Politically liberal science is bad science.

There are scientific facts that liberals find ways to question, though they are more subtle/convoluted than simple denial.

Examples:

1) abstinence as birth control: obviously you can't get pregnant if you abstain from intercourse, but liberals won't just admit that. Instead, they insist that abstinence is 'unrealistic' because people just won't abstain. By that logic, gun control wouldn't work because people simply won't give up their guns. See how they get around the fact?

2) guns don't kill people, people kill people: this is an undeniable fact. Yes, you could set up an automatic gun to shoot people without a human aiming and pulling the trigger, but in the vast majority of cases a gun is not capable of killing a person without a human operator. It's a scientific fact that liberals deny because they would rather accept human insanity and put it in a padded room than expect humans to achieve sanity so that they can behave responsibly in a world where people have access to potentially dangerous tools like guns.

3) national borders get exploited by criminals: Everyone who migrates and/or travels across national borders is not a criminal trafficking drugs or slaves; but some are. Liberals are so afraid of ethnic stereotyping that they deny the fact that transnational crime exists in favor of only focusing on human tragedies. Maybe some conservatives deny the fact that such tragedies occur, but denying/ignoring the facts about crime by shifting the focus to human tragedy is ideological spin. Both problems occur and both should be dealt with.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Geez Lava, I think you are confusing scientific facts with bumper stickers.

I don't think anyone denies any one of these things. Everyone agrees that abstinence prevents pregnancy, that gun killings involve a human or that there is crime that happens at the border.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Geez Lava, I think you are confusing scientific facts with bumper stickers.

I don't think anyone denies any one of these things. Everyone agrees that abstinence prevents pregnancy, that gun killings involve a human or that there is crime that happens at the border.

They are bumper stickers because they are incontrovertible facts that have been whittled down to sound bites that fit on bumper stickers.

That doesn't make them any less scientifically valid.

I was just pointing out that there are scientific facts that conservatives have been harping on for years that liberals deny and/or dance around in various ways, the same as people are currently learning to deny and dance around the climate issue and related industrial/economic/social/cultural issues in various ways.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

They are silly bumper stickers because they are inconsequential. No one disagrees with them.

You are avoiding the real issues with these empty slogans. Liberals do the same thing... that doesn't make it any better.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

They are silly bumper stickers because they are inconsequential. No one disagrees with them.

You are avoiding the real issues with these empty slogans. Liberals do the same thing... that doesn't make it any better.

I don't know. I bet we could find some that do.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Well there is a challenge for you, find me someone who doesn't think that abstinence isn't effective as birth control, and I will admit you are right.

2 Replies

It will take a little while, but you're on ... with any of the bumper stickers, not just abstinence

1 Reply

I thought this was germane to our discussion:

The Charney Report: 40 years ago, scientists accurately predicted climate change

Quote:

Despite the high regard in which the authors of the Charney Report were held by their scientific peers at the time, the report certainly didn't lead to immediate changes in behavior, by the public or politicians.

Quote:

The report exemplifies how good science works: establish an hypothesis after examining the physics and chemistry, then based on your assessment of the science make strong predictions. Here, "strong predictions" means something that would be unlikely to come true if your hypothesis and science were incorrect.

Quote:

Over the ensuing 40 years, as the world warmed pretty much as Charney and his colleagues expected, climate change science improved, with better models that included some of the factors missing from their 1979 deliberations.

This subsequent science has, however, only confirmed the conclusions of the Charney Report, although much more detailed predictions of climate change are now possible.

So here you go. Good science done by respected researchers with no obvious political bias, an evidence-based theory is presented and predictions based on it turn out to be accurate.

We lost three or four decades where we might have been addressing the problem of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions before it reached a crisis point. Would it have been more effective for these researchers to make common cause with politicians (of any stripe) in order to press governments to address these findings? By remaining non-political did they squander the opportunity to alert the public and attack the problem before it grew out of hand?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It will take a little while, but you're on ... with any of the bumper stickers, not just abstinence

We we are at it.... maybe we should be balanced.

Do you know anyone who actually wants to deny healthcare to women? The left has their own set of bumper stickers.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Abstinence is as close to 100% effective as you can get!

0 Replies

@hightor,

This is a thread about political ideology versus good science...

I don't really get the point you are trying to make. Are you arguing that politically liberal ideology is in fact good science?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Are you arguing that politically liberal ideology is in fact good science?

