The Demise of Science

[overtone]

My behavior towards you on the subject of GMOs has to do with the inaccurate portrayal and denial of the science.

No, it doesn't. You are flagrantly and crudely mistaken about my portrayal of the science, and completely wrong about my denial of anything. I'm not portraying or denying the science as you claim. Not even close. You're simply deluded, wrong, in error, as to what is actually written in my posts. And they are right in front of you.

 

You are mistaken, in other words, on several points of very simple observation of fact in the context of GMO posting, and you are consistently unable to follow even very simple arguments therein, and the only visible reason for this otherwise inexplicable incapability (you are not a complete moron, or totally ignorant, or mentally deranged in any visible way) is your repeatedly professed and explicit allegiance to a political viewpoint relative to GMOs usually described in the US as "Rightwing".

 

Your political take on the GMO debates has crippled your ability to reason about GMOs in general, or follow other people's reasoning. And this mental injury you share with a couple of other people here, all of them politically rightwing. It's beyond coincidence.

 

And it's beyond the GMO issue. From creationism to climate change, from nuclear power to anti-terrorism efforts, from racial discord to road construction, allegiance to currently labeled US "rightwing" political viewpoints and ideology cripples the visible scientific reasoning and observational capabilities of its victims.

 

It's continual - here's from last week or so: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/24/do-democrats-and-republicans-actually-experience-the-weather-differently/Note how carefully the issue is presented, as a "both sides" or "partisan"issue, when the blunt fact of the matter is that in the US right now being Republican interferes with your ability to tell whether or not it's cold outside.

 

 

 

I'm calling into question the inherent assumptions that most people here have that the Left is innocent.

No such inherent assumption is visible among very many people here - certainly not the ones you are in discussion with and replying to.

 

I find such views lack sufficient skepticism and I am bothered by such partisanship.

Those views don't exist here. And if they did, they would not nullify or excuse your own actually visible errors and "partisan" (the Party is coincidence, probably) delusions. Edited December 10, 2014 by overtone

[chadn737]

 

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

 

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

 

 

Not a broad brush. This is specifically what is looked at and correlated in the meta-study you have mentioned. Its also a fact that they are specifically looking at a particular attitude that is at odds with many "right-wing" ideologies and also which fails to correlate with critical "right-wing" agendas in their own study. Look at the correlation with political-conservative economics. There is none. In the US right-wing, economic ideology is one of the major parts of the political right. Yet even in studies examined that were conducted amongst American populations, there failed to be a correlation in many of these factors. This calls much into question...namely is the major factor being studied ("right-wing authoritarianism") truly representative of "conservative" politics, at least in the US. It also begs the question of how they define "authoritarianism". I know many individuals who are authoritarian on one issue, but anti-authoritarian on others. These studies are easily biased by how questions are framed and this is a known issue in sociology. I have a friend whose primary work has been in the development of questionaires and their analysis for various sociological studies involving public health. Framing of the question affects results. While the same is true in any discipline, its a lot harder to bias the results of a genetics study than it is a sociological one.

 

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.

 

 

Indeed and I'm not particularly impressed when I read both the traits studied...in particular the focus on "authoritarianism" and many of the inconsistencies in the correlations. If "authoritarianism" is representative of the political right, then there needs to be some way to justify it in the context of classical liberalism that pervades much of the political right in the US and UK as well as the economic liberalism that is characterisitc of these same parties. It also has to explain the weak correlations of many of the traits, even if statistically significant and whether their findings are of actual significance or if they happened to find a set of traits that only weakly explains some of the conservatism that exists. Talk about broad strokes, this is a classic example. Find a weak correlation that explains maybe a fraction of some trait and then broadly apply this to the whole. Fortunately, we have ways to evaluate such data, the Pearson Correlation giving us a rough measure of the "effect". If the effect is not large, then we know that painting broad strokes about conservatives, as done in the press releases and as appears to have been done now in these threads by those citing the paper, is false.

 

There are lots of questions about the paper that I find questionable, and even more objectional is the media misrepresentation of the study and the very obvious equivocation that takes place. That such arguments are used in these forums without full skepticism is problematic.

Edited December 10, 2014 by chadn737

[Acme]

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.

