Question about Scientists and Politics

[john5746]

Secondly I think there is a flaw in an unspoken assumption. The assumption that the scientist is somehow "different". He isn't.

 

Always remember the "Scientist" is also a "Human Being". Left, Right, Kind, Stingy, all types, just like any community.

 

I agree that there is some assumption here and that scientists are human. However, as a group, I would arguer that they have different world viewpoints than the general populace, just as many subgroups do. I think there are plenty of stats to back up the claim that scientists are far less religious than the general populace, especially in terms of a personal god.

 

My hypothesis is that knowledge of how nature works lowers superstitious belief. This would be analogous to learning a magician's tricks. At first, someone may think there is something supernatural going on, that this person has special powers. After learning the trick, it can actually be explained. Same way with nature. As scientists learn more and more about the natural world, they realize that there is no need for an intelligent agent. In fact, their process requires the assumption that there is no intelligent agent behind the scenes.

 

Of course, there are exceptions on both sides, just as there are smokers who live to be old and healthy. But, I think you will see that as the scientific knowledge of a population increases, their superstitious beliefs decrease. This includes religious beliefs. Is this because science is anti-religious? Well, is learning a magician's tricks anti-magic? No, superstition is basically founded on ignorance. Lift the ignorance and the beliefs will be discarded.

 

As far as the thing with Mokele/Pangloss, well he happened to be correct, IMO. He overreacted and did set a bad example I guess, but I was expecting it. Its kind of like going up to a pit bull and flicking him in the balls. You better have a good reason to do it! Not saying you can't disagree with him, I have, but if you come out of left field(or right field?) then expect a bite. So to me he could be more respectful, especially to a Mod, but I wouldn't be banning anyone. Not sure Paranoia should have been banned either.

[PhDP]

I've always wondered why scientists tend to be more liberal / socialist, rather than conservative / capitalist. If that's inaccurate, correct me, but I don't think it is at all.

 

The implication being that it's necessary and natural for scientists to follow a liberal rather than conservative line.

 

Sure it is. Even if we forget for a minute of all the attacks launched by conservatives on science, we have very good reasons to think scientists are more likely to be allies of the left. It's well known in political psychology that differents traits and personal values are associated with the right and the left (it was even shown political affiliations are highly hereditable). It was shown in several studies (mostly published in "Political Psychology") that tradition & conformism is associated with the right, while self-direction is associated with the left. It's not the biggest discovery of the 20th century, but still I think that scientists are more to the left because some personability traits associated with the right are imcomptable with science.

 

The reason why this seems odd to me is because while I realize there are dozens and dozens of science categories, it seems all understand the basics of survival of the fittest.

 

It's probably because we understand "survival of the fittest" well enough to know that it has nothing to do with capitalism, at least, not directly. In a couple of weeks I'll vote for our center-left party. I'll lose money because of this, but I really doupt my contribution to the gene pool will be reduced. I can have the number of children I want, give them everything they need. Perhaps my TV will be smaller, oh god, I hope they'll survive this terrible shock.

[Pangloss]

It's not the biggest discovery of the 20th century, but still I think that scientists are more to the left because some personability traits associated with the right are imcomptable with science.

 

This is exactly the sort of prejudice I was hoping to expose in this thread. Kudos for being open about your predispositions. Don't mistake this as a personal attack -- I applaud your willingness to state your beliefs openly.

 

But are there are no "personality traits" associated with the left that are incompatible with science and scientific reasoning? Such as, oh I don't know.....

 

- Animals have sentience and emotion and therefore should have the same rights as human beings (all scientific evidence aside)

- Parents can't be trusted with properly explaining matters of reproduction, therefore we need to strap their eight-year-old to the nearest chair and scream it into their faces whether they're ready for it or not

- Morality should never be legislated; except of course if it's liberal morality

- Anybody who believes in god is automatically conservative; Oh, except Blacks, they get a free pass, being just a little socially behind the rest of us

- Everyone should be allowed to say what they want, except Conservatives, who should not be allowed to speak

- Corporations are inherently evil

- Anybody who questions any accepted science is a "denier"

 

My point is not that any of the above positions are accurate (or even mine). I'm just saying that they're no more valid than the "reason" that you stated for scientists to be liberal. In essence the above is exactly the same thing that you said, just a bit more blantantly and in a bit more detail (and of course on the opposite side).

 

 

I believe that in fact ideological beliefs have nothing to do with scientific/logical reasoning. They're about bias and preconception. ALL ideological beliefs are that way, all the time. In this country, in the current time frame, that means you pick one of the following stereotypes:

 

1) All conservatives are gun-toting pro-life half-breeds with red necks and big corporate paychecks.

