? Unless we're talking whether to prescribe pyritic sediments as medication because of it's cheap cost and relatively close chemical make up to a proper... this is absurd. How is this relevant?
But... so it's OK to us a flawed system? It's either BMI or extremely costly and complex systems for brief health summaries? Really?
Well, what's the argument then? If you want to talk about which form of government is favorable while ignoring reality you might as well mention the pie-shitting fairies of Candy Land. I'm sure they'd higher on that scale than a benign ruler.
I also think some on the left overstate how much science dictates their morality or political thought, even though there are some on the right who are distinctly antiscientific. Science isn't about making value judgments, but rather understanding phenomena and predicting future phenomena. In regards to how it should influence politics, it should only go as far as to predict what the results of difference decisions and policies should be, not determine which one is "right". There may be matters such that human morality is consistent enough that the results of those scientific predictions make it obvious which one is "right", but there is necessarily another nonscientific component in the equation.
I think it would be more important to protect science from the whims of the capricious or the ignorant, and maybe additionally have protections from the messages being twisted and turned on their heads in the political arena. But I don't see how the idea of scientific philosopher kings is all that relevant.
That has fuck all to do with what you said re: science and government.
Your original statements that Cat was replying to implied that a lack of power among scientists caused the BMI to be used by government, or that government ignores science when using the BMI. It isn't true, and it was pretty ignorant (did government invent the BMI for fucks sake? no, scientists did).
At the moment your arguments seem to go:
You: I think A results in B
Others: A doesn't result in B
You: How can you possibly deny C is true?!
Stop switching what you are saying half-way through an argument, and people might respond better.
Cat's response was to imply that the BMI was used for its ease and low cost. I was asking why that should matter, if there was at all some dichotomy between what's right, and what's easy. As if the more correct answers couldn't also be cheap and easy. And if they could, why the hell would it matter that the BMI was if it was wrong.
So I fail to see how that at all deserves the vitriol, or is wrong or logically flawed.
The evangelical politics of recent years is irrational for the most part. It starts with the conclusion and ignores or twists any facts that do not support it.
...with...
To me, that just looked like you were ignoring the original point and going off on a completely different tack.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply can't express yourself, but it does make you extremely hard to understand. You sound like you are saying one thing, but it doesn't seem to be what you think you are saying.
...and, more right?
Well, yeah. You're right. My only real, solid stance is that, at the moment, I think the scientific part should play a larger role than it is now. Maybe it is playing just large enough of a role, and I'm over estimating the economic and social influence on Creationism and consent laws and such. I doubt it, but maybe.
It feels like it. I don't know... maybe?
What? OH, wait. Crap, I meant more correct. So, yeah. I probably am an idiot.
I know your President can't string two words together without killing one of them, but since you aren't too keen on his science policies, how about you don't copy his linguistics either.
PS 'More correct' is also not good.
I meant "more correct" or "most currently accurate." Something to that effect. Understanding of any given issue changes over time, paradigms and whatnot.
But... so it's OK to us a flawed system? It's either BMI or extremely costly and complex systems for brief health summaries? Really?[/quote]
Obviously, I'm all about the false dichotomies. The point is that you can't force people to change purely on scientific grounds simply by giving 'scientists'* 'more power'#. Its already been pointed out in this thread that you can only hope for a more rational society by better education from the get-go. Your 'give researchers the keys to the country' ideas are not solutions. They are extraordinarily naive and silly.
* I'm sure in this case you mean medical professionals, right?
# You all have still failed to describe the nature and extent of these powers, how they are to be awarded, and what force will back them up.
It seems to me more that they think something they refer to as science is cool but doesn't understand or give enough of a shit about it to find out what science actually is. If you were to go around asking people what science is, how many do you really think would know that it's a means and method of inquiry and investigation or something to that effect? How many would say "like physics and chemistry and stuff" (which isn't really an answer in any meaningful way)? And then there is the group that would say "teh SATAN!" which yeah is probably a minority. I see the majority of voters view of "science" to be something like "oh yeah I love punk-rock, look at all the Dashboard Confessional, APC and Jimmy Eat World CDs I've got!" I don't think they actually know what the word even means, and so while they say they're pro-science they're firmly opposed to actual scientific inquiry.
Well, sorry. That may have been uncalled for. I was more or less pointing out that what you said sounded overly dismissive and shallow.
Firstly, I realize it wouldn't be that easy. Also, I never suggested, or at least never meant to suggest that we give researchers the keys to anything. In fact, every proposal I laid out from the beginning was about increased correspondence. Never about ruling anything.
Yes, I realize I'm using "scientist" as more or less a blanket term for any researcher or professional of a field. And I don't know at all how it would work best, or at all, but I have listed ideas about how it couldwork. They were more like base suggestions than serious proposals, but they seemed to have come across badly.
Well, there's the idea that languages evolve and wordplay should be encouraged, that combining words in unique ways to describe thought would be something applauded. Though I don't think that's the subject here. I'm getting more that it's "You failed."
Still, I don't know that "most currently accurate statements" can be compared to "brief advice word concern," which by the way, in context, still makes sense.
Very few. I'd call it ignorance, not hostility.
Unless everything really is just fine now, and legitimate scientific understanding is at perfectly satisfying levels.
Culture also informs politics, and therein lies the flaw.
There is most certainly that. Even I have times where I stubbornly reject various scientific ideas, articles, etc.
I'm probably most guilty for being biased against articles arguing in favor of the detrimental effects of violent video games. I probably would not be right for any sort of decision making in that area.
See: Way too many environmental groups.
I'd call it ignorance if their not knowing what science is was all there was to it. If they also oppose and vote to prevent inquiry and investigation they are opposed to science no matter what they say they feel about science. And that's what they've done. What they say they feel about science doesn't mean a goddamn thing since they don't even know what it is.
But if we put it into government hands, it couldn't be corrupt!
So a lot of Americans are 'pro-life'. Boo-hoo. That suddenly makes the populace hostile to science?
I don't recall saying anything about abortion and I don't see how it's relevant.
And this.
Granted, the first was just the first site I found on Google, and the second was an internet poll, polls of all sorts manipulatable.
Unless you mean the stem-cell legislation, which has jack-all to do with abortion.
I read into things. It's simpler that way. If you want to be specific, go ahead.
It still has to do with the pro-life movement.
I was certainly under the impression that it did.
Not really. The legislation doesn't make any distinctions as to how the stem-cells are obtained. You could synthesize them in a laboratory and never let dead-babies within a hundred miles of the facility and your federal-funding is still pulled entirely.
I thought that was a direct result of the religious moral considerations again trumping pragmatic or... realistic thought. I mean, there was even a bill that came to Bush's door and he vetoed it, right? I don't remember ever hearing an argument against stem cell research that wasn't in part influenced by the pro-life movement.
Bush, for instance, praised the recent advancements in stem cell research, being able to create stem cells from adult skin tissue, I believe. His claim was that his administration's laws brought about this scientific discovery. Kind of like the Agents acting proud, dignified and responsible for Neo becoming The One.
But I"m a nerd. I'm sure there are better examples.
So what? Did I say the movement had its head on straight?
Go look up any pro-life organization and look for their position on stem-cell research. Find a pro-choice organization, and try to find their position. You really think pro-lifers don't everything to do with opposition to stem-cell research?
Whether they have their head on straight is completely irrelevant. If I go stab a guy to death for looking at my sister the wrong way and then say "I would never murder anyone, this was an honor-duel!" does that make me not a murderer?