The Demise of Science

[BusaDave9]

What is with people today? Some people discount hundreds of years of scientific research and data. They think the greatest minds in science have flaws in their reasoning. We have morons like this woman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32mxZxv3dYM

I get aggravated just watching this woman.

She says she doesn't want to hear scientific theories. She only wants to be shown fossils and let her make up her own opinion of what the fossils mean.

She constantly says "how do they know this?" "Did they have a video camera?" "This is all guessing"

 

I really think the problem is education. As an American I am ashamed to show this graph but the problem is worse in the U.S.

Here's where I got this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html

 

[swansont]

 

I really think the problem is education.

 

A lack of education doesn't help things, but it's not so simple. The problem is that an ideology got ahold of her first, and education usually isn't a match for strongly held beliefs. Information that challenges those beliefs actually ends up reinforcing them. Education is not the answer in those cases — it's not necessarily an information deficit.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/upshot/when-beliefs-and-facts-collide.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/when-facts-fail-study-notes-that-facts-can-reinforce-false-beliefs/

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

[BusaDave9]

In the south eastern US many say we should not teach evolution without also teaching creationism.

We should not let ignorant moms dictate what we teach their kids. We should listen to the scientific community, the people that have their facts strait.

Edited December 9, 2014 by BusaDave9

[John Cuthber]

You could make a start by banning political parties that seek to maintain ignorance because it suits them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

[overtone]

 

 

The problem is that an ideology got ahold of her first, and education usually isn't a match for strongly held beliefs

There is a limit to the effectiveness of ideology in the face of education, though - because people, and entire cultures, do change.

 

Notice that propaganda-dependant outfits do not rely on the backlash effect to keep their converts - they put a lot of effort and money into limiting people's sources of information, drowning out competing views, repeating their talking points to the already loyal and the true believers. They, all of them, spend big money and work hard to prevent education from happening. There's probably a reason for that.

[swansont]

In the south eastern US many say we should not teach evolution without also teaching creationism.

 

That's a legal/constitutional issue, though. Regardless of the science, creationism should not be taught in the US. (nor intelligent design, nor the transitional form from cdesign proponentsists. Ironic how creationism itself has evolved)

[ajb]

Is there a similar plot involving the religiosity of a given country? (This may be hard to define)

[overtone]

 

 

Is there a similar plot involving the religiosity of a given country?

The US and Turkey would be among the most religious on that list - it omits most of the Muslim and non-European Catholic countries. Including them would make the US look better.

[ajb]

The US and Turkey would be among the most religious on that list - it omits most of the Muslim and non-European Catholic countries. Including them would make the US look better.

Sure, but I guess you want some way of comparing 'like for like'.

[imatfaal]

Here is a more recent Gallup poll for America - the trend seems to be a decrease in the pure Creationism and an increase in the Evolutionary model

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

 

 

Note there is a 4% margin of error

[chadn737]

You could make a start by banning political parties that seek to maintain ignorance because it suits them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

 

You mean all political parties?

[John Cuthber]

 

You mean all political parties?

That's probably fair comment but, in any event, it's not helpful to blame "ignorant mums" when there's a whole political industry based on ensuring they stay ignorant.

However there is a fundamental difference between the Right and the Left in this issue.

Most people can't afford to pay for their own (and their families') healthcare, education and retirement.

So it's clearly in their interests to ensure that state provision for those things is generous.(Only those who are rich enough would end up paying more in that case).

And yet, the Right wing regularly manage to get a majority in elections- even though enlightened self interest would make most people vote against them.

That's a pretty clear incentive for the Right, but not the Left to ensure that people vote on the basis of just about anything but the actual facts.

 

If the benefits you get from the state in terms of education, road building, retirement provision and such exceed your tax bills (and they usually will) then you shouldn't vote for a party that cuts taxes to reduce spending.

Telling people otherwise requires ensuring they don't understand the facts.

Edited December 9, 2014 by John Cuthber

[chadn737]

That's probably fair comment but, in any event, it's not helpful to blame "ignorant mums" when there's a whole political industry based on ensuring they stay ignorant.

However there is a fundamental difference between the Right and the Left in this issue.

Most people can't afford to pay for their own (and their families') healthcare, education and retirement.

