The Liberal War on Science.

[QuickHitCurepon]

The left kisses Darwin's dead ass almost daily.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The left kisses Darwin's dead ass almost daily.

...and behave as though his theory is fact.

 

[NYcarbineer]

2. David Mamet points out the effects religion, and that of Leftism, on society:
'The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.'

Mamet should list for us all of the societies in history, totally devoid of any socialist components, that were or are more prosperous than the United States, with all our socialism.

 

[NCC1701]

2. David Mamet points out the effects religion, and that of Leftism, on society:
'The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.'

Mamet should list for us all of the societies in history, totally devoid of any socialist components, that were or are more prosperous than the United States, with all our socialism.

The US and western nations pre-socialist. We rose from nothing to #1 all without redistribution and socialism in 1776-1930

 

[NCC1701]

Liberals and Science? Oil and Water.

1. The Left regularly claims that the Right, via its association with religion, is somehow both anti-science, and averse to science.
As is the case with so much of the Left's dogma, it is a pretense designed to hide the reality.


2. David Mamet points out the effects religion, and that of Leftism, on society:
'The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.'



John Tierney, former contributing editor to Discover and Health magazines, a staff writer at Science 81-85 magazine, puts a stake through the heart of the Left's claims.....

3. "When he is asked why he doesn't write about some alleged conservative threat to science, he responds "because there isn’t much to write about. Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science. I know that sounds strange to Democrats who decry Republican creationists and call themselves the “party of science.” But I’ve done my homework. I’ve read the Left’s indictments, including Chris Mooney’s bestseller, The Republican War on Science. I finished it with the same question about this war that I had at the outset: Where are the casualties?

Where are the scientists who lost their jobs or their funding? What vital research has been corrupted or suppressed? What scientific debate has been silenced?

4. "...progressive academic communities [are] less tolerant of debate because of pressure from campus activists and federal bureaucrats enforcing an ever-expanding interpretation of Title IX.... filtered to the public by reporters who lean left, too—that’s why the press has promoted the Republican-war-on-science myth.

When Obama diplomatically ducked a question on the campaign trail about the age of the Earth (“I don’t presume to know”), the press paid no attention. When Marco Rubio later did the same thing (“I’m not a scientist”), he was lambasted as a typical Republican ignoramus determined to bring back the Dark Ages.

The combination of all these pressures from the Left has repeatedly skewed science over the past half-century. In 1965, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan published a paper presciently warning of the dangers for black children growing up in single-parent homes, it was greeted with such hostility—he was blaming the victim, critics said—that the topic became off-limits among liberals, stymying public discussion and research for decades into one of the most pressing problems facing minority children. Similarly, liberal advocates have worked to suppress reporting on the problems of children raised by gay parents or on any drawbacks of putting young children in day care. In 1991, a leading family psychologist, Louise Silverstein, published an article in the American Psychologist urging her colleagues to “refuse to undertake any more research that looks for the negative consequences of other-than-mother-care.”


5. .... huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse.
The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices. In a classic study of peer review, 75 psychologists were asked to referee a paper about the mental health of left-wing student activists.
.... the more liberal referees were more likely to recommend publishing the paper favorable to the left-wing activists. When the conclusion went the other way, they quickly found problems with its methodology.
....the first step is simple: stop pretending that the threats to science are coming from the Right. Look in the other direction—or in the mirror."
The Real War on Science

Once again your posts are right on. In academia it is taught as absolute, unquestionable fact that gender is a complete social construct. This idea was birthed by worthless sociology professors and somewhere along the way was cannonized in the liberal's core beliefs.

This absurd theory is categorically, scientifically unfounded. There is absolutely no scientific basis for any of the ludicrous gender theories. And it is one of the reasons they lost the election.

The idea that men or women are trapped in the wrong body, that there is such thing as a 'woman' or 'man' brain completely contradicts their other theories, but the essence of modern leftism is to be able to hold a multitude of contracting ideas in complete harmony--unadulterated hypocrisy.

it is now religious dogma that race is also a social construct, questioning that draws violent responses

 

[Londoner]

Liberals and Science? Oil and Water.

1. The Left regularly claims that the Right, via its association with religion, is somehow both anti-science, and averse to science.
As is the case with so much of the Left's dogma, it is a pretense designed to hide the reality.


2. David Mamet points out the effects religion, and that of Leftism, on society:
'The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.'



John Tierney, former contributing editor to Discover and Health magazines, a staff writer at Science 81-85 magazine, puts a stake through the heart of the Left's claims.....

3. "When he is asked why he doesn't write about some alleged conservative threat to science, he responds "because there isn’t much to write about. Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science. I know that sounds strange to Democrats who decry Republican creationists and call themselves the “party of science.” But I’ve done my homework. I’ve read the Left’s indictments, including Chris Mooney’s bestseller, The Republican War on Science. I finished it with the same question about this war that I had at the outset: Where are the casualties?

Where are the scientists who lost their jobs or their funding? What vital research has been corrupted or suppressed? What scientific debate has been silenced?