 

2) All liberals are tree-hugging pro-choice weed-smokers with hyrbids sporting big anti-Bush bumper stickers.

 

... you determine that that stereotype is "evil", and you associate yourself with the opposing "camp", not recognizing that you're just playing into the opposite stereotype. There's an actual mental disconnect that takes place there that people automatically discard as mistaken, in spite of the fact that they just accepted the opposite stereotype as valid! Then they proceed accordingly, as if all logic and reason have been faithfully adhered to!

 

It's just what people do.

[Sisyphus]

I don't think any of those "personality traits" (really, positions) you listed are actually anti-science except for the first one, they're just things you disagree with. Well, arguably the last one, too, depending on what is meant by "questions" and "accepted science."

 

But I agree in principle that there are certain "sacred" beliefs held by stereotypical liberals, which MUST be true in spite of science or reason. Most of them are variations on the "equality" theme, like, men are absolutely equal to women, there is no difference between people of different races or countries, and (sometimes) there's no such thing as "disability." The irrational outrage over the Harvard president's speech about women in science is a prime example of this. Another is the contingent of the deaf community that was deeply offended about a possible cure for most deafness, because they're "a culture, not a disease" or something.

 

Honestly, most beliefs held by the mindless mainstreams of right and left would still be held irregardless of any science to the contrary. However, it seems to me that a bigger chunk of the left's dogma actually IS in line with science. That, in my opinion, is a major reason why scientifically-minded people appear to be more leftist in general, even if the LCD of the left is no more inherently "scientific" than that of the right.

[Pangloss]

I don't think any of those "personality traits" (really, positions) you listed are actually anti-science except for the first one, they're just things you disagree with. Well, arguably the last one, too, depending on what is meant by "questions" and "accepted science."

 

But I agree in principle that there are certain "sacred" beliefs held by stereotypical liberals, which MUST be true in spite of science or reason. Most of them are variations on the "equality" theme, like, men are absolutely equal to women, there is no difference between people of different races or countries, and (sometimes) there's no such thing as "disability." The irrational outrage over the Harvard president's speech about women in science is a prime example of this. Another is the contingent of the deaf community that was deeply offended about a possible cure for most deafness, because they're "a culture, not a disease" or something.

 

I must agree you've expressed it far better than I did above. Well put.

 

 

However, it seems to me that a bigger chunk of the left's dogma actually IS in line with science. That, in my opinion, is a major reason why scientifically-minded people appear to be more leftist in general, even if the LCD of the left is no more inherently "scientific" than that of the right.

 

Perhaps. In thinking this over issue-by-issue I had a hard time working out a justification for the opposite (pro-conservative) conclusion, which means I'm either not intelligent enough to find it, or it isn't there to be found. (chuckle)

 

My main hope on the subject is that most scientists are open-minded enough to recognize preconceptions and biases when they see them, thereby rendering the whole subject more or less moot.

 

Everyone has ideological bias. The differences are in the way and the degree to which people allow them to guide their behavior.

[Pangloss]

By the way, I think another way of putting the above would be to say that:

 

1) We should be okay with the fact that more scientists are "liberal" than "conservative", since scientists tend to put science ahead of faith-based reasoning, and value the questioning of preconceptions

 

2) We should not view the predominence of liberal scientists over conservatives as a statement about the value of liberalism over conservatism in all matters; it may be a reflection on the current times and the predominence of certain current issues, but it isn't a statement about good and evil

[ParanoiA]

It was shown in several studies (mostly published in "Political Psychology") that tradition & conformism is associated with the right, while self-direction is associated with the left. It's not the biggest discovery of the 20th century, but still I think that scientists are more to the left because some personability traits associated with the right are imcomptable with science.

 

Conservativism is usually cast aside by the left using this logic - tradition and conformity. It's a nice tactic for motivating potential conservatives to re-evaluate. Nothing spells loser better than supporting an ideology that advocates belief based on " it's always been this way..", and nothing else.

 

I'm sure the studies are true, but that's like saying liberals tend to be more emotionally driven rather than logically driven. It's really not what liberals are about, although the conclusion is accurate.

 

I'm quite conservative and despise appeals to tradition and conformity to justify legislation. Tradition is for museums, and conformity is present in both ideologies. This country was founded on individuality and there isn't a conservative commentator I've ever heard that doesn't echo that. A free capitalistic market depends on that.

 

And I have a really hard time believing self-direction is associated with the left. Conformity seems to be their ally. Look at Hollywood and the american pop culture. Right leaning artists are hard to find because they tend to conform to the beliefs of the hollywood establishment in order to be accepted. Global warming is a new religion for them also, complete with required rituals and behaviors...or conformity. Just a couple of examples.

 

I would like to see a psychological study on stereotypes and how they still manage to remain relevant and effect perception....like how conservatives are close minded traditionalists and liberals are open minded progressives.