Can't you read?

Quote:

Would it have been more effective for these researchers to make common cause with politicians (of any stripe) in order to press governments to address these findings? By remaining non-political did they squander the opportunity to alert the public and attack the problem before it grew out of hand?

1 Reply

@hightor,

The question we are exploring is: Can people with a politically liberal ideology accept a scientific finding which disagrees with their ideological narrative?
So far, no one has been able to come up with an example of an ideological liberal accepting any scientific principle that questions their ideology. We are still looking for an example.

Every one of your posts is the same. You are posting findings that support a liberal political bias that you claim to have turned out correct.

It sure seems like your narrative you are telling is that a political liberal ideology always turns out to be scientifically correct. Maybe you can post a case where you think the scientific facts support part of a conservative ideological narrative.

My belief is that scientific facts are objective... they don't support one ideology or another. Do you at least agree with this on principle?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I can't believe you're as dense as you attempt to portray yourself.

Quote:

You are posting findings that support a liberal political bias that you claim to have turned out correct.

Bullshit. I'm simply showing you that this science was around long before it became identified with "liberal ideology". There's nothing inherently "liberal" or "conservative" in the report I linked to. Back in the day it could just as well have been picked up by conservatives who, at one time, were supportive of environmentalism.

I'm trying to move the topic along by asking what is the role of scientists when their research points toward unsettling conclusions which governments may want to address? How can they involve themselves in a necessary political discussion without having their topic of concern adopted by one side or another and thus becoming associated with a particular ideology?

And, by the way, you haven't explained how someone who abstains from sexual activity is not effectively preventing a pregnancy.

1 Reply

@hightor,

This thread is about political ideology versus science... specifically how people with a politically liberal ideology reject scientific findings that don't support their ideological narrative (you are welcome to start another thread on whatever other topic you want to discuss).

It would be relevant if you could post a scientific find that you accept that doesn't fit with a politically liberal ideology. The rest of the personal insults and links supporting a liberal ideology you are posting aren't relevant.

We already now that you accept any scientific finding that supports a liberal narrative. We already have enough examples were this is the case.

I am still hoping that you can point to one scientific fact that you accept that doesn't fit with your ideological bias.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

There was no "political ideology" associated with the Charney report at the time it was released. There's nothing in the report which is intrinsically supportive of a liberal ideology or a conservative one.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

There was no "political ideology" associated with the Charney report at the time it was released. There's nothing in the report which is intrinsically supportive of a liberal ideology or a conservative one.

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. This is definitely an narrative that is going to be accepted by people with a liberal ideology without question.

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

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

I am still waiting....

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Well there is a challenge for you, find me someone who doesn't think that abstinence isn't effective as birth control, and I will admit you are right.

Perfect example of faulty logic: you imply that popular denial makes the truth go away. It doesn't with abstinence any more than it does with climate.

Scientifically, abstinence works to prevent pregnancy and STI's and that's a fact. What you and others may be able to legitimately question is whether people are generally not smart enough or don't have a strong enough will to abstain. That is a different issue, though.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

They are silly bumper stickers because they are inconsequential. No one disagrees with them.

You are avoiding the real issues with these empty slogans. Liberals do the same thing... that doesn't make it any better.

Calling them 'empty slogans,' doesn't change the fact that they are true facts.

Saying that someone is 'avoiding the real issues,' is also a diversionary tactic, the same as saying, for example, that focusing on climate change avoids the real issue of, say, overpopulation.

When people don't want to change or do anything to fix a problem, they just shift their focus to other problems. So overpopulationists focus on population because they don't want to change fossil fuel usage or any other aspect of the global industrial economy/culture, so they pretend like it's not their fault because they're not breeding as much as some other people.

The fact is that if you abstain from intercourse, there is no need for abortion or even birth control for that matter. It is entirely doable, but because people don't want to abstain from intercourse, they make a whole giant political discourse out of everything from health care funding to sexuality rights, etc. etc.

It is basically the same as all the politics focused on economic equality, growth, etc. because of the failure to radically calm economic activities for the sake of stopping and reversing climate change. Ironically, abstaining from economic activities to avert/reverse climate change is another form of abstinence that is just as effective as sexual abstinence, and just as unpopular too.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

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.

2 Replies

Politically liberal science is bad science.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know