The Liberals' War on Science

Granule

Firebrand
How politics distorts science on both ends of the spectrum

Believe it or not—and I suspect most readers will not—there's a liberal war on science. Say what?

We are well aware of the Republican war on science from the eponymous 2006 book (Basic Books) by Chris Mooney, and I have castigated conservatives myself in my 2006 book Why Darwin Matters (Henry Holt) for their erroneous belief that the theory of evolution leads to a breakdown of morality. A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Many conservatives seem to grant early-stage embryos a moral standing that is higher than that of adults suffering from debilitating diseases potentially curable through stem cells. And most recently, Missouri Republican senatorial candidate Todd Akin gaffed on the ability of women's bodies to avoid pregnancy in the event of a “legitimate rape.” It gets worse.

The left's war on science begins with the stats cited above: 41 percent of Democrats are young Earth creationists, and 19 percent doubt that Earth is getting warmer. These numbers do not exactly bolster the common belief that liberals are the people of the science book. In addition, consider “cognitive creationists”—whom I define as those who accept the theory of evolution for the human body but not the brain. As Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker documents in his 2002 book The Blank Slate (Viking), belief in the mind as a tabula rasa shaped almost entirely by culture has been mostly the mantra of liberal intellectuals, who in the 1980s and 1990s led an all-out assault against evolutionary psychology via such Orwellian-named far-left groups as Science for the People, for proffering the now uncontroversial idea that human thought and behavior are at least partially the result of our evolutionary past.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/


Thoughts?
 
My thought on this? The recent focus on 'consensus' is frightening. It wasn't too long ago that 'consensus' was a dirty word in scientific circles.
 
My thought on this? The recent focus on 'consensus' is frightening. It wasn't too long ago that 'consensus' was a dirty word in scientific circles.

If, by consensus, you mean dozens or hundreds (more?), peer-reviewed scientific papers coming to essentially the same conclusion, why would it be a dirty word?
 
If, by consensus, you mean dozens or hundreds (more?), peer-reviewed scientific papers coming to essentially the same conclusion, why would it be a dirty word?

Because without an experiment with results that can be recreated by anyone, with the means, you don't have anything but an opinion.
 
My thought on this? The recent focus on 'consensus' is frightening. It wasn't too long ago that 'consensus' was a dirty word in scientific circles.

Consensus avails itself of the best science available. What are the chances that 95% of the scientists are troglodytic knuckleheads that ignore data accumulated from the scientific method? Probably the same chances that a Jewish minx was impregnated by God.
 
Consensus avails itself of the best science available. What are the chances that 95% of the sciences are troglodytic knuckleheads that ignore data accumulated from the scientific method? Probably the same chances that a Jewish was impregnated by God.

All consensus means is that a lot of people agree. If you can prove something to be true consensus doesn't matter at all.
 
All consensus means is that a lot of people agree. If you can prove something to be true consensus doesn't matter at all.

We can't prove gravity. We can't prove evolution. The consensus involves agreement on the available science.

We're getting pretty close to truth simply not existing at all. What a fucked up viewpoint.
 
We can't prove gravity. We can't prove evolution. The consensus involves agreement on the available science.

We're getting pretty close to truth simply not existing at all. What a fucked up viewpoint.

We can prove gravity. We know at what rate an object will accelerate when dropped. We even know that that rate varies a wee bit depending on where on the planet you are. Anyone can reproduce those results.

We can prove there's such a thing as evolution/natural selection. We have an extensive fossil record and anyone who wishes to can view it. What we can't prove is how life began in the universe, or on this planet, but that doesn't mean natural selection is bunk.

100 people can come to an agreement that if you drop a bowling ball and a tennis ball off of the top of the Empire State building the bowling ball will hit the ground first. That doesn't mean they're correct.
 
We can prove gravity. We know at what rate an object will accelerate when dropped. We even know that that rate varies a wee bit depending on where on the planet you are. Anyone can reproduce those results.

Sure, we can see the results, but there are only theories as to why gravity works. Cavemen knew that when you stick your hand in fire it hurts, but they didn't understand why.

We can prove there's such a thing as evolution/natural selection.

We know the results, but that evolution involves natural selection is a theory that is as yet unproven.

100 people can come to an agreement that if you drop a bowling ball and a tennis ball off of the top of the Empire State building the bowling ball will hit the ground first. That doesn't mean they're correct.

Were those people scientists?
 
Sure, we can see the results, but there are only theories as to why gravity works. Cavemen knew that when you stick your hand in fire it hurts, but they didn't understand why.



We know the results, but that evolution involves natural selection is a theory that is as yet unproven.



Were those people scientists?