 

Pangloss already covered the right vs scientist logic but I would also point out that it's the left that refuses to stick with the scientific method in reference to global warming. Healthy skepticism is demonized by the left on that subject, even though that's in line with the scientific method. That's conformity and tradition being exercised by the left.

 

It's probably because we understand "survival of the fittest" well enough to know that it has nothing to do with capitalism, at least, not directly. In a couple of weeks I'll vote for our center-left party. I'll lose money because of this, but I really doupt my contribution to the gene pool will be reduced. I can have the number of children I want, give them everything they need. Perhaps my TV will be smaller, oh god, I hope they'll survive this terrible shock.

 

Well, one of us is misunderstanding the other. I meant that unfettered capitalism is akin to "survival of the fittest" in terms of economy, not in all terms. I think Mokele actually made the point that the brutality of nature is more likely to repel a scientist from that concept rather than attract. That makes sense to me. And, since ethics and morality are arguably a result of evolution, it would make sense to recognize that value in governing.

[Mokele]

But are there are no "personality traits" associated with the left that are incompatible with science and scientific reasoning? Such as, oh I don't know.....

 

The list you gave are positions, not personality traits. Phil was talking less about specifics and more about the general underlying traits, such as introvert vs extrovert, relying on intuition vs logic, whether you'd rather have a few close friends or many not-so-close, that sort of stuff. General personality traits, not specific ideological positions.

 

Also, note that the study says that certain traits 'are associated'. This does not mean that they are always/never present in this or that group, only that people with trait Z are *more common* but not *exclusive* to group 1. It's like saying that Garfish are associated with large amounts of underwater cover; you can find garfish in open water, but if you're looking for them, you'll find a lot more in the weeds.

 

I believe that in fact ideological beliefs have nothing to do with scientific/logical reasoning. They're about bias and preconception.

 

I wouldn't say 'nothing'. I think it depends on the subject in question. For example, my scientific knowledge and reasoning don't give me any basis to form opinions on Social Security or international trade relations. However, my opinions on environmental issues are informed by my knowledge of ecology, my opinions on gay rights informed by my knowledge of psychology, and my knowledge of biology dictates my position on creationism.

 

There's no reason to suspect scientists would take a particular position on, say, socialized healthcare. But I don't think you can claim that a biologist be as likely as the average joe to support teaching creationism in school. And I suspect that in a comprehensive survey, that's what you'd find: scientists tend to lean in whatever direction the evidence points and will be all over the map on issues that don't have a scientific component.

 

Another factor here may be perceptual skew about the degree to which scientists line up with 'liberal'. You tend to only see scientists trotted out to support a view and give an expert opinion on certain causes, such as the environment or creationism or gay rights, in which the evidence is on the liberal side, while issues for which conservatives have the advantage in terms of facts (gun control, fiscal conservatism, etc) tend to rely on expert testimony from economists or other non-scientist experts. This creates the illusion that scientists are all liberal because, for instance, the only time we see ecologists on TV is when they're telling us why we shouldn't log this place or dump chemical X in that stream. We never see scientists talking about things like affirmative action or NAFTA, on either side, so we assume their positions based on the few subjects we see them talk on.

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

The list you gave are positions, not personality traits. Phil was talking less about specifics and more about the general underlying traits, such as introvert vs extrovert, relying on intuition vs logic, whether you'd rather have a few close friends or many not-so-close, that sort of stuff. General personality traits, not specific ideological positions.

 

Sure, but that's just semantics. If you prefer a more on-point disputation, see Sisyphus's response above (interesting that you didn't respond to that one).

 

Phil's ideological point (about conservatives) doesn't hold water on a logical/scientific level, and therefore has been thoroughly refuted.

 

However, I agree that there may be a valid argument as to the correlation between scientists and liberalism on a point-by-point basis relating to the predominence of current events.

 

Not that that does anybody good when a liberal reporter who barely squeeked by in high school screams at us about the scientific logic of whatever politically correct topic happens to be on the agenda this week. But that's hardly the fault of scientists who happen to be liberal.

 

Also, I think you made an interesting point here:

 

There's no reason to suspect scientists would take a particular position on, say, socialized healthcare. But I don't think you can claim that a biologist be as likely as the average joe to support teaching creationism in school. And I suspect that in a comprehensive survey, that's what you'd find: scientists tend to lean in whatever direction the evidence points and will be all over the map on issues that don't have a scientific component.

 

I agree that that cause has that effect, and may contribute to the predominence of scientists who tend towards the left.

 

Thus proving that scientists can be just as narrow-minded (and single- or limited-issue driven) as anybody else, especially in these busy modern times. (Who has time for politics these days?)