Again with the broad-brushing. The term 'authoritarians' as used by Bob Altemeyer is arbitrary, i.e. it is an after-the-fact denomination chosen to characterize his studies. Whether or not it has negative connotations is immaterial to the validity of those studies.

 

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.

Those are the kinds of arguments you need to bring to specifics of individual studies. Even so, your qualifications of 'general-rule-of-thumb' and 'maybe-not-that-important' are well-seasoned with subjectivity.

 

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.

In the case of Altemeyer's studies everyone has an unbiased and equal opportunity to score as a high authoritarian. It just happens to be the case that few who score high identify themselves as left and/or liberal.

 

Not a broad brush. This is specifically what is looked at and correlated in the meta-study you have mentioned. Its also a fact that they are specifically looking at a particular attitude that is at odds with many "right-wing" ideologies and also which fails to correlate with critical "right-wing" agendas in their own study. Look at the correlation with political-conservative economics. There is none. In the US right-wing, economic ideology is one of the major parts of the political right. Yet even in studies examined that were conducted amongst American populations, there failed to be a correlation in many of these factors. This calls much into question...namely is the major factor being studied ("right-wing authoritarianism") truly representative of "conservative" politics, at least in the US. It also begs the question of how they define "authoritarianism". I know many individuals who are authoritarian on one issue, but anti-authoritarian on others. These studies are easily biased by how questions are framed and this is a known issue in sociology. I have a friend whose primary work has been in the development of questionaires and their analysis for various sociological studies involving public health. Framing of the question affects results. While the same is true in any discipline, its a lot harder to bias the results of a genetics study than it is a sociological one.

 

 

Indeed and I'm not particularly impressed when I read both the traits studied...in particular the focus on "authoritarianism" and many of the inconsistencies in the correlations. If "authoritarianism" is representative of the political right, then there needs to be some way to justify it in the context of classical liberalism that pervades much of the political right in the US and UK as well as the economic liberalism that is characterisitc of these same parties. It also has to explain the weak correlations of many of the traits, even if statistically significant and whether their findings are of actual significance or if they happened to find a set of traits that only weakly explains some of the conservatism that exists. Talk about broad strokes, this is a classic example. Find a weak correlation that explains maybe a fraction of some trait and then broadly apply this to the whole. Fortunately, we have ways to evaluate such data, the Pearson Correlation giving us a rough measure of the "effect". If the effect is not large, then we know that painting broad strokes about conservatives, as done in the press releases and as appears to have been done now in these threads by those citing the paper, is false.

 

 

There are lots of questions about the paper that I find questionable, and even more objectional is the media misrepresentation of the study and the very obvious equivocation that takes place. That such arguments are used in these forums without full skepticism is problematic.

I think you need to bring up your questions and objections over in the other thread so as to not draw this one too far afield. As I alluded to, I was not satisfied with the [popular] media slant of the meta-study either and this was the reason for my digging into the actual study and then delving into one study in detail. I note that I was rather alone in that effort and the detail oriented approach you profess would be welcome.

[chadn737]

Those are the kinds of arguments you need to bring to specifics of individual studies. Even so, your qualifications of 'general-rule-of-thumb' and 'maybe-not-that-important' are well-seasoned with subjectivity.

 

This is not something I just pulled out of my ass. The small, medium, large effect sizes is one that has a long tradition in statistics just like the use of p-values < 0.05 or < 0.01....many of these recommendations being set forth by Cohen.

 

 

 

 

[Acme]

This is not something I just pulled out of my ass.

My goodness! I should hope not.

 

The small, medium, large effect sizes is one that has a long tradition in statistics just like the use of p-values < 0.05 or < 0.01....many of these recommendations being set forth by Cohen.

Altemeyer uses similar if not the very-same terms so you should be comfortable discussing/criticizing them in regards to the specific contexts in which they are used. Again the appropriate context for that discussion is the other thread.

[chadn737]

Again with the broad-brushing. The term 'authoritarians' as used by Bob Altemeyer is arbitrary, i.e. it is an after-the-fact denomination chosen to characterize his studies. Whether or not it has negative connotations is immaterial to the validity of those studies.