Nit-picking eh? Objects fall at a predictable rate. Deal with it.

How many fossils do you need to see? Natural selection is not in question...it happens. Deal with it.

Were they scientists? Hmmm...maybe but the real question is were they educated in a discipline which allowed them to be expert enough to make their call in the first place. IOW...Neil deGrasse Tyson...a smart dude but I don't give a fuck what he has to say about continental drift or tides because that's not his field.
 
How many fossils do you need to see? Natural selection is not in question...it happens. Deal with it.

Natural selection is a theory explaining evolution.

Were they scientists? Hmmm...maybe but the real question is were they educated in a discipline which allowed them to be expert enough to make their call in the first place. IOW...Neil deGrasse Tyson...a smart dude but I don't give a fuck what he has to say about continental drift or tides because that's not his field.

So do you know if these 100 people were experts at gravity or employed the scientific method to make their guess? If the answer is no, then what does your example have to do with the price of tea in China?
 
Natural selection is a theory explaining evolution.

You do know what Theory means in science right?

So do you know if these 100 people were experts at gravity or employed the scientific method to make their guess? If the answer is no, then what does your example have to do with the price of tea in China?

I gave you an example. An astro-physicist talking about climate science as if he's an expert. There are more.

...
 
You do know what Theory means in science right?

Yes. Do you?

I gave you an example. An astro-physicist talking about climate science as if he's an expert. There are more.

How do you know he's not an expert? I would expect a scientist understand the data better than you, regardless of their field.
 
Because without an experiment with results that can be recreated by anyone, with the means, you don't have anything but an opinion.

Scientists analyze and interpret data to form hypotheses and theories. They may interpret the data differently and reach different conclusions. Great. Call them opinions if you like.

The reality is that scientists are arriving at much the same conclusion hundreds or thousands of times. Are there differences in degree? Yep. To be expected. It's called uncertainty. Happens in every measurement.

Sorry if you don't care for the overwhelming consistency of the "opinions", Gilda. Do your own analysis of the data and tell us what you come up with.
 
We can prove gravity. We know at what rate an object will accelerate when dropped. We even know that that rate varies a wee bit depending on where on the planet you are. <snip> .

I get the impression your science education stopped at 9th grade science class.

What you are describing are observations. Observation. Measurements and observations. Nothing more, nothing less. Do you understand that??? Observation is not the same thing as theory. The current theory that explains what gravity is - the fundamental nature of the gravitational force - is that gravity is a warping of space-time per Einstein's theory of general relativity. It is still a theory, but a widely accepted one. Dare I say the consensus one.

The fact that you think consensus was "recently" a dirty word in science sounds like something you heard on a rightwing talk radio show. Because I never, ever, not once, heard that in my years of science education.
 
I get the impression your science education stopped at 9th grade science class.

What you are describing are observations. Observation. Measurements and observations. Nothing more, nothing less. Do you understand that??? Observation is not the same thing as theory. The current theory that explains what gravity is - the fundamental nature of the gravitational force - is that gravity is a warping of space-time per Einstein's theory of general relativity. It is still a theory, but a widely accepted one. Dare I say the consensus one.

The fact that you think consensus was "recently" a dirty word in science sounds like something you heard on a rightwing talk radio show. Because I never, ever, not once, heard that in my years of science education.

You are mixing apples and oranges son. When I used the word theory it was in response to a different subject.

Whether you like it or not the effect of gravity on objects can be repeatedly and reliably observed by anyone who wishes to do so and that renders consensus meaningless. If you have fact on your side you don't need consensus. Which brings up a good question...if fact is on your side then why repeatedly talk about consensus?

We already know the answer to that...they don't have facts on their side and they know it which is why they spend so much time talking about consensus.
 
You are mixing apples and oranges son. When I used the word theory it was in response to a different subject.

Whether you like it or not the effect of gravity on objects can be repeatedly and reliably observed by anyone who wishes to do so and that renders consensus meaningless. If you have fact on your side you don't need consensus. Which brings up a good question...if fact is on your side then why repeatedly talk about consensus?

We already know the answer to that...they don't have facts on their side and they know it which is why they spend so much time talking about consensus.

So if 97% of scientists studying and specializing in climate change come to an agreement on the causes and effect of CO2 emissions, based on a decades of data and predictive models using the Scientific Method, why is that not a relevant point when discussing climate change? Because the facts are on your side?
 
So if 97% of scientists studying and specializing in climate change come to an agreement on the causes and effect of CO2 emissions, based on a decades of data and predictive models using the Scientific Method, why is that not a relevant point when discussing climate change? Because the facts are on your side?

If you can't prove it and others can't recreate your findings then you have nothing.
 
Back
Top