 

 

However, my opinions on environmental issues are informed by my knowledge of ecology, my opinions on gay rights informed by my knowledge of psychology, and my knowledge of biology dictates my position on creationism.

 

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this point. Well, it's implication anyway. I agree that one's personal education and life experiences "inform" their opinions on issues. But that doesn't make those opinion correct or incorrect. It may even increase the likelyhood of a correct response, but it doesn't guarantee it.

 

 

Another factor here may be perceptual skew about the degree to which scientists line up with 'liberal'. You tend to only see scientists trotted out to support a view and give an expert opinion on certain causes, such as the environment or creationism or gay rights, in which the evidence is on the liberal side, while issues for which conservatives have the advantage in terms of facts (gun control, fiscal conservatism, etc) tend to rely on expert testimony from economists or other non-scientist experts. This creates the illusion that scientists are all liberal because, for instance, the only time we see ecologists on TV is when they're telling us why we shouldn't log this place or dump chemical X in that stream. We never see scientists talking about things like affirmative action or NAFTA, on either side, so we assume their positions based on the few subjects we see them talk on.

 

Mokele

 

I definitely agree with this point. The question should be raised whether it's valid to wonder if scientists ARE predominently liberal. I've always questioned that kind of labelling anyway, because I agree with Chris Rock: Most people are conservative about some things and liberal about others. There's no particular reason to think that scientists are any different in this regard. Not all scientists are parents, for example -- that fact alone eliminates the possibility of complete political accord!

[mak2]

I suggest education in any discipline has a more direct effect on political views than specifically a science education. I know someone attending a Seminary, come to find out even the colleges closely affilitated with churchs are incredibly liberal. Liberal arts and art schools are more liberal than the medical schools I am familar with. I dont think it is just the science.

[Mokele]

If you prefer a more on-point disputation, see Sisyphus's response above (interesting that you didn't respond to that one).

 

Check the timestamps; I'm actually working as I post, so yours was the most recent at that time.

 

I agree that one's personal education and life experiences "inform" their opinions on issues. But that doesn't make those opinion correct or incorrect. It may even increase the likelyhood of a correct response, but it doesn't guarantee it.

 

I disagree; there is definitely a correct response to questions such as "can gay people change their sexual orientation?" or "Will logging this area cause problems for the fisheries downstream?" since both subject have been empirically studied and the conclusion is essentially ironclad. On less definite subjects, such as global warming, there's a very large preponderance of evidence which is very convincing (I'll not drag up the problem of whether it's ironclad) and thus will push scientists strongly towards that end.

 

Furthermore, as much as scientists are skeptics, we're also painfully aware of how difficult it is to critique fields beyond our own in any meaningful way due to lack of expertise. As a result, we're more likely to accept the consensus of those in the field, albeit with knowledge that new evidence could overthrow it, since we know that they know what they're talking about better than we do and are thus more qualified to judge the evidence.

 

The question should be raised whether it's valid to wonder if scientists ARE predominently liberal. I've always questioned that kind of labelling anyway, because I agree with Chris Rock: Most people are conservative about some things and liberal about others. There's no particular reason to think that scientists are any different in this regard.

 

It's the same sort of problem we see in science; how do I classify all snakes into "terrestrial" "arboreal" "aquatic" etc, and how can I classify someone whose views on various subjects may align to different parties? Obviously the 2-way classification is limited, but if we accept it, self-identification would be the best option, since the individual knows not only their own views, but their relative personal importances.

 

But I agree in principle that there are certain "sacred" beliefs held by stereotypical liberals, which MUST be true in spite of science or reason. Most of them are variations on the "equality" theme, like, men are absolutely equal to women, there is no difference between people of different races or countries, and (sometimes) there's no such thing as "disability." The irrational outrage over the Harvard president's speech about women in science is a prime example of this.

 

The problem is in your first sentence: "stereotypical". I also think you're confusing the position that all people should have equal rights with the position that they actually are equal in all respects. For instance, I can think of no feminist who would argue the claim that men are, on average, stronger than women.

 

Also, in some of those cases, there's just no evidence; all evidence of race and sex differences is highly dubious and prone to confounding environmental effects. In spite of that, and in fact because of it, we *can* draw a conclusion: any differences that may exist are small enough that the environmental effects differing between individuals and tests can easily swamp them, and thus such differences are likely inconsequential, if they do exist, given how much environment influences humans.

 

As for the Larry Summers thing, I can see the reason for the outrage: he basically made an implication (that women aren't as good as men at science) which was totally unsupported by evidence. On top of this, there is an increasing consciousness of the sex skew in many sciences, and active effort to correct this, not by special treatment but by showing young girls that yes, they can be scientists too. His comments directly undermined that effort.

