Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: Its Not Science I Dont Trust Its the Scientists

  1. #1
    Sees all, knows all Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    13 Hours Ago @ 08:31 PM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Politics
    Vlkisch traditionalist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,171
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,479
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,558
    Thanked in
    1,112 Posts

    Its Not Science I Dont Trust Its the Scientists

    By James Delingpole


    "Everyone knows the real reason people like Donald Trump are sceptical of climate change is that conservatives are fundamentally anti-science. Some doubt science because it conflicts with their religious beliefs; others because its implications might mean radically shifting the global economy in an anti-growth or heavily statist direction, which goes against their free-market ideology; others because, being conservative, they are prisoners of their dogmatism, need closure and fear uncertainty. I hear this all the time from lefties on social media. And there seems to be some evidence to support it.

    At least there is if you believe studies like The Republican War on Science (Mooney, 2005), Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere (Gauchat, 2012), and Not for all the tea in China! Political Ideology and the Avoidance of Dissonance-Arousing Situations (Nam et al, 2013).

    But theres a wrinkle here and you may have guessed what it is. The world of social science is overwhelmingly left-wing: so heavily agenda-driven, so rife with confirmation bias and skewed methodology that almost inevitably its studies will show conservatives as blinkered and dim, and lefties as open-minded and clever regardless of the evidence.

    Lest you think this is my own bias showing, another recent study confirmed it: a survey of 479 sociology professors found that only 4 per cent identified as conservative or libertarian, while 83 per cent identified as liberal or left-radical. In another survey of psychologists this time only 6 per cent identified as conservative overall.

    Just occasionally, though, a more balanced study does slip through the net like the one just published by a team from Oxford University. The study by Nathan Cofnas et al Does Activism in the Social Sciences Explain Conservatives Distrust of Scientists? pours scorn on the idea that conservatives are any more anti-science than lefties. Its not science they distrust so much as scientists especially ones in more nebulous, activism-driven fields like ecology or sociology. As Cofnas told Campus Reform, a site that exposes left-wing bias at universities: Conservatives are right to be sceptical. Take any politicised issue that is connected to some disagreement about scientific fact. I do not believe there is a single case in the last couple of decades where a major scientific organisation took a position that went against the platform of the Democratic party. He added: What an odd coincidence that science always, without exception, supports the liberal worldview.

    Wait, though. While Margaret Thatcher said the facts of life are conservative, how can we be sure that the facts of science dont naturally swing left? This is what left-wing scientists seem to believe. But as Cofnas shows, in order to reach that conclusion, they have to torture the data till it screams. Or even just make it up.

    In 2014, a paper was published in Science called When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality. This demonstrated that instinctively homophobic, buttoned-up conservatives were more likely to become liberal on meeting a gay man. Their study showed that a 20-minute conversation with a gay canvasser increased their acceptance of same-sex marriage nine months later. Great! Except as two graduate students subsequently demonstrated, no study was ever conducted. To the chagrin of the social scientists who had welcomed this paper and its heartwarming message, it had to be retracted.

    Where are the peer-reviewers who are supposed to vet these things? Well, it turns out theyre generally willing to give a free pass to any thesis that accords with the liberal narrative. For example, over the course of more than a decade, Diederik Stapel published dozens of sensational papers on such topics as how easily Whites or men can be prompted to discriminate against Blacks or women. When exposed as a fraud, Stapel explained that he was merely giving social scientists what they were waiting for.

    Stapel probably had a point. If research supports a liberal shibboleth say, the notion that violence is a learned behaviour rather than innate then it will be given huge prominence. In 2000, the American Academy of Pediatrics testified to Congress that more than 3,500 studies had investigated the link between exposure to media violence and actual violent behaviour. This was a lie. Even those few studies fewer than 1,000 that purported to find a causal link often did so on the flimsiest of evidence. For example, one established the elevated aggression caused by watching an exciting film by asking a child whether he would pop a balloon if one were present.

    If the evidence doesnt accord with the correct woke narrative then right-thinking social scientists tailor it till it does. This is what happened to a 2007 study showing racially diverse communities are more suspicious, withdrawn, ungenerous, fractured and fractious. Such an incendiary refutation of the well-known truth that diversity is strength could not go unedited. So it didnt. Publication was delayed until the author could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity. To publish the facts on their own would be irresponsible.

    Eventually, the author published it with a disquisition on how increasing diversity would lead to significant benefits in the medium or long term. This accords with contact theory a notion popular among social scientists (see also the imaginary encounter with the gay canvasser, above) that the more were physically exposed to diversity the more well learn to love it. And if the hard evidence speaks otherwise, well never mind. You can just do what the author of that diversity report does: every time some unhelpful conservative type cites it to back up their argument that diversity causes social problems, he accuses them of selectively citing his findings because theyve ignored the bit at the end where he explains that diversity will be good one day."

    Source: The Spectator
    "If we were going to stand in darkness, best we stand in a darkness we had made ourselves. ― Douglas Coupland, Shampoo Planet

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chlodovech For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, July 8th, 2017, 12:14 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, February 15th, 2009, 07:39 PM
  3. US minorities don't trust each other
    By Gefjon in forum Immigration & Multiculturalism
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008, 05:06 AM
  4. DNA Gatherers Hit Snag: Tribes Dont Trust Them
    By Mercator in forum Population Genetics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, December 13th, 2006, 04:54 AM
  5. Important: Don't trust your printer
    By Gandalf in forum Internet, Security, & Privacy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, December 5th, 2006, 11:06 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •