Krugman, again.

Paul Krugman wrote a column (NYTimes 2-11-13) about the Republican's "ignorance caucus" -- their anti-science, anti-truth stance, while at the same time trying to present a changed party that is embracing new ideas.

One thing Krugman pointed out is that they seem to dislike anything that has to do with "applying critical thinking and evidence to policy questions."   In fact, "the Texas G.O.P. explicitly condemned efforts to teach 'critical thinking skills,' because, it said, such efforts 'have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”'

Another:  the House Republicans are calling for a complete end to federal funding for social science research because, as Krugman scornfully put it, "it’s surely a waste of money seeking to understand the society we’re trying to change."

They do embrace medical research per se, but they are adamantly opposed to any programs that seek to compare different treatments for effectiveness.  They say this will lead to Medicare and Medicaid limiting what treatments they will pay for.   Duh !!!   That's a bad thing, to want to put your money where it will be most effective?   Some drug companies fear they will lose their cash cows that they're marketed with deceptive advertising as "new and improved," when it fact it is not better than older treatments -- it just has bigger profits for the drug companies.

Climate science is another focus of the ignorance caucus.  In Virginia, according to Krugman, Republicans "have engaged in furious witch hunts against scientists who find evidence they don’t like."

House Republicans tried to suppress a Congressional Research Service report that cast doubts on the supposed growth effects of tax cuts for the wealthy.

Backed by money from the NRA, they bullied federal agencies into canceling almost all the research that had to do with studying gun violence in the U.S.

Krugman concludes:

The truth is that America’s partisan divide runs much deeper than even pessimists are usually willing to admit; the parties aren’t just divided on values and policy views, they’re divided over epistemology. One side believes, at least in principle, in letting its policy views be shaped by facts; the other believes in suppressing the facts if they contradict its fixed beliefs. 

Remember the shocking admission by the Bush staffer who characterized their world as "faith-based" as opposed to their opponenets "reality-based" world.

Ralph