So it's clearly in their interests to ensure that state provision for those things is generous.(Only those who are rich enough would end up paying more in that case).

And yet, the Right wing regularly manage to get a majority in elections- even though enlightened self interest would make most people vote against them.

That's a pretty clear incentive for the Right, but not the Left to ensure that people vote on the basis of just about anything but the actual facts.

 

If the benefits you get from the state in terms of education, road building, retirement provision and such exceed your tax bills (and they usually will) then you shouldn't vote for a party that cuts taxes to reduce spending.

Telling people otherwise requires ensuring they don't understand the facts.

 

 

None of that really has anything to do with science, let alone biology. Secondly, what is "pretty clear" to you, is not at all "pretty clear" to someone else. I for one disagree that the solutions offered by the Left are in the best interest of people and to me, there is clear incentive for the Left in misrepresenting the Right and portraying them as boogeymen in order to stir up voting. It happens on the Right too. I find it very amusing when people fail to see how deeply their own favorite party is guilty of the same crimes, but nevermind...they are all guilty of it.

[John Cuthber]

The whole issue has little to do with science.

 

You seem to have missed something.

I didn't say "it's pretty clear that..." I said "That's a pretty clear..."

Now, if what I said wasn't true you ought to have pointed it out, but if what I said about how people should vote if they wish to maximise their income is correct then it is a pretty clear distinction between the two sides.

Sure, they both lie. In particular, they lie about each-other.

But only one of them absolutely has to because it needs a majority, but only benefits a minority.

Either show it's not true, or show it's not an incentive for them to lie.

 

I don't know if you read, or were involved in this thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68375-has-the-republican-party-lost-its-collective-mind

and this one

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84790-is-political-conservatism-a-mild-form-of-insanity

but have a look and see if you can gainsay the major thrust of what it developed into: the Right wing is the one with the real fruitcakes.

They have to say stuff they know isn't true in order to "justify" their policies.

[overtone]

I for one disagree that the solutions offered by the Left are in the best interest of people and to me, there is clear incentive for the Left in misrepresenting the Right and portraying them as boogeymen in order to stir up voting.

You are wrong about a matter of reality, is the problem. You are projecting unto others your own bad faith, on the presumption that "both sides" must balance in this matter.

 

The Left, the actual Left, is accurate in its portrayal of the Right in America. The Right is not accurate in its portrayal of anything. That is not because of some inherent superiority of Left ideology, of course - in principle the Left is no better or more wise or more in touch with physical fact than the Right - but because of circumstance and event and temporary situation. But it is, as of now, the case.

 

For example, look at your behavior toward me and my posts, which you and hypervalent and the lot identify as "left", in the GMO threads. That kind of dishonorable and intellectually corrupt treatment of honest argument, in the service of internalized corporate propaganda and interest, infuses the entire American political "Right", these days - and you are not even capable of recognizing it. You read this and do not know what I am talking about. One cannot well govern or well manage scientific endeavor that way - and we see, for example, every single Republican candidate for President raise his hand in public and profess to doubt basic scientific theory on the grounds of no coherent or sensible reasoning whatsoever. These men are in control of public funding for scientific endeavor, regulation of corporate deployment of technology, and the careful management of the community's physical resources and infrastructure - have been for decades now. This is going to cost us.

Edited December 10, 2014 by overtone

[chadn737]

The whole issue has little to do with science.

 

You seem to have missed something.

I didn't say "it's pretty clear that..." I said "That's a pretty clear..."

Now, if what I said wasn't true you ought to have pointed it out, but if what I said about how people should vote if they wish to maximise their income is correct then it is a pretty clear distinction between the two sides.

Sure, they both lie. In particular, they lie about each-other.

But only one of them absolutely has to because it needs a majority, but only benefits a minority.

Either show it's not true, or show it's not an incentive for them to lie.

 

I don't know if you read, or were involved in this thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68375-has-the-republican-party-lost-its-collective-mind

and this one

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84790-is-political-conservatism-a-mild-form-of-insanity

but have a look and see if you can gainsay the major thrust of what it developed into: the Right wing is the one with the real fruitcakes.

They have to say stuff they know isn't true in order to "justify" their policies.

