Politically liberal science is bad science.

@maxdancona,

science is self correcting ultimately. bad science begets better science. It isnt at all about "politics being too involved", Its about crass self interests that try to dictate outcomes.

Think Copernicus, Darwin,Newton, .Then think American Brands, Phillip Morris, Island Creek Coal, United Fruit, Con Agra.

I find it funny that the Koch Brothers support some of the most cutting edge science denial but personally "believe in" Man's Responsibility in Globl Warming

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Using the story of tobacco to attack science is historically incorrect. It is a anti-science myth that is used by both the left and the right to discount science. The scientific community suspected the link between smoking and disease as early as the 1920s and had research to back it up by the early 1950s. I don't believe that there was any major scientific institution that contradicted the science on tobacco.

It was political opposition to the scientific consensus that was the problem. The scientific community wasn't the problem. Both the political left and the political right launch political opposition to the findings of the scientific community. That is the point of this thread.

Attacking the scientific community anytime they reach a finding that doen't fit with your political ideology is bad science (and accusing independent scientists of being beholden to the Koch brothers is an attack on scientists.)

1 Reply

This is from the Pew Research center showing the difference between the scientific view versus the public view on GM foods and Global Climate change.

- 88% of scientists think that GM foods are "safe to eat" versus 37% of the public.

- 87% of scientists thing that Climate Change is "mostly due to human activity" versus 50% of the public

https://www.pewinternet.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2015/01/PI_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-01.png

https://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/pi_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-01/

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Only in America though.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

I say i was fiscally directed, politics was marketing . YOU really think our politicians were smart enough to start that whole hullabaloo??

SCience was PAYED OFF, (the news and literature is loaded with tales of how entire research institution were "Funded to generate findings about the non-health-effects of smoking." I was in HS (I believe) when that line of cigarette company CEOs stood up and swore they believed that cigarettes were a benign thing. AND theyw ere backed by respected research institutions .

I was part of a drinking water panel many years ago when I was in teaching. A Fed regulation was proposed to lower the limit of manganese in ground water. It took yrs for the "scientists and public health" folks to effect level regs that would be almost laughably minor today. After the hearings and policy reviews and re reviews (GUARANTEED UNDER CFR 40 (I believe that was the one), and studis an new studies, (I was off the committee by then), they finally got the regs through. When we looked back, we could see that there was much money from the soft drink and bottld water industry that sponsored the " counter Science". Science has conveniently bid itself out in many cases. Its often gone to the highest bidder not some political cause.

have you spent much time in public arenas involving your beliefs??
Its always fun to "follow the money" as they say.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Of course this supports a politically liberal ideology... the narrative that human economic activity damages the environment is a core part of liberal ideology on issues from nuclear power to GMOs to climate change. This doesn't mean that these claims are or aren't true.

But what I'm trying to point out to you is that this "liberal narrative" wasn't applied to these findings when they were first announced. "Liberals" supported scientific progress, some of them even backing nuclear power. This sort of idealism faded with the emergence of the "culture wars" but if a person bought on to the conclusions of the Charney Report in 1979 they weren't supporting a "liberal narrative", just plain science.

Quote:

I don't think there is anything in the Charney report that challenges your political ideology.

Right. That's not the criterion for good science however.

Quote:

The question is whether there is an example of a scientific finding that you accept that doesn't fit into a liberal ideological narrative.

No, that's your question.

Why don't you provide an example of a scientific finding (physical science) that you believe is incompatible with a liberal world view, as you understand it? I can't think of any myself. We've discussed some of the science around GMOs already (my objection to them is in how they are marketed and deployed, not the underlying science) so it would be more useful if you could find another example which doesn't carry as much baggage. But if the Higgs Boson violates my sense of fair play you'll be the first to know.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

if the Higgs Boson violates my sense of fair play you'll be the first to know.

Excellent!

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

- 88% of scientists think that GM foods are "safe to eat" versus 37% of the public.

