Conservatives are ‘right to be skeptical of scientists’

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/08/08 ... sts-662105

Another chapter in the downfall of modern Scientism-ology science. I'm aware of the irony of linking to an article about a study, as always feel free to remain sceptical. But perhaps it will convince some that I remain sceptical of some "scientific" research not because I desperately want to believe humans hunted Brachiosaurus riding tame Tyrannosaurs around the Garden of Eden. It's because many of our rulers like to believe they implement "evidence based policy" when "evidence" can be and is fabricated or twisted by politically and financially motivated organisations.

Study finds conservatives are ‘right to be skeptical of scientists’

A new study by University of Oxford researchers suggests conservatives are right to be skeptical of scientific establishments, given the history of “scholar activism” in fields like sociology and political science.

Led by Nathan Confas, the study “Does Activism in the Social Sciences Explain Conservatives’ Distrust of Scientists?” can be found in the recent issue of the American Sociologist, a special edition dedicated to ideological diversity and conservative issues.

The study takes aim at the oft-repeated claim that conservatives distrust science because they find it threatening to their religious worldview, and the insinuation that religious conservatives align with a backwards, regressive approach towards science.

Research confirms that every decade since 1974, conservatives’ trust in scientists has decreased. But little has been done to explore why. Some suggest that conservatives are less likely to accept data that “threatens their worldview,” note Confas and his team.

But Confas told Campus Reform that this is a misguided approach. If anything, he said, published research indicates that liberals and conservatives are equally likely to discredit science if it conflicts with their world-view, citing studies such as this one and this one.

Confas and his research team propose a different explanation. They suggest that increasing levels of skepticism towards scientific institutions is partly a reaction to the politicization—namely, the liberalization—of these institutions.

The distrust is not driven by all scientists, but rather by what Confas and his team refer to as “impact scientists.” These are researchers, typically working in the social sciences and environmental science, who often conduct research with the stated goal of raising awareness of left-liberal issues, or acceptance of left-liberal policy solutions.

“There is a strong possibility that conservatives are not opposed to, or skeptical of, science per se. Rather, they lack trust in impact scientists whom they see as seeking in influence policy in a liberal direction,” explains Confas.

He points to the field of sociology as an example. A recent study surveying 479 sociology professors discovered that only 4 percent identify as conservative or libertarian, while 86 percent identify as liberal or left-radical.

The unstated goal of sociology, Confas suggests, “involves reorganizing society to fight inequality, oppression, poverty, hierarchy, and the like. Its ideological orientation arose out of…civil rights, feminism, Marxism, and other progressive movements.”

Most sociologists would claim, in good faith, to be objective. But emerging research suggests that the political slant in the field is corrupting objectivity, due to a variety of issues including confirmation bias and scholar-activism in the field.

“Taking the easy route isn’t something that I or my coauthors are tempted to do. We want to do our part to help correct the science,” Confas told Campus Reform.

“Conservatives are right to be skeptical,” he added. “Take any politicized issue that is connected to some disagreement about scientific fact. I do not believe there is a single case in the last couple decades where a major scientific organization took a position that went against the platform of the Democratic Party.”

“What an odd coincidence that ‘science’ always, without exception, supports the liberal worldview,” Confas observed.

Emphasis mine.

I think the major problem with "soft sciences" is that they have to make assumptions about human behavior, since humans are arguably unpredictable (at least not as predictable as say a "Carbon atom").

These assumptions let them develop any theory they want.

For example, there's "Trickle down" economic theory, and contradictory "Trick Up" economic theory.

All thanks to assumptions about what's better for humans ...

In simpler terms, the over-arching anti-science philosophy of the entire socio-political matrix is:

"My mind is made up, so don’t confuse me with facts."

I think the greater issue with "evidence based policy" is that politicians go "evidence shopping". They start off knowing what they want to do, and then look for evidence to justify that position, rather than evaluating all the evidence and using that to guide their decision making. Unfortunately this is common to politicians of all bents, on both controversial and uncontroversial issues.

[/quote]
Looking at these studies, I rather like the second one. It defines three types of conservativism, and finds that two of those types - "not liberal" and "not progressive" - are associated with increased hostility towards science. The third type, however - "not economically left-wing" - is not. This confirms a lot of my own prejudices!

The other study seems to be more to do with intolerance for outgroups than science.