 

That is in the eye of the beholder. Being a staunch centrist, there is little distinction to me between the two sides and I see a clear oportunism on the Left to maintain and cater too their own constituentcies. The real difference is that the Left learned long ago how to better phrase their message.

You are wrong about a matter of reality, is the problem. You are projecting unto others your own bad faith, on the presumption that "both sides" must balance in this matter.

 

The Left, the actual Left, is accurate in its portrayal of the Right in America. The Right is not accurate in its portrayal of anything. That is not because of some inherent superiority of Left ideology, of course - in principle the Left is no better or more wise or more in touch with physical fact than the Right - but because of circumstance and event and temporary situation. But it is, as of now, the case.

 

For example, look at your behavior toward me and my posts, which you and hypervalent and the lot identify as "left", in the GMO threads. That kind of dishonorable and intellectually corrupt treatment of honest argument, in the service of internalized corporate propaganda and interest, infuses the entire American political "Right", these days - and you are not even capable of recognizing it. You read this and do not know what I am talking about. One cannot well govern or well manage scientific endeavor that way - and we see, for example, every single Republican candidate for President raise his hand in public and profess to doubt basic scientific theory on the grounds of no coherent or sensible reasoning whatsoever. These men are in control of public funding for scientific endeavor, regulation of corporate deployment of technology, and the careful management of the community's physical resources and infrastructure - have been for decades now. This is going to cost us.

 

 

My behavior towards you on the subject of GMOs has to do with the inaccurate portrayal and denial of the science. That you yourself taint the science of GMOs with one of non-scientific issues is your own doing and I will call people out for injecting politics into the science. I can agree that the Right has its kooks and is wrong on many things. The difference between you and I is that I see the same on the Left. That you are unwilling to apply the same skepticism to your favored views is your own doing.

[Acme]

 

...

I don't know if you read, or were involved in this thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68375-has-the-republican-party-lost-its-collective-mind

and this one

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84790-is-political-conservatism-a-mild-form-of-insanity

but have a look and see if you can gainsay the major thrust of what it developed into: the Right wing is the one with the real fruitcakes.

...

That is in the eye of the beholder. Being a staunch centrist, there is little distinction to me between the two sides and I see a clear oportunism on the Left to maintain and cater too their own constituentcies. The real difference is that the Left learned long ago how to better phrase their message.

 

While arguably the first thread John linked to is in the eye of the beholder, the thread Is Political Conservatism a mild form of Insanity? is not so much. True there was plenty of eye-beholding whining there, but there was no valid discounting of the methods employed in the studies. Those methods you can test yourself to some degree and see if indeed they do or do not confirm your centrism.

[chadn737]

If one studies the science of even some of our greatest scientists, there are many who have been guilty of letting politics trump scientific fact and color their results. As many here are American, the debate is obviously shaped by one of largely the American experience. Even there, one of the greatest geneticists, Thomas Hunt Morgan, allowed his strong leftist politics to overshadow his science and cause him to vocally reject the roles of natural selection in evolution. Meanwhile, in the Soviet Union, leftist political ideology led to the outright persecution, imprisonment, and even execution of scientists who challenged a state imposed view of inheritance that was clearly wrong.

If I step back and look at the history of science and its relationships with politics, I see as much reason to condemn the Left as I do the Right. The advantage of not being married to particular political ideologies is that I'm also not blinded to reality.

[Acme]

.... As many here are American, the debate is obviously shaped by one of largely the American experience. ...

Many here are actually Brits and the forum itself is based in GB. The studies in the thread that John & I linked to are not limited to the US.

[chadn737]

While arguably the first thread John linked to is in the eye of the beholder, the thread Is Political Conservatism a mild form of Insanity? is not so much. True there was plenty of eye-beholding whining there, but there was no valid discounting of the methods employed in the studies. Those methods you can test yourself to some degree and see if indeed they do or do not confirm your centrism.