Again, science is not done by consensus. I've repeatedly asked you to provide the studies done on GMOs that prove their safety. Scientific reassurances like " doesn't seem to be any riskier," like that found in your link, is hardly reassuring. And as far as the title of your link goes, what some scientists "think" about the safety of GMOs isn't reassuring either. So point me to those long-term studies if you would, please.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are a funny person Livinglava.... you are telling me I have "faulty logic" when I tell you that I agree with you 100%.

You are completely right. Abstinence is 100% effective, and is the best way, to prevent pregnancy and STI's. I don't know anyone who disagrees with you on the facts. That is why your argument is silly.

They don't adequately acknowledge the fact and then focus on increasing utilization of abstinence as a method.

What people mostly do is just argue that abstinence is unrealistic to expect. That causes them to shift focus to abortion and birth control.

They may not explicitly deny the fact that abstinence is 100% effective, but they negate it by dismissing it as a choice.

The same happens with climate, where people rarely explicitly deny that driving and heating/air-conditioning are the most widespread forms of energy-waste, yet they simply ignore the need to reduce and eliminate them when and where possible because of the assumption that it is unrealistic to expect that people will actually embrace the change.

Basically we know that unpopular changes will be averted by both popular choice and popular obstruction of governmental action that would result in regulation; so we just give up on positive changes from the get-go.

Maybe people just watched Looney Tunes as kids where characters were always surrendering to popular conformity by saying, "if you can't beat them, join them."

0 Replies

@farmerman,

My thesis is that people often choose to accept scientific facts that fit with their political ideology and find reasons to reject scientific facts that don't.

Science should be objective, facts are facts whether they fit any particular ideological narrative or not.

Maybe GMs aren't the best example (although it seems like in the GM cases, it is the political left that is using what you called 'counter-science'). I am still hoping for a better example of how science can be viewed in an objective matter.

An objective view of science should lead to some facts that don't support an ideological liberal political narrative... can you give me a better example?

I stated a set of criteria that I apply to claims whether they fit a political ideology or not. If a scientific claim meets these criteria, I accept it as fact. If this conflicts with my pre-existing beliefs (as happens from time to time), too bad.

How do you objectively evaluate scientific facts when they don't fit your political narrative? If you are going to claim that science that contradicts your ideological narrative is corrupted by money, you should have an objective way that applies to all claims equally (including those that support your political ideology).

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

How do you objectively evaluate scientific facts when they don't fit your political narrative?

The same way you objectively evaluate scientific facts when they do fit your political narrative. If you're doing your research objectively, whether or not you subscribe to some "political narrative" is immaterial.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Bingo Hightor!

That is exactly my point.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

The scientific basis for the Darwinian evolution is pretty well established but it doesn't have the quality of hard evidence that you might find in a theory based on physics or chemistry. It's interesting though because Darwin had to deal with the challenge it posed to his religious beliefs and ended up discarding some of them. Later the theory was used by reactionary racists and liberal reformers alike. As the science became better and better established it became more and more difficult for "scientists" with a religious perspective to argue for creation. So instead of arguing for a "young earth" they cleverly adopted the notion of "intelligent design". This enabled them to accept the science but insert the unproven presence of a deity, illustrating a tactic that may be used when science and ideology are in conflict — revise one's theory so that it doesn't conflict with the facts but instead embellishes them.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

My thesis is that people often choose to accept scientific facts that fit with their political ideology and find reasons to reject scientific facts that don't.

Science should be objective, facts are facts whether they fit any particular ideological narrative or not.

They don't always reject them. Sometimes they just ignore some facts by focusing on others.

Entire slanted worldviews/paradigms can emerge from systematically ignoring certain facts while acknowledging most others.

0 Replies

@hightor,

I think your claim that the Catholic Church was led by scientists is a bit of a stretch... but let's go with the example.

Why do you believe in evolution? If you are anything like me, you believe evolution because that is what scientific community tells us is true. I have a science degree (Physics) that did not include very much biology. In honestly I have never...

