Politically liberal science is bad science.

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Can you give me an example where scientific findings don't fit with a liberal political narrative

Im not sure where you are trying to go here??

I can find where scientific findings agree wth conservative politics, and, in fact, the conservatives trot the findings to underpin their own assertions. You can take every argument, Flouridation, Global Warming, Evolution, etc. and Im assuming that the Conservatives are presenting some sort of "cientific evidence" NO??
(Unless you say that there arent any scientific findings that Conservatives use and that their arguments are pure emotionally driven??). Is that a reasonable extension of your argument?

I think I have made my point pretty clear.

Political liberals have one set of scientific "facts". Political conservatives have a completely different set of scientific "facts". Everyone is likely to accept a scientific claim that supports their ideological narrative and to reject a scientific claim that doesn't fit into their pre-existing beliefs.

Real science doesn't conform to a one political ideology or the other. In science you start with a question, and then you look for objective evidence to find an unbiased answer. Sometimes this answer will fit a liberal narrative, sometimes it will fit a conservative narrative.

Political ideology starts with the answer, and then looks for evidence to support it. The science by google that happens in these threads is frustrating, you can find links on the internet to support any narrative, That is why it is important to have objective criteria that you apply to every claim whether it fits an ideological narrative or not.

This thread was inspired by claims from political liberals that human civilization is near collapse and that the topsoil on Earth will be completely depleted in 60 years.

Political liberals aren't any more likely than conservatives to accept scientific claims that don't fit into their ideological narrative. Of course, I agree with you that conservatives do the same thing.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

could it also be that we lland on our political sides as CONSEQUENCES of facts??. When youve dispensed with your examples, youve lost most of the force of your argument .

Thats why I dont understand where youre ultimately going. Look at how Copernican astronomical predictions were pronounced as heresy by a "religio-political belief" that had overwhelming proof that the Bible was inerrant no?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

topsoil on Earth will be completely depleted in 60 years

I believe youre (all of you) are just engaging in hyperbole here. Every Ice Age, the soil is depleted (Physically and chemically). Well make more.

If youre argument just boils down to "politics isnt compelling science" Ill begin calling you the new Dr Obvious and give Finnzy second place.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Some people raise doubt about GM crops . . . it isn't that hard to google reports and even studies that seemingly support your pre-existing beliefs . . .

I hope you're not talking about the study I just posted; there's nothing seemingly about it.
__________________________________________________

A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

How do you propose we fix the political divide when it comes to science... where what people believe about science is aligned with their political ideology.

People have to embrace political diversity in institutional settings instead of taking an attitude of rejecting/eschewing politics they don't agree with and/or don't like.

The reason universities are like snowballs for certain political views is because there is a popularity contest going on where students and professors choose each other based on affinity, which includes political leaning.

So younger faculty are conforming to the political expectations of older faculty, and students are conforming in a similar way to what they believe will win them favor with their professors.

In general, there is a culture of hedonism and status because most people are paying a lot for higher education so that they can make more money to enjoy more of the pleasures the world has to offer. So that automatically creates a bias toward pleasure-positive ideology (hedonism) and against more traditional conservative/religious ideology that questions pleasure as being something that can distract from higher pursuits.

It's very difficult for hedonists to embrace political diversity because they really just see politics as a means to pursue their goals, which is to get more money to afford more pleasure. Why would they respect people who hold different political views and thus pose a threat to their politics of pleasure-seeking?

Somehow they have to become convinced that democracy and thus political diversity is more important than popularity contests and pleasure-seeking.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

could it also be that we lland on our political sides as CONSEQUENCES of facts??. When youve dispensed with your examples, youve lost most of the force of your argument .

Thats why I dont understand where youre ultimately going. Look at how Copernican astronomical predictions were pronounced as heresy by a "religio-political belief" that had overwhelming proof that the Bible was inerrant no?

If we landed on our political sides as "consequences of facts", wouldn't that imply that one side was 100% correct about science and the other side was 100% incorrect about science? I don't accept this.

I make the attempt to look at science objectively. That means applying the same criteria to evaluating the facts whether they support a politically liberal narrative or a politically conservative narrative. I have summarized some of these criteria (accepted by reputable independent scientific institutions, supported by good research understood as correct by most scientists in the field)..

I have found that when I do this, both political liberals and political conservatives accept scientific claims that support their political narrative, and reject science claims that don't fit their ideological beliefs.

I can list scientific claims that I accept based on facts that don't fit a conservative narrative. I can also list scientific claims that I accept that don't fit a liberal narrative.

Science doesn't fit a political narrative. I think most scientists would say the same.

4 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I can also list scientific claims that I accept that don't fit a liberal narrative.

Could you perhaps give an example of that?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

farmerman wrote:

could it also be that we lland on our political sides as CONSEQUENCES of facts??. When youve dispensed with your examples, youve lost most of the force of your argument .

Thats why I dont understand where youre ultimately going. Look at how Copernican astronomical predictions were pronounced as heresy by a "religio-political belief" that had overwhelming proof that the Bible was inerrant no?

If we landed on our political sides as "consequences of facts", wouldn't that imply that one side was 100% correct about science and the other side was 100% incorrect about science? I don't accept this.