 

I'm sure the studies are true, but that's like saying liberals tend to be more emotionally driven rather than logically driven. It's really not what liberals are about, although the conclusion is accurate.

 

Pretty much, or like saying reptile keepers tend to be non-conformist (*definitely* true); it may be true, but it's not why we keep reptiles, it's just that we lack a barrier to keeping them.

 

This country was founded on individuality and there isn't a conservative commentator I've ever heard that doesn't echo that. A free capitalistic market depends on that.And I have a really hard time believing self-direction is associated with the left. Conformity seems to be their ally.

 

I disagree; both sides have conformity, and both have individualism. Liberals may seem to agree on many things, but put 20 in a room and ask what's the most important issue, then run. Then get a mop for all the blood as they eviscerate each other over what should be front-and-center of the party platform. Plus, I find it hard to accept that conformity is a major force of the party with the biggest bunch of sexual non-conformists by far.

 

I would like to see a psychological study on stereotypes and how they still manage to remain relevant and effect perception....like how conservatives are close minded traditionalists and liberals are open minded progressives

 

On those particular stereotypes, or stereotypes in general? In general, it's pretty straightforward: they give people a rubric through which to interpret and predict other's behavior, with a tolerable degree of accuracy. Essentially, they're a cognitive shortcut to allow us to quickly predict the behavior of new individuals, a useful tool for a social primate.

 

Pangloss already covered the right vs scientist logic but I would also point out that it's the left that refuses to stick with the scientific method in reference to global warming. Healthy skepticism is demonized by the left on that subject, even though that's in line with the scientific method. That's conformity and tradition being exercised by the left.

 

I can't speak for all liberals, but part of what bothers me about 'global warming skeptics' is often that their opinions are considered as valid as real climatologists. Just as I'd expect you all to take my input on reptiles above others on this board, I think it's reasonable to take the opinion of professional scientists in the field over non-scientists in what is, after all, a scientific question.

 

It's not quite like creationism, in that there isn't 100% certainty, but I see echoes of it: the superficial objection that's refuted then repeated, the objections couched in ignorance of basic scientific methodology, the blatant politicization of what should be an empirical, scientific issue. It's not the questioning, it's the manner of some of it, and some of the questions themselves. It makes you wonder how much of it is honest skepticism, and how much is just knee-jerk denial. It's not the former that's the problem, it's the latter, and the problem is that the sort of confrontations the latter generate are likely to get more media airtime. A debate on the importance of accounting for shifts in the heterotrophic as well as phototrophic biota in global warming models isn't going to get the same press as someone claiming global warming can't be real because it snowed this winter.

 

 

Yet another thing that I think that shouldn't be neglected is the different sort of 'world' scientists work and live in. Much of politics involves value judgements (is it better to preserve american jobs via a tarriff that would raise materials cost and thus the cost of goods?) and assumptions that cannot be tested, where a lifetime in science finds you dealing with a system in which great pains are taken to avoid such things and instead rely solely on testable assumptions and observable effects. I know personally I'm a lot more reluctant to speak on political topics where I can't address the issue from at least an empirical standpoint, because I'm uncomfortable with a system that cannot be tested and quantified.

 

Mokele

[ParanoiA]

I can't speak for all liberals, but part of what bothers me about 'global warming skeptics' is often that their opinions are considered as valid as real climatologists. Just as I'd expect you all to take my input on reptiles above others on this board, I think it's reasonable to take the opinion of professional scientists in the field over non-scientists in what is, after all, a scientific question.

 

I agree. And there's no consensus on global warming. That's the problem. The scientists are still divided, while the non-scientist politicians, special interest groups, capitalists and the voting public draw conclusions they have no business drawing and muck up the water.

 

And it doesn't help when it's made into a party thing. Something that has absolutely squat to do with ideology has transformed into a party dependent belief. I'm just waiting for you guys to figure it out and come to agreement so we can put this nonsense to rest.

 

I know personally I'm a lot more reluctant to speak on political topics where I can't address the issue from at least an empirical standpoint, because I'm uncomfortable with a system that cannot be tested and quantified.

 

And global warming is not testable without a model. It takes computers and complex math that only approximates. So, by definition, it is not empircally proven. I'm uncomfortable with that too.

[PhDP]

This is exactly the sort of prejudice I was hoping to expose in this thread. Kudos for being open about your predispositions. Don't mistake this as a personal attack -- I applaud your willingness to state your beliefs openly.

 

I certainly take this very seriously when someone accuses me of having prejudices, when in fact I based my comments on many serious studies.

 

Phil's ideological point (about conservatives) doesn't hold water on a logical/scientific level, and therefore has been thoroughly refuted.

