Triple backflip on the double-negative decreasingly increases my inability to see that sentence as consistently inaccurate.
Conservatives are skeptical of scientists because the conservatives are scientists in their own right and know that many of the claims made will not pass a true scientific test.
It is quite right to hold utter disdain for SINOs who declare that there are 50 different genders.
Goof find! Thanks for the post.
Conservatives are distrustful of scientists because a lot of “peer reviewed journals” aren’t.
Conservatives are distrustful of scientists because a lot of “science” is blatantly agenda driven.
Conservatives are distrustful of scientists because a lot data is fraudulent or massaged to fit the hypothesis.
Any more?
The durability of Conservatism has depended, to a great extent,
on it being a disposition rather than a philosophy.
What marks Conservatives out, across the generations,
and whatever the environment they operate in,
is an attitude of mind rather than an adherence to dogma.
And that disposition
- skeptical, cautious, pragmatic, sensitive to the local and the particular
- has been politically successful because it has been in tune with human nature.
Michael Gove
I’ve worked as a research scientist for over thirty years, from large-scale government projects to independent research for corporations. The trend has definitely been towards bad science becoming the rule rather than the exception.
I can also say that, in my experince with government funded research, politics ALWAYS trumps science. ALWAYS. Meanwhile, corporations that actually produce a product are much more interested in good and true science. Government research only cares that you give results that support their predetermined conclusions. That has been my experience.
Throw on top of that the fact that you only get funded if you have the "correct" hypothesis and only get future funding if you have the "correct" results.
Also consider continually contradicted research. I forget, is coffee good or bad this month. Just read the research papers and see both "proved".
When I get home I'll add President Eisenhower's farewell address warning about the dangers of letting government control science or science control government.
A couple of weeks ago, there was an FR post citing a paper from the Smithsonian Journal. This paper was published almost 3 years ago. The Smithsonian paper did not deal with bias. Instead, it stated that (1) scientific peer review had collapsed, (2) very few studies could be reproduced, (3) this is partially true because papers did not include information about the methodology employed, (4) original data was not made available for either peer review or validation via replication and, (5) there was far less money available for attempting to replicate the research of others and, (6) far more interest and money for producing original research.
The authors of the Smithsonian paper had surveyed a large swath of biological studies to reach their conclusions. So they weren’t even talking directly about areas where bias would normally be injected.
So between these two articles we find a rather complete breakdown in the scientific community: bias, as cited by this paper, and unreproducible findings as cited by the Smithsonian.
When CO2 was declared a pollutant, they went of the deep end..................
Case in point: talk to a liberal about research on the genetic component of IQ.
But most scientists know better than to even get near a research project whose conclusions might be politically incorrect.
Wow. Great news. I’m going to celebrate with a big meal of eggs and oatmeal. I figure the cholesterol harm from the former will be balanced by the cholesterol benefit of the latter. Oh, wait...
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/
Figured that out in 7th Grade Science long ago.
Confirmed as Science Major six years later.