 

 

I find such studies inherently problematic because the way they are conducted is with a clear starting premise that something is wrong with political conservatism and then seek to confirm the starting bias by studying attributes that are only viewed negatively. Secondly, political conservatism is not a unified set of ideology, particularly when one is talking about a study that spans multiple countries. In American politics, my centrism would be to the Left or Right in other nations. According to the linked article, they group Reagan with Hitler and Moussilini and call the latter two "Political Conservatives". However, in the periods when Hitler and Moussilini were rising to power, they were very much identified as being on the Left....this is especially true of Moussilini who was the darling of many Leftist media outlets in the United States. Their economic policies were largely socialist and populist in nature with agendas that mirror those of the modern American progressive politics. In Italy, the fascist party arose in a split of the Italian socialist Left. Those socialists who had been in support of WWI were what went on to become the Fascists. The eugenics policies of Hitler, were also in line with eugenics policies that were pushed by the political Left in the US. Of course, these historical facts are all things that have been forgotten and redefined so as to confuse and change the past. We now think of the Fascists as the political right, even though they were a third way system that split off of the political Left and at the time were viewed not as conservative, but as the radical left.

 

 

Many here are actually Brits and the forum itself is based in GB. The studies in the thread that John & I linked to are not limited to the US.

 

Fair enough, but the Brits and Americans share a much more similar history and political ideology than do the rest of the world. Its dangerous and foolish to frame the debate only then in this history which grew out of Classical LIberalism...which many now consider "conservative" which never existed in much of the world (Russia, China, etc) and would not be considered "conservative" in those parts. The use of "conservatism" to describe an specific ideology that is anything but "conservative" and "conservative" only in the narrow historical narrative of one part of the world is problematic to the extreme.

Edited December 10, 2014 by chadn737

[John Cuthber]

OK, so do the experiment suggested in this thread

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68375-has-the-republican-party-lost-its-collective-mind%C2%A0

 

have a look at people who are active politicians who either are in, or stand a reasonable prospect of being elected to, power then find the crazies among them.

Since it's your choice of crazy, you, as a centrist, should be able to make a reasonably fair choice.then see if the majority of political loonies are Left of Right of centre.

 

however, as pointed out several times in that thread, it seems nobody could actually find a recognised left wing loony (though there's no problem finding their counterparts.)

[Acme]

I find such studies inherently problematic because the way they are conducted is with a clear starting premise that something is wrong with political conservatism and then seek to confirm the starting bias by studying attributes that are only viewed negatively. Secondly, political conservatism is not a unified set of ideology, particularly when one is talking about a study that spans multiple countries. ...

The study that starts the thread is a meta-study that examines ~80 different studies. You should know that a gross generalization and dismissal such as you make is hardly a scientifically sound judgment. You certainly wouldn't accept such a judgment of your field of genetics.

 

In American politics, my centrism would be to the Left or Right in other nations. According to the linked article, they group Reagan with Hitler and Moussilini and call the latter two "Political Conservatives".

I think the proper place for specific criticism of the linked article is in the thread where it appears. As I said, the thread begins with a meta-study so it's unclear which 'they' you refer to.

 

Fair enough, but the Brits and Americans share a much more similar history and political ideology than do the rest of the world. Its dangerous and foolish to frame the debate only then in this history which grew out of Classical LIberalism...which many now consider "conservative" which never existed in much of the world (Russia, China, etc) and would not be considered "conservative" in those parts. The use of "conservatism" to describe an specific ideology that is anything but "conservative" and "conservative" only in the narrow historical narrative of one part of the world is problematic to the extreme.

Again I think these arguments would be better served in the other thread and directed to specific studies there. In the one study that I took from the meta-study and pursued in detail the focus is on a category termed 'right-wing authoritarianism' and folks who score high in this ranking vary in their association with 'conservatism' by country and time. In regards to this thread, folks who rank as high right-wing authoritarians also tend to reject science.

Edit: It's worth noting that these same high-right-wing-authoritarians in contemporary US tend [in statistically significant terms] to self-identify as politically conservative.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Acme

[chadn737]

I think the proper place for specific criticism of the linked article is in the thread where it appears. As I said, the thread begins with a meta-study so it's unclear which 'they' you refer to.

 

 

I didn't bring that specific article/study into the debate. I merely called out people for placing all the blame on a single political end and failing to see that their own favored side is just as guilty. I'm not defending the political right here. I'm calling into question the inherent assumptions that most people here have that the Left is innocent. I find such views lack sufficient skepticism and I am bothered by such partisanship.