- read a scientific paper on mitochondria or RNA trasferase or anything else related to evolution.
- participated in an archeological dig or examined fossil layer.
- looked at data involving genotypes

I know so little about biology that I am pulling this stuff out of my ass. I have a high school understanding of the biological science of evolution. But really now.... let's be honest. We understand that there is a scientific consensus about evolution because the people who actually have done the work to study, learn and research the topic tell us.

We trust the scientific community. If in 5 years a new discovery is made, and the scientific community finds evidence that they find is conclusive that evolution no longer explains the origin of human life... would you change your mind?

I would.

If you accept the findings of the scientific community when it comes to things that support a political narrative, and reject the findings that don't... you lose any benefit to having an objective institution of science.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

(although it seems like in the GM cases, it is the political left that is using what you called 'counter-science')

Then youre guilty of adapting "narrowing of hypotheses"
Ive seen no data that rejects a belief that GMO meats arent "Tasty an good for you". THATS NOT THE DAMNED POINT.
We see that the horizontal gene transfer as it affects less complex organisms and is a cause of "Artificial adaptation " for plants and insects and very minor (but biologically important) organisms, science must really suspend the "settled science" cry until multi-generational testing of higher order species are completed an defined. That is not politically driven science. IT IS , however, finnancially driven primarily so that the ag industry can produce a larger product on "the hoof" at shorter production times, or faster growing pullets, or hogs immune to CWD. Theres no data that either supports or denies anything, so cobbling up scientists signatures is as dumb as those same signatures that represent scientists who DOUBT evolution. You seem to miss that entire basket of data.

In physics, because(maybe) youre area isnt associated with string theory, You dont automatically jump to the side of those who call it "Mathturbation" and only stick to Newtonian and Relativistic laws an hypotheses. No, you keep reading or get involved yourself or just ignore it. PLEASE dont be so quick to accept some announcement that "THIS IS SETTLED SCIENCE" just because some interested party compiles and presents thousands of names and makes brash statements that all these folks are "For my theory"

That too , like financially and religiously driven "theories"is not science,(unless each individual gives their, , theirfield of competence reasoning, and attempts to convince an objective panel).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I think your claim that the Catholic Church was led by scientists is a bit of a stretch... but let's go with the example.

I didn't claim that. I don't think that any of the "scientists' who support ID are high officials in the Roman Catholic church. I was thinking of these guys.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Ive seen no data that rejects a belief that GMO meats arent "Tasty an good for you". THATS NOT THE DAMNED POINT.
We see that the horizontal gene transfer as it affects less complex organisms and is a cause of "Artificial adaptation " for plants and insects and very minor (but biologically important) organisms, science must really suspend the "settled science" cry until multi-generational testing of higher order species are completed an defined. That is not politically driven science. IT IS , however, finnancially driven primarily so that the ag industry can produce a larger product on "the hoof" at shorter production times, or faster growing pullets, or hogs immune to CWD. Theres no data that either supports or denies anything, so cobbling up scientists signatures is as dumb as those same signatures that represent scientists who DOUBT evolution. You seem to miss that entire basket of data.

Science is not a moralistic endeavor it is an amoral search for information. The universe is amoral survival of the fittest rules so why do you care about this. If the entire countryside is covered in corn wheat, soy beans and oil wells and supports a total of 1,000,000,000 people that never have to worry about food and shelter and having enough leisure time who cares. I think we should live and let live, don't you?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

Science is not a moralistic endeavor it is an amoral search for information. The universe is amoral survival of the fittest rules so why do you care about this. If the entire countryside is covered in corn wheat, soy beans and oil wells and supports a total of 1,000,000,000 people that never have to worry about food and shelter and having enough leisure time who cares. I think we should live and let live, don't you?

"Live and let live" is a statement of morality. It's bizarre that you call science amoral and then start preaching about morality based on survival of the fittest, indifference to environmental harm, and 'live and let live.' If you want to abstain from morality and only discuss science, why don't you do that instead?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

The environment isn’t a person how can you harm it?

1 Reply

Politically liberal science is bad science.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know