 

Really ? We'll see;

 

[1] Caprara et al., 2006, Personality and Politics: Values, Traits, and Political Choice. Political Psychology 27(1)

 

[2] Jost et al. 2003. Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin 129(3):339–375.

 

About the personality of scientists, here's two reviews;

 

[3] Feist & Gorman. 1998. The Psychology of Science: Review and Integration of a Nascent Discipline. Review of General Psychology 2(1): 3-47. and Feist. 2006. How Development and Personality Influence Scientific Thought, Interest, and Achievement. Review of General Psychology 10(2):163–182.

 

[3] links many personality traits to scientist/eminent scientitsts/creative scientists;

 

Openness/Flexibility in thought. [1] associate this traits to the left. [2] provides extensive evidences that dogmatism (low flexibility) is associated to conservatism. Also, according to a very interesting article (but not very positive for those who voted for Bush), about the the "Openness" of Bush;

 

Yet these outcomes cannot simply be attributed to his being a conservative Republican: Bush’s integrative complexity is also comparable to (a) extreme abolitionists and pro-slavery advocates in antebellum United States (as contrasted with free-soil Republicans and Buchanan Democrats; Tetlock, Armor, & Peterson, 1994), (b) hard-line communists in the Soviet leadership (Tetlock & Boettger, 1989), and © the extremist Islamic Fundamentalists in the Taliban and al-Qaeda leadership (Suedfeld & Leighton, 2002)—with the notable exception of Osama

bin Laden, who is lower still.

 

Independence/Autonomous. [1] associate this trait to the left.

 

Social dominance. [2] associate this trait to the conservatives.

 

Also, [2] show conservatives are not very good at integrative complexity, that's hardly good for a scientist.

 

But are there are no "personality traits" associated with the left that are incompatible with science and scientific reasoning? Such as, oh I don't know.....

 

Extremists (left or right), they all show high degree of dogmatism. Many sociologists on the left have been very hostile to the integration of evolution to sociology because of their political views ("The Blank Slate", by Pinker, show this very well). However, I can't believe you would seriously compare the hostility of some extremists on the left to the hostility of conservatives. We're not speaking of just one or two conservatives, the republican party have been close to many pseudoscientists when it comes to important issues like the environment, genetics, evolution...

 

I believe that in fact ideological beliefs have nothing to do with scientific/logical reasoning.

 

Political views are determined by many things that have nothing to do with logical reasoning, I think your statement that it has "NOTHING" to do with it is a little extreme. But anyway, I just said, and I maintain, that scientists are probably liberals because of their personality. That is based on serious studies, but for some reason, I'm the one accused of having prejudices ?

 

I'm sure the studies are true, but that's like saying liberals tend to be more emotionally driven rather than logically driven. It's really not what liberals are about, although the conclusion is accurate.

 

Sure, liberals are more emotionally driven than logically driven. Nothing new, it's pretty clear that politics is about worldviews and personality, most of it is not driven by rationality. But the same thing can be said of conservatives, and I don't think you would be able to prove liberals are more emotionally driven than conservatives.

 

Pangloss already covered the right vs scientist logic but I would also point out that it's the left that refuses to stick with the scientific method in reference to global warming. Healthy skepticism is demonized by the left on that subject, even though that's in line with the scientific method. That's conformity and tradition being exercised by the left.

 

Global warming has nothing to do with the left or conformity, this is about science, and the science is pretty clear on the subject.

[Mokele]

And there's no consensus on global warming. That's the problem. The scientists are still divided, while the non-scientist politicians, special interest groups, capitalists and the voting public draw conclusions they have no business drawing and muck up the water.

 

I don't really know how divided scientists are on this matter. One study I found was a review of the published material on it, which found plenty of papers talking about anthropogenic climate forcing, lots more that just dealt with the consequences and didn't deal with causes (ecological studies of range shifts, for example), lots of paleoclimatology that didn't really care, but no papers expressing the viewpoint that humans aren't at least involved.

 

The problem is that you can call a group "divided" if even one person dissents; technically scientists are divided over whether birds evolved from dinosaurs, but when Feduccia dies, that'll vanish.

 

I definitely agree about mucking up the water. I've sometimes contemplated writing a book from the POV of someone fed up with all of it and doing their own research from learning basic climatology to reading the peer-review literature on the subject. But then I realized *why* I'm still in lab 12 hours after I came in.

 

And global warming is not testable without a model. It takes computers and complex math that only approximates. So, by definition, it is not empircally proven. I'm uncomfortable with that too.

 

Eh, this is kinda OT, but models *can* be testable. For instance, a particular model will predict that the temperature will shift by X degrees in place Y by time T, while another has different predictions.

 

On one hand, as someone smart once said "All models are wrong, but some are more useful than others". But on the other, "Just because we don't know everything about a system doesn't mean we don't know anything about a system."