4. "...progressive academic communities [are] less tolerant of debate because of pressure from campus activists and federal bureaucrats enforcing an ever-expanding interpretation of Title IX.... filtered to the public by reporters who lean left, too—that’s why the press has promoted the Republican-war-on-science myth.

When Obama diplomatically ducked a question on the campaign trail about the age of the Earth (“I don’t presume to know”), the press paid no attention. When Marco Rubio later did the same thing (“I’m not a scientist”), he was lambasted as a typical Republican ignoramus determined to bring back the Dark Ages.

The combination of all these pressures from the Left has repeatedly skewed science over the past half-century. In 1965, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan published a paper presciently warning of the dangers for black children growing up in single-parent homes, it was greeted with such hostility—he was blaming the victim, critics said—that the topic became off-limits among liberals, stymying public discussion and research for decades into one of the most pressing problems facing minority children. Similarly, liberal advocates have worked to suppress reporting on the problems of children raised by gay parents or on any drawbacks of putting young children in day care. In 1991, a leading family psychologist, Louise Silverstein, published an article in the American Psychologist urging her colleagues to “refuse to undertake any more research that looks for the negative consequences of other-than-mother-care.”


5. .... huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse.
The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices. In a classic study of peer review, 75 psychologists were asked to referee a paper about the mental health of left-wing student activists.
.... the more liberal referees were more likely to recommend publishing the paper favorable to the left-wing activists. When the conclusion went the other way, they quickly found problems with its methodology.
....the first step is simple: stop pretending that the threats to science are coming from the Right. Look in the other direction—or in the mirror."
The Real War on Science

I love your post, and sort of agree with it.

I'm with Nietzsche and Foucault. On my most devilish days I think there is no such thing as Cartesian neutrality where people approach the world from a purely rational space. Even when you don't have paid-for-scientific research, science is still conducted by embodied and enculturated subjects. (Embodied / Enculturated is here used to suggest that science comes from flawed humans living in and infected by a particular time and place, which itself supplies a whole hidden architecture of assumptions and paradigms. Let's not even talk about how different languages structure what is ultimately seen/knowable. But yes, science has long been agenda driven. In the 1800s, scientists claimed women were uniquely hysterical/irrational which served the agenda of keeping them out of public life. Some day in the future our own blind spots will be unearthed, despite all our self-congratulatory overtures to objectivity.)

I agree with the premise that scientists on the Left hold no special claim to neutrality, and that there are many scientists on the Left who are guilty of selection bias. I'd caution you against saying more than that until you actually give us some data rather than your typical cut & paste. [FYI: I like Tierney. He is a very persuasive libertarian who is on the front lines against environmentalism and any other regulatory fly in the ointment of profit making]

Anyway, it seems like you're sort of doing what you accuse the Left of. You're entering this debate with a political bias and cherry picking sources to suggest that the Left is somehow uniquely guilty in ways that the Right isn't - but you don't offer much proof. Thank God there are things like science that have rules for gathering/presenting data along with peer review (which political think tanks and religion are not great at).

I think the biggest threat to science comes from the profit motive and paid-for research, which tailors data/conclusions to suit someone's bottom line. Many of the think tanks you cull information from are paid quasi-Leninists who supply the Conservative Movement with the necessary data and talking points to mold public opinion and government policy. I also think there is a big Lefty threat from government, which sometimes moves science in a particular direction to gain control over the economy or, via social science, the human body. [Read Foucault on Governmentality. It's right up your alley]

As for the war between science and religion, I think the most interesting was between Galileo and the Church. As you know, he (and Copernicus) challenged Biblical cosmology, specifically the claim that the Earth was the center of the Solar System. You might go back to this. It's pretty interesting. The Church eventually came around, but the battle itself is a clear example of how religion doesn't like science meddling in its power anymore than GE wanted scientists dredging the Hudson for PCBs. I'm guessing Hillsdale College has re-written all this stuff, if you're looking for a snappy reply.

Anyway, good post. I liked reading it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberals and Science? Oil and Water.

1. The Left regularly claims that the Right, via its association with religion, is somehow both anti-science, and averse to science.
As is the case with so much of the Left's dogma, it is a pretense designed to hide the reality.


2. David Mamet points out the effects religion, and that of Leftism, on society:
'The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.'



John Tierney, former contributing editor to Discover and Health magazines, a staff writer at Science 81-85 magazine, puts a stake through the heart of the Left's claims.....

3. "When he is asked why he doesn't write about some alleged conservative threat to science, he responds "because there isn’t much to write about. Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science. I know that sounds strange to Democrats who decry Republican creationists and call themselves the “party of science.” But I’ve done my homework. I’ve read the Left’s indictments, including Chris Mooney’s bestseller, The Republican War on Science. I finished it with the same question about this war that I had at the outset: Where are the casualties?

Where are the scientists who lost their jobs or their funding? What vital research has been corrupted or suppressed? What scientific debate has been silenced?

4. "...progressive academic communities [are] less tolerant of debate because of pressure from campus activists and federal bureaucrats enforcing an ever-expanding interpretation of Title IX.... filtered to the public by reporters who lean left, too—that’s why the press has promoted the Republican-war-on-science myth.