 

The linked post linked to a press release describing the meta study and in it Reagan, Hitler, and Moussilini were considered equivalent political ideologues despite the fact that couldn't be more different.

 

Again I think these arguments would be better served in the other thread and directed to specific studies there. In the one study that I took from the meta-study and pursued in detail the focus is on a category termed 'right-wing authoritarianism' and folks who score high in this ranking vary in their association with 'conservatism' by country and time. In regards to this thread, folks who rank as high right-wing authoritarians also tend to reject science.

 

Hence the problem. "Authoritarianism" does not mesh well with a classical liberal ideology espoused by many on the political right in the US at least. Classical Liberalism is inherently anti-authoritarian. The problem with these studies and the resulting media hype is one of equivocation. A view point of "right-wing authoritarianism" is equivocated to "right-wing politics" because of the word "right-wing". The fact that the viewpoint identified in such studies does not match the political ideology is ignored and conflated. Therefore we have an equivocation of a study of "right-wing authoritarianism" being used in this thread to argue that the political right in two nations of a Classical Liberal history (the US and Britian) are therefore insane. This sort of equivocation of a study is an excellent example of abuse of research.

 

 

Edited December 10, 2014 by chadn737

[Acme]

I didn't bring that specific article/study into the debate. I merely called out people for placing all the blame on a single political end and failing to see that their own favored side is just as guilty. I'm not defending the political right here. I'm calling into question the inherent assumptions that most people here have that the Left is innocent. I find such views lack sufficient skepticism and I am bothered by such partisanship. ...

It doesn't matter if you brought it in or not; it's in. My skepticism is in good order, thank you.

 

The linked post linked to a press release describing the meta study and in it Reagan, Hitler, and Moussilini were considered equivalent political ideologues despite the fact that couldn't be more different. ...

You will find over there that my skepticism moved me to go well beyond the initial pop-sci report, and I urge you to do the same.

 

 

Hence the problem. "Authoritarianism" does not mesh well with a classical liberal ideology espoused by many on the political right in the US at least.

That's another broad-brush determination that does not jibe with specifics in [some of] the studies.

 

Classical Liberalism is inherently anti-authoritarian. The problem with these studies and the resulting media hype is one of equivocation. A view point of "right-wing authoritarianism" is equivocated to "right-wing politics" because of the word "right-wing". The fact that the viewpoint identified in such studies does not match the political ideology is ignored and conflated. Therefore we have an equivocation of a study of "right-wing authoritarianism" being used in this thread to argue that the political right in two nations of a Classical Liberal history (the US and Britian) are therefore insane. This sort of equivocation of a study is an excellent example of abuse of research.

Again with the broad-brush. Without giving reference to specific studies and their specific methods & means we remain beholdin' to your I.

[chadn737]

The study that starts the thread is a meta-study that examines ~80 different studies. You should know that a gross generalization and dismissal such as you make is hardly a scientifically sound judgment. You certainly wouldn't accept such a judgment of your field of genetics.

Don't be too sure about that. If the paper is framing the question and data in such a way as to be highly subjective, I'm going to be very critical and dismissive of it, even if its in genetics. I could point you to many papers that make claims of "epigenetics" that I would launch similar criticisms of because they misuse terminology and seek to arrive at a predetermined conclusion without actually showing its validity. This is particularly true of the work of Michael Skinner at Washington State who routinely makes grandiose claims of heritable environmentally induced epigenetics while failing to account for genetic variation. Similarly, I am very critical of papers like this that frame the subject only in a negative light, examine only negative characteristics, make only correlations, even weak ones, with relatively negative characteristics to a vague trait called "authoritarianism that is inherently at odds with the ideology of many right-wing politics in some of the nations in question.

 

I've read the meta study. There are many "statistically significant" correlations reported with an r < 0.3. As a general rule of thumb, an r of 0.2-0.3 is generally considered to be of "small effect", correlations of ~0.5 being "medium effect" and correlations of 0.8 or more being "large effect". Many of these correlations reported would be of small to medium effect and are therefore maybe not that important, even if statistically significant.

 

However, where are the studies doing similar comparisons of "left-wing authoritarianism" for comparison? The focus on right wing politics, even when the described traits do not match politcial ideologies, reveals an inherent bias in the objective of the researchers in these fields.