Science supports conflicting political views. Science makes possible the industrial engineering and technologies that harm environment and climate; and it also makes it possible to see how environment and climate are being harmed and to come up with and evaluate different possibilities for stopping and/or reversing the damage.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

The question is whether there is a scientific fact that you accept even though it doesn't fit with a liberal ideological narrative. I failed to find one. Maybe you can help me. Maybe I failed to find an example because no examples exist.

I haven given a few examples of scientific claims that don't fit a liberal ideological narrative. You didn't accept them. This is one of those cases where a failure to find an example proves my thesis. I can keep giving examples of scientific facts that liberals don't accept... and you can keep on not accepting them. We have already shown that this is the case.

The only way to prove anything further is for you to come up with a counter example where there is a scientific fact that you accept in spite of the fact it doesn't fit the political narrative. I am afraid the ball is in your court.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I haven given a few examples of scientific claims that don't fit a liberal ideological narrative. You didn't accept them

Not really. As I said, GMOs are not a scientific finding, they are a product of a certain set of techniques, a technology. There's an important difference, as there is between an atomic bomb (technology) and quantum mechanics (science).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I make the attempt to look at science objectively.

I think you believe this. I do not.
Youv landed all over GMO as "settled science" when its not. Wheres your assertion coming from? You really believe youre being objective when youre not.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

If we landed on our political sides as "consequences of facts", wouldn't that imply that one side was 100% correct about science and the other side was 100% incorrect about science?

Stop using superlative comparisons. That alone is uncientific. Ever hear of "The preponderance of evidence"??

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
I haven given a few examples of scientific claims that don't fit a liberal ideological narrative. You didn't accept them

Not really. As I said, GMOs are not a scientific finding, they are a product of a certain set of techniques, a technology. There's an important difference, as there is between an atomic bomb (technology) and quantum mechanics (science).

Science ascertains and clarifies how nature works. Engineering applies the knowledge to create technologies/techniques to apply scientific knowledge to creating artificial and/or modified-natural systems.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

In other words, there's a difference between science and technology, and another difference between technology and what you use it for in practice.

I can't come up with any solid scientific finding I would be inclined to disbelieve out of my ideology.

I can see some technology I would object to on account of risks to mankind (nuclear bombs, gaz bombs, the creation of black holes...). But generally I see new technology as a good thing.

But there could be millions of things one individual or group of people can do with technology that I would object to, like using the knowledge of surgery to dissect people and sell them piecemeal on the black market.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I can't come up with any solid scientific finding I would be inclined to disbelieve out of my ideology.

Of course you can't. That is the entire point I am making with this thread. Your understanding of scientific findings matches with your ideology. You are avoiding the interesting question.

Can you come up with a scientific finding that you do believe even though it doesn't fit into your political ideology?

I can come up with several scientific findings that don't fit into my political ideology. There are scientific facts that don't fit into a political liberal narrative. There are likewise scientific facts that don't fit into a conservative narrative. I am happy to point them out.

Science is at its best when it challenges our own prejudices. Science is meaningless if your understanding of scientific facts matches perfectly with your ideological narrative.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Can you come up with a scientific finding that you do believe even though it doesn't fit into your political ideology?

No. Can you?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Yes, I have several....

I consider myself political liberal (some dispute that, but that's that).

- I believe the scientific findings that contradict the liberal political narrative on GMs (I am sticking with the NIH findings as scientific), rape prevention methods, organic food and homeopathic medicine.

- I believe the scientific findings that contradict the conservative political narratives on Global Climate change, healthcare results, gun safety and evolution.

If a scientific finding is

1) Supported by reputable independent scientific institutions.
2) Based on well-designed, transparent research.

I will support it. Most importantly, when someone shows me that the the criteria above doesn't fit my beliefs... I change my beliefs. The criteria are objective, in the sense that I apply the same criteria whether the claim supports one ideological narrative or another.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I believe the scientific findings that contradict the liberal political narrative on GMs (I am sticking with the NIH findings as scientific), rape prevention methods, organic food and homeopathic medicine.

On homeopathy and GMOs I suspect we agree, so that's 2 for me too.

The virtues of organic farming (or rather the negative effects of pesticides) are well researched, so here you disagree with the science. 1 for me, 0 for you.

I know nothing about rape prevention methods.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

If a scientific finding is

1) Supported by reputable independent scientific institutions.
2) Based on well-designed, transparent research.

I will support it

Then youre holding a singule sided view. It i entirely possible that no effects have been reported on GMO meats thus far because the effects of HGT havent been masurable since the effects are "generational". Yet, pretty much ALL ag science knows the effects that GMO seeds have had on the environment where Bt enhanced and specific herbicide tolerance has caused neg changes in insect populations and/or induced plant ("weed") immunity to the very herbicides that were hooked up with the grasses and grains .

There is a large and growing body of research in Ecology, plant science, and plant genetics that has raised caution. I believe that the EU has specific strictures on GMO grain and grass .

We have a series of techniques in transiting genetic info into animals and plants. The technologies arent a generation old in field use. P Plant science research sheds cautionary views on the same issue when it comes to affecting species with life spans much shorter than ours. To call it "settled science" is beyond your pay grade

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Would you make the same claim about climate science? The people who are skeptical about global climate change make the same argument.

The EU is a political body.

0 Replies

Politically liberal science is bad science.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know