I agree that sociology, while being an important subject that is often unfairly divided, does have a tendency to accept views which are not entirely evidence-based. These views are often closer to our best guess at "the truth" than right-wing orthodoxy, but the scientific consensus is still rejected just as vehemently. For example, I see many sociologists (and left-wing activists) completely rejecting the notion of biological underpinnings for behavioural differences between genders, while right-wing activists severely downplay the role of the environment and play up the role of biology to an unrealistic degree. The scientific consensus, on the other hand, seems to be "gender differences are very complicated, and mostly environmental, but there are a few traits where, on average, it looks like gender plays a small role".


I think it's weird that an Oxford scientist is talking in distinctly Americanised terms - the liberal-conservative dichotomy, talking of "Democrats", and so forth.

The Republican Party is bloody weird - it's far more traditionalist than most Western conservative parties, and takes up far more kooky positions. It's not surprising that the Republicans have a tendency to be wrong about scientific matters, particularly if one discounts economics. You can't blame scientists for that. I will say, though, that the Republican hierarchy mostly at least recognises the importance of science to the American economy, so the scepticism about the age or temperature of the Earth is somewhat by-the-by.

On the other hand, I can think of a few occasions where the right has proven to be right about a scientific issue and the left has proven to be wrong. Nuclear power is the go-to example. In Europe, you could point to the ban on neonicotinoids and the restrictions around genetic modification. There was even a brief period where it looked like the UK Conservative Party would be adopting a more evidence-based approach on transgender issues than the Labour Party, but rare credit to Mr Corbyn, he sorted that fiasco out.

So I don't think the issue is "scientists try to cheer on the left team", as "the Republican Party is much worse at adapting evidence-based policies than the Democratic Party, possibly excepting some facets of economics" (if the author didn't seem to be so sceptical of "soft sciences" then I'd point to free trade as an area where the Republicans had an advantage over the Democrats for... maybe decades?). Equally, though, there are issues on which groups to the left of the Democratic Party - such as the US Green Party - are bad: vaccine scepticism, GMOs, nuclear.

I think I'd be inclined to put the Democrats' strong record on scientific issues down to a few things. Firstly, the Democrats are a relatively undogmatic party. I don't mean that they aren't reflexively opposed to the Republicans or anything like that, just that they aren't tied to a worldview such as Marxism or Christianity or the non-aggression principle, which give you a default position on most issues and makes it hard to shift your position. The values of most of the Democratic Party are relatively woolly (a general commitment to actively helping the needy), and so it's easy for them to adopt scientific consensus stances on emerging issues. Additionally, scientific consensus has a significant impact upon the Overton Window, which the Democrats have traditionally been much more conscious of than the Republicans. I don't think those things apply to nearly the same extent in Western Europe (or Canada for that matter), which is why science doesn't divide along political lines to the same extent.

I condemn the rejection of science and strong evidence but not the skepticism many lay people have on scientific claims. What are we asking of lay people as scientists when we ask them to just believe us? We are asking them to have faith. To believe us in the absence of their knowledge on the subject, when they have not followed the evidence to a conclusion.

To a tribes person in the Amazon, a doctor's claim that an injection will make them immune to certain illnesses might seem just as silly to a westerner as a tribal dealer's claim that they can cure illness by burning a particular plant and doing a dance.

But what I condemn is the public education system's failure to provide a good scientific foundation and the laziness of those who refute strong theories and the evidence supporting them without first putting in the time to educate themselves, and then reject evidence that refutes notions they have settled upon. No, the Earth is not flat.

Famouse last words by STEM professors: "But don't take my word for it" Translation "I'm going to prove it or make you prove it." Hint: You will have to do proofs on exams.

You and I should discuss free trade properly sometime, Walrus.

Hoo ... that's a can o'worms!

To educate people on science requires training them in Critical Thinking, Observational Skills, and the Scientific Method.

Observational Skills: The cognitive and perceptive talents that inform us about objects, events, attitudes and phenomena using one or more senses in order to gain information.

Critical Thinking: The intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

Scientific Method: The process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

Try using a 30-second sound bite to teach all of that to some urban yokel who dropped out of high school, and who believes that Alex Jones is God's own anointed prophet.

I agree. It takes a lot of time to teach these things and for most to develop the skills you mentioned.

I was also going to mention the demand that many make for quick answers to questions, the answers to which would require a few weeks of study for most people to understand. If it took me 5 months to learn I can't sum it up in 30 seconds. Perhaps 20 minutes if I really stream line it, but not 30 seconds as many expect.

