Four-times-indicted former president Donald Trump has been successfully selling white Christian nostalgia, racism and xenophobia to his base. However, the Public Religion Research Institute’s massive poll of 6,616 participants suggests that what works with his base might pose an insurmountable problem with Gen Z teens and Gen Z adults (who are younger than 25).
Demographically, this cohort of voters bears little resemblance to Trump’s older, whiter, more religious followers. “In addition to being the most racially and ethnically diverse generation in our nation’s history, Gen Z adults also identify as LGBTQ at much higher rates than older Americans,” the PRRI poll found. “Like millennials, Gen Zers are also less likely than older generations to affiliate with an established religion.”
Those characteristics suggest Gen Z will favor a progressive message that incorporates diversity and opposes government imposition of religious views. Indeed, “Gen Z adults (21%) are less likely than all generational groups except millennials (21%) to identify as Republican.” Though 36 percent of Gen Z adults identify as Democrats, their teenage counterparts are more likely to be independents (51 percent) than older generations.
Again, how does that help me understand the structure of the atom?
the structure of the atom pales in comparison to relevant information about the world in any case, plus if you paid attention in science class, you’d know that the atom was theorised before it was proven, only goes to show you that you may conceptualise the natural law without necessarily laying eyes upon it :)
The atom was hypothesized before it was theorized, and do all hypotheses turn out to be correct? Also, the atomic model explains pretty much all of chemistry. Seems pretty relevant to the way the world works.
damn right it was hypothesised and theorised, both of which happened prior to the viewing of an atom, it’s because the natural world is observable through conceptualisation
As is fantasy. You’re advocating for the scientific method to stop at hypothesis, and claiming that’s a legitimate method for finding truth. I can’t imagine being that incurious about the world around me.
im stating that the hypothesis stage can be the natural truth because the natural truth is observable, you must understand that the vast majority of inventions have followed their hypothesis, they all were conceptualised in this manner and this is the reason why the average layman cannot invent anything nowadays
And how do you determine whether or not your hypothesis is in accordance with natural law? Our current understanding of the atom wasn’t the only hypothesized model. It required further observation to improve our understanding. The natural truth is observable, but shallow observations without further analysis lead to flawed conclusions.
it was invented in the mind before it was observed, this is because the natural world has methods of teaching to people, do you not understand?
Lots of things are “invented” in the mind that turn out to be hot garbage. Assuming they were somehow taught to us by the natural world without further scrutiny is a terrible method for discovering truth. Do you not understand?