When Obama diplomatically ducked a question on the campaign trail about the age of the Earth (“I don’t presume to know”), the press paid no attention. When Marco Rubio later did the same thing (“I’m not a scientist”), he was lambasted as a typical Republican ignoramus determined to bring back the Dark Ages.

The combination of all these pressures from the Left has repeatedly skewed science over the past half-century. In 1965, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan published a paper presciently warning of the dangers for black children growing up in single-parent homes, it was greeted with such hostility—he was blaming the victim, critics said—that the topic became off-limits among liberals, stymying public discussion and research for decades into one of the most pressing problems facing minority children. Similarly, liberal advocates have worked to suppress reporting on the problems of children raised by gay parents or on any drawbacks of putting young children in day care. In 1991, a leading family psychologist, Louise Silverstein, published an article in the American Psychologist urging her colleagues to “refuse to undertake any more research that looks for the negative consequences of other-than-mother-care.”


5. .... huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse.
The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices. In a classic study of peer review, 75 psychologists were asked to referee a paper about the mental health of left-wing student activists.
.... the more liberal referees were more likely to recommend publishing the paper favorable to the left-wing activists. When the conclusion went the other way, they quickly found problems with its methodology.
....the first step is simple: stop pretending that the threats to science are coming from the Right. Look in the other direction—or in the mirror."
The Real War on Science

I love your post, and sort of agree with it.

I'm with Nietzsche and Foucault. On my most devilish days I think there is no such thing as Cartesian neutrality where people approach the world from a purely rational space. Even when you don't have paid-for-scientific research, science is still conducted by embodied and enculturated subjects. (Embodied / Enculturated is here used to suggest that science comes from flawed humans living in and infected by a particular time and place, which itself supplies a whole hidden architecture of assumptions and paradigms. Let's not even talk about how different languages structure what is ultimately seen/knowable. But yes, science has long been agenda driven. In the 1800s, scientists claimed women were uniquely hysterical/irrational which served the agenda of keeping them out of public life. Some day in the future our own blind spots will be unearthed, despite all our self-congratulatory overtures to objectivity.)

I agree with the premise that scientists on the Left hold no special claim to neutrality, and that there are many scientists on the Left who are guilty of selection bias. I'd caution you against saying more than that until you actually give us some data rather than your typical cut & paste. [FYI: I like Tierney. He is a very persuasive libertarian who is on the front lines against environmentalism and any other regulatory fly in the ointment of profit making]

Anyway, it seems like you're sort of doing what you accuse the Left of. You're entering this debate with a political bias and cherry picking sources to suggest that the Left is somehow uniquely guilty in ways that the Right isn't - but you don't offer much proof. Thank God there are things like science that have rules for gathering/presenting data along with peer review (which political think tanks and religion are not great at).

I think the biggest threat to science comes from the profit motive and paid-for research, which tailors data/conclusions to suit someone's bottom line. Many of the think tanks you cull information from are paid quasi-Leninists who supply the Conservative Movement with the necessary data and talking points to mold public opinion and government policy. I also think there is a big Lefty threat from government, which sometimes moves science in a particular direction to gain control over the economy or, via social science, the human body. [Read Foucault on Governmentality. It's right up your alley]

As for the war between science and religion, I think the most interesting was between Galileo and the Church. As you know, he (and Copernicus) challenged Biblical cosmology, specifically the claim that the Earth was the center of the Solar System. You might go back to this. It's pretty interesting. The Church eventually came around, but the battle itself is a clear example of how religion doesn't like science meddling in its power anymore than GE wanted scientists dredging the Hudson for PCBs. I'm guessing Hillsdale College has re-written all this stuff, if you're looking for a snappy reply.

Anyway, good post. I liked reading it.

I appreciate your response...including this:

"Anyway, it seems like you're sort of doing what you accuse the Left of. You're entering this debate with a political bias and cherry picking sources to suggest that the Left is somehow uniquely guilty in ways that the Right isn't - but you don't offer much proof."

1. What am I, Scrubbing Bubbles...'we work hard so you don't have to!'??
If you disagree with any of my perfectly crafted theses.....have at it.

I have never told anyone to "STFU," a response I often get from the Left.
I encourage debate...and am ready an able to defend what I post.


2. From the OP:
"When he is asked why he doesn't write about some alleged conservative threat to science, he responds "because there isn’t much to write about. Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science. I know that sounds strange to Democrats who decry Republican creationists and call themselves the “party of science.” But I’ve done my homework. I’ve read the Left’s indictments, including Chris Mooney’s bestseller, The Republican War on Science. I finished it with the same question about this war that I had at the outset: Where are the casualties?

Where are the scientists who lost their jobs or their funding? What vital research has been corrupted or suppressed? What scientific debate has been silenced?



3. In every example and avenue of endeavor....it is the Left that silences, marginalizes, and assaults free speech and free thought.
None are allowed to disagree.

Pick up a copy of
"The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech," Hardcover – May 11, 2015
by Kirsten Powers
...and be enlightened.