I, very much, appreciate / respect science----or, at least, the THEORY of scientific research, and so-forth----and I don't think I would say I'm out-and-out "skeptical", per se; I think I would say I'm "cautious". "Skeptical" seems to imply that one DOUBTS everything that a scientist puts-forward----I would read it, research it, and THEN decide.

There are two reasons that make me "cautious" of scientific reports, and such: I feel that whomever has the deepest pockets, WINS (and that, nowadays, that also means, IMO, that whatever agenda whatever party wants to push, wins); and, no.2, there always seems to be a counter report, study, etc.----or, oftentimes, the exact people who say something is so, will come right back, however much time later, and say "nope, we were wrong----it's okay" (ie, "coffee's bad"----"nope, coffee's okay"; "eggs are bad"----"nope, eggs are okay"). I can't WAIT 'til somebody makes Pluto a planet, again!! LOL

It is good to be cautious of whatever passes for 'science'. However, that caution should go further than "I found something on an obscure website that contradicts what the scientists say, so the scientists must be wrong!"

Alex Jones, Donald Trump, and people like them are not scientists; and they hate scientists because scientifically-determined facts do not support the fake science they use, and that is used by racists, sexists, conspiracy theorists and other members of the Infowars fan-base.

Sociology and political science are not real science.

How can you trust scientists? I wouldn't trust anything they say.

1. FDA Scientists approve a drug or product, "Studies show it's OK for humans", then later recall it when people develop cancer or die.

35 FDA-Approved Prescription Drugs Later Pulled from the Market
https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/vi ... eID=005528

2. Bastard state and EPA scientists approved and "looked the other way" on Flint, Michigan water that contained harmful levels of lead (Flint Water Crisis).

Why the EPA is Partly to Blame for the Flint Water Crisis
http://time.com/4190643/flint-water-cri ... edman-epa/

3. Azodicarbonamide (SUBWAY bread bleaching agent banned in the EU but approved in the US), safe?

Almost 500 Foods Contain The 'Yoga Mat' Compound. Should We Care?
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/20 ... -care-keep

4. "Backscatter X-Ray" (Airport X-Ray Machines) safe? "Four professors at the University of California, San Francisco, among them members of NAS and an expert in cancer and imaging, in an April 2010 letter to the presidential science and technology advisor raised several concerns about the validity of the indirect comparisons the Food and Drug Administration used in evaluating the safety of backscatter x-ray machines. They argued that the effective dose is higher than claimed by the TSA and the body scanner manufacturers because the dose was calculated as if distributed throughout the whole body, whereas most of the radiation is absorbed in the skin and tissues immediately underneath. Other professors from the radiology department at UCSF disagree with the claims of the signing four professors"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray

5. Nuclear scientists say Palisades nuclear power plant 79 gallons of slightly radioactive water leakage (in additional numerous other leaks) into Lake Michigan is not harmful, because it's diluted and thus, the impact per person is low.

Radioactive leak found at Palisades Nuclear Power Plant
https://www.rt.com/usa/entergy-nuclear-plant-leak-447/

It seems like any corporate scientist can argue .. don't worry about pollution ... it's gets diluted in water so the impact per person is low.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 11 Aug 2018, 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I disagree that conservatives only reject the soft sciences. I've seen where conservatives have rejected scientific proofs, such as an eons old earth, evolution, climate sciences, etc. Instead, they'll gravitate toward pseudosciences such as creationism where Adam and Eve do ride a tame T Rex around the Garden of Eden, and where a young earth's geographic scarring of mountains and valleys, rivers, lakes and oceans had been the product of Noah's flood rather than the creation of millions of years of erosion and other natural changes. They would rather base their understanding of (pseudo) science on a literal reading of Genesis, apparently believing that they'll face Hellfire if they discount a single word of that book. One of the arguments I hear against evolution and an age old earth is: being that there was no death prior to Adam and Eve, there was no way evolution could have taken place.

I would assume that young people gravitate towards certain scientific fields according to their character. I'm not surprised that soft sciences that are known for their speculative nature attract liberal thinkers, while soft sciences that pretend to be hard sciences like economy migh attract conservative ones, reinforcing the stereotypes.

Anti-science people are right to suspect scientists of being scientists.

I think this is down to whether findings are or are not general consensus, and maybe also perspective.

For example, evolution, climate change, shape of the Earth, moon landings, these are heavily weighted to the scientific side and refusal to believe so is often based on misunderstood facts and statistics.

On the opposite end, you have things like the wage gap and privillige, largely social issues, which people still debate. I personally believe there is evidence for both but simultaneously think the jury could still be out on them.