Posted on 08/07/2018 1:35:53 PM PDT by Heartlander
Conservatives have long been skeptical of certain scientific claims, especially in regard to the science behind man-made global warming.
However, a study by the University of Oxford suggests that there may be a reason for that. In fact, they go as far as to say that conservatives have a “right” to be skeptical of scientists.
The study “Does activism in the Social Sciences Explain Conservatives’ Distrust of Scientists?” was led by Professor of Biology for the University of Oxford Nathan Confas and was first published online back in 2017. However, the study was brought to light again when it was republished this month in the recent issue of the American Sociologist.
While conservatives’ distrust in scientists has increasingly decreased every year since 1974, there has been little understanding as to why.
The research hits the well-repeated claim that conservatives often dismiss scientific claims because they contradict their religious beliefs. There are some who believe that conservatives throw out these scientific claims because, as Confas and his team note, it “threatens their worldview.”
However, Confas told Campus Reform that this was a “misguided approach.” Additionally, he said that “liberals and conservatives are equally likely to discredit science if it conflicts with their world-view.”
Confas proposed that the reason so many conservatives are skeptical is that there is an increase of liberalism within the scientific community.
He cited a recent study to prove his point. The study surveyed 479 sociology professors, and only 4 percent identified as conservative or libertarian. Compare this with the 86 percent who identify themselves as liberal or left-radical.
Additionally, Confas suggests that goal of sociology “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.”
But it’s not just the area of sociology where this bias is creeping in. UNT professor George Yancy published a piece titled, “Yes Academic Bias is a Problem and We Need to Address It.”
“Given the reality that academics are much more politically progressive and irreligious than the general population, one should be concerned about the potential of liberal and secular bias,” he wrote. “Those like myself are also concerned about academic bias simply because such bias can lead to bad science.”
It’s this “bias” that leads to “bad science” that is concerning to Confas. He told Campus Reform, “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.”
He added, “Conservatives are right to be skeptical. 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.”
Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.
Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/
The big review paper on the lack of political diversity in social psychology
http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-political-diversity/
To paraphrase Dr. Gad Saad, there are evolutionary biologists getting hammered for talking about male/female dichotomy in lower species.
That these liberal bullies aren’t just denying that there are only two sexes in humans but at all levels of animals, to the point of arguing and shouting at people talking about gender differences between lesser animals.
Don’t you dare say the monkeys are just male and female and females prefer dolls!
Nice.
Since you asked, my field of research is plasma physics. Hard to imagine how that can be politicized, but politics always finds a way.
Figured that out in 7th Grade Science long ago.
Confirmed as Science Major six years later.
Yet that difference is present even in bacteria, which are classified as F- and F+. The yeast I used to grow for my graduate research were A and alpha. Male and female evolved because of the absolute need to keep mixing up the DNA, which mitigates the effects of constant mutation.
The thing about science is that it is observational. The physical world is not subject to change just because some liberal does not like the way it is. If you want to believe that brick is no different than marshmallow, and you fervently believe that, you are going to have a rude surprise when you decide to run full speed into a brick wall. Scientists who are interested in the truth do not try to pigeonhole data into predetermined conclusions; this was tried in the USSR with Lysenkoism, and not only failed but held Soviet science back so that even in the 2000s, Russian scientists were trying to fix the damage.
Interesting.
I confess that, as a life scientist, I interpret “plasma” as a primary component of blood. I do know what you are talking about; my undergraduate chemistry courses covered it.
My experience is that at the basic science level (where I am), the science is pretty much reflective of the physical world that we are trying to describe and characterize. Above that level, where basic transitions into applied, the problems start. That is partly because we are limited in our ability to do research on humans, so much of the “research” actually consists of statistical analyses. And that is just asking for trouble, because too many clinical researchers really do not understand that correlation is not causation. Thus, they take a very powerful data validation tool and treat it as data without ever doing any experiments. As a result, we have nonsense like “sodas cause obesity” being promoted to the public, with the result that cities are trying to ban sodas (and now straws).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.