 

Global warming isn't all modeling; a lot of it is data collection, both of past data from paleoclimatic methods or of modern data to check and refine concepts. Models have their place in all sciences, especially those dealing with systems that are not easily amenable to manipulation, and shouldn't be condemned automatically. For instance, my own field does a lot of modeling for bone stress, which can be very informative, in part because the model tells us what will be the most productive areas to investigate empirically, which much less whining from curators than just destructive testing of every bone we can find.

 

Maybe we should have a whole thread just on modeling and it's place in the various sciences.

 

Mokele

[Mokele]

[3] Feist & Gorman. 1998. The Psychology of Science: Review and Integration of a Nascent Discipline. Review of General Psychology 2(1): 3-47.

 

For those that want it: http://www.gjfeist.net/PDF/Feist&GormanRGP_1998.pdf

 

There's a summary starting on page 14 showing results of prior studies, and another on 24 comparing scientists and nonscientists.

 

Mokele

[ParanoiA]

Sure, liberals are more emotionally driven than logically driven. Nothing new, it's pretty clear that politics is about worldviews and personality, most of it is not driven by rationality. But the same thing can be said of conservatives, and I don't think you would be able to prove liberals are more emotionally driven than conservatives.

 

Well, I certainly can't prove it, but rudimentary analysis on common views suggest it. Tax breaks for the rich is my favorite example of this. At face value it's easily despised - little logic, heavy emotion. Righties would say that rich people are the ones that own businesses, do the investing, the hiring and that tax cuts to these individuals are pragmatic and will result in healtheir, more permanent economic growth and ultimately increased revenue - little emotion, heavy logic (although you may disagree with it).

 

Of course, then you add religion into their fold and it all blows up. Logic goes out the window. But I wouldn't consider religion as a conservative concept, but merely has found a home within that ideology. For instance, the religious might see pro-life as a spiritual and ethical decision, whereas the non-religious conservatives might see pro-life merely ethical. The religious component doesn't void logic driven nature of conservatives.

 

Global warming has nothing to do with the left or conformity, this is about science, and the science is pretty clear on the subject.

 

Well, actually...it's not. Micheal Crichton would take issue with that remark. And the global warming religion is an example of a belief growing bigger than the facts to support it. That's conformity at work.

 

On one hand, as someone smart once said "All models are wrong, but some are more useful than others". But on the other, "Just because we don't know everything about a system doesn't mean we don't know anything about a system."

 

I tend to lean more to the latter. I like to say 'Today I believe in global warming, but I'd rather be convinced'. Being a layman, that's all I can really do. Logically, I must follow the majority of what science seems to be saying. But I'd like to hear the critics out. And I don't mean Rush pointing out that a global warming convention was cancelled due to a blizzard...

[Pangloss]

Those studies do not prove this quote from you, Phil, which is the one I responded to (for a reason):

 

some personability traits associated with the right are imcomptable with science.

 

You said "incompatible" Phil. Not "less likely", not "less commonly" -- INcompatible. Or at least I'm assuming that's the word you meant to use -- I'm not one to pick on spelling errors but of course if I'm misinterpreting your shorthand/typo please feel free to correct me.

 

It also seems to me that you went on to claim that all conservatives share these personality traits, and therefore all conservatives are incapable of participating in or even understanding science. If I'm reading too much into your words, then please correct me, but if that's how you feel then why wouldn't you view that as a prejudice? It certainly isn't supported by your study!

 

You insist that we cannot criticize all liberals for the actions of a crazy few, but you insist that we must demonize all conservatives, lumping every single one of them in the same boat:

 

However, I can't believe you would seriously compare the hostility of some extremists on the left to the hostility of conservatives. We're not speaking of just one or two conservatives, the republican party have been close to many pseudoscientists when it comes to important issues like the environment, genetics, evolution...

 

Your studies seem unusually quiet on this point, but perhaps it is only because I have not read them fully enough? Hmm?

 

So it seems pretty reasonable to conclude that you made an ideological statement (liberals = good, conservatives = bad). I could wonder whether this means that liberals have trouble admitting their bias, but I'm afraid I don't have any studies handy. ;-)

 

BTW, your "studies" strike me as rather blatantly PC. If they drew statistical correlations between SAT scores and African Americans and someone had the gall to suggest that they might be less intelligent, the world would not know the bounds of your outrage (and rightfully so). But I guess it's okay to draw a conclusion like that based on statistical correlations when it comes to bashing conservatives, huh?

[Mokele]

I think we should ditch the global warming discussion for now, or at least continue it in one of the 34857 other threads on the subject. It has a tendency to derail things.

 

Well, I certainly can't prove it, but rudimentary analysis on common views suggest it. Tax breaks for the rich is my favorite example of this. At face value it's easily despised - little logic, heavy emotion. Righties would say that rich people are the ones that own businesses, do the investing, the hiring and that tax cuts to these individuals are pragmatic and will result in healtheir, more permanent economic growth and ultimately increased revenue - little emotion, heavy logic (although you may disagree with it).

 

But the reverse could be also said; conservatives appeal to the Rambo-cowboy "You'll take my gun from my cold dead fingers" sentiment, while liberals point to legions of facts about gun crime rates.*

 

I think it's issue dependent based on what will appeal to their supporters; emotional appeals to cover the issues they don't necessarily have the facts on.

 

Mokele

 

* Actually, IMHO, the facts run the other way, but IME, the opening lines of the gun control debate tend to be an emotional appeal by conservatives and a logical one from liberals.

[Pangloss]

But the reverse could be also said; conservatives appeal to the Rambo-cowboy "You'll take my gun from my cold dead fingers" sentiment, while liberals point to legions of facts about gun crime rates.*

 

I don't think the anti-gun control arguments can be dismissed that easily. Yes, some people use that reasoning, but there are plenty of more logical arguments on that side of the issue. Closer analysis of crime statistics, for example. You may not agree with their conclusions, but those arguments are certainly more logical and reasoned than your "Rambo" quote.

[Mokele]

BTW, your "studies" strike me as rather blatantly PC. If they drew statistical correlations between SAT scores and African Americans and someone had the gall to suggest that they might be less intelligent, the world would not know the bounds of your outrage (and rightfully so). But I guess it's okay to draw a conclusion like that based on statistical correlations when it comes to bashing conservatives, huh?

 

Why are they PC? Because they happen to draw conclusions you find unflattering?

 

And simply using correlation isn't necessarily methodological flaw; correlation is nothing more than one way of statistical analysis. If there are substantial flaws, they'll be found in the methods section, not necessarily what stats are used. Unfortunately, I can't get at the methods section of the first one, and the other two are meta-analysis papers (and I don't care enough to track down all of the original references to check their methods).

 

Is it really that hard to believe that traits like traditionalism and intolerance of ambiguity are associated with conservatism? Not that they're exclusive, of course, but I hear arguments incorporating those elements much more often from conservatives.

 

Mokele

[Mokele]

I don't think the anti-gun control arguments can be dismissed that easily. Yes, some people use that reasoning, but there are plenty of more logical arguments on that side of the issue. Closer analysis of crime statistics, for example. You may not agree with their conclusions, but those arguments are certainly more logical and reasoned than your "Rambo" quote.

 

::points to the asterisk and note at the end of my prior post::

[Pangloss]

Answer my question (in the quote), and I'll answer yours.

[Mokele]

I did: correlations are fine if the methods support them. The flaws of attempts to claim racial inferiority based on simple correlation with SAT scores (aside from the dubious usefulness of such scores) was the failure to control for other variables. These studies may or may not have flaws, but I can't access the methods to be sure (plus I'm only vaguely familiar with psych research), so I don't think the results should be automatically accepted. But nor do I think they should automatically be dismissed.

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

So you believe that it would be okay to publish a study that did control the other variables and drew the conclusion that blacks are less intelligent would be valid, solely based on statistical correlations? I think you're wrong, and I think that study would wake a lot of people up to the inherent problem in the global warming debate.

 

To answer your question: They're politically correct because they attack a group that it is politically correct to attack. Note that in saying so I'm not attacking the accuracy of the science, I'm questioning the value of it, vis-a-vis using it to draw the conclusion that liberals are good and conservatives are bad (which is what Phil was doing).

[Mokele]

So you believe that it would be okay to publish a study that did control the other variables and drew the conclusion that blacks are less intelligent would be valid, solely based on statistical correlations? I think you're wrong, and I think that study would wake a lot of people up to the inherent problem in the global warming debate.

 

Honestly, if that's what the data say, yes.

 

Seriously, what is the problem with correlations? Yes, they're inferior to manipulative experiments, but there are situations in which manipulative experiments are unfeasible, unethical or outright impossible.

 

You're making out as if they're only used to make psuedoscience sound legit, when in fact correlations and similar techniques are among the most common methods of analysis used in science. Most of biology is correlations because we can't custom-make organisms (at least not until we learn a bit more about genetic engineering). We have correlations between morphology and environment, between environments and speciosity, between performance traits and survival, between genotype and phenotype, between lattitude and biodiversity. These are not dubious concepts, nor are they poorly supported.

 

Honestly, every time I hear "well it's just a correlation" tossed out to dismiss something with an r-squared of over 0.8, it sounds like an echo of creationists claiming "it's just a theory."

 

Mokele