 

In the case of Altemeyer's studies everyone has an unbiased and equal opportunity to score as a high authoritarian. It just happens to be the case that few who score high identify themselves as left and/or liberal.

That is actually another one of the problems with this meta-study. It has been pointed out before by others in the field that these scales do not exactly mesh with "conservatism" in politics and depending on the particular nation and its history, the association of RWA will differ politically. If you read through the metastudy, multiple measures are used besides RWA. This includes the C-scale, the F-scale, and even voting records/history. Therefore there is an inherent conflation of RWA which does not necessarily measure political ideology with other scales that do not measure the same thing.

[Acme]

That is actually another one of the problems with this meta-study. It has been pointed out before by others in the field that these scales do not exactly mesh with "conservatism" in politics and depending on the particular nation and its history, the association of RWA will differ politically. If you read through the metastudy, multiple measures are used besides RWA. This includes the C-scale, the F-scale, and even voting records/history. Therefore there is an inherent conflation of RWA which does not necessarily measure political ideology with other scales that do not measure the same thing.

Please bring these objections to the other thread where they belong. >> Is Political Conservatism a Mild Form of Insanity?

[chadn737]

Again the appropriate context for that discussion is the other thread.

 

While I agree, there is a problem with that. Others brought these studies (or in some cases cherry-picked youtube videos) into this debate to somehow counter my argument that the Left is also guilty of the same things as the political right and making it part of the debate. In reality it is one big red herring. My argument first post was in response to an obvious assumption that the blame somehow rests with a single party. I pointed out that it is characteristic of all, after which the red herring of problems with political right was brought up to distract from the inherent fact that these things occur on the Left as well. It was a successful red herring.

 

As I pointed out earlier, however, there are many clear cut cases of the political left having suppressed science or biased it. We see this in the rejection of Darwinian evolution by even some great scientists. We see it in the suppression, imprisonment, and murder of geneticists under the Soviets....although they were not the only ones. We can see it historically in the early 20th century progressives advocating eugenics programs that were successfully instituted in the US, Sweden, the UK, and especially Germany. One can even see it now in the US in political opposition to certain technologies that mere right-wing opposition to technologies like stem cells.

[overtone]

As I pointed out earlier, however, there are many clear cut cases of the political left having suppressed science or biased it.

Not currently, in the US.

 

The issue is not an abstract or theoretical comparison of the potential flaws of ideological approach, but the situation now obtaining in the US, the reality on this forum, etc.

 

 

 

 

My argument first post was in response to an obvious assumption that the blame somehow rests with a single party. I pointed out that it is characteristic of all

 

 

But it isn't, at the moment, "characteristic of all". And no such assumption was "obvious" anyway - you were mistaken about that.

 

And this:

 

We can see it historically in the early 20th century progressives advocating eugenics programs that were successfully instituted in the US, Sweden, the UK, and especially Germany.

Those examples are of overwhelmingly rightwing, not leftwing, advocates of eugenics programs. You should have noticed that as soon as you typed "especially Germany". Edited December 10, 2014 by overtone

[Acme]

 

Again the appropriate context for that discussion is the other thread.

While I agree, ...

 

Good. See you there.

 

...there is a problem with that. Others brought these studies (or in some cases cherry-picked youtube videos) into this debate to somehow counter my argument that the Left is also guilty of the same things as the political right and making it part of the debate. In reality it is one big red herring. My argument first post was in response to an obvious assumption that the blame somehow rests with a single party. I pointed out that it is characteristic of all, after which the red herring of problems with political right was brought up to distract from the inherent fact that these things occur on the Left as well. It was a successful red herring.

 

As I pointed out earlier, however, there are many clear cut cases of the political left having suppressed science or biased it. We see this in the rejection of Darwinian evolution by even some great scientists. We see it in the suppression, imprisonment, and murder of geneticists under the Soviets....although they were not the only ones. We can see it historically in the early 20th century progressives advocating eugenics programs that were successfully instituted in the US, Sweden, the UK, and especially Germany. One can even see it now in the US in political opposition to certain technologies that mere right-wing opposition to technologies like stem cells.

Since the subject of this thread is the contemporary demise of science I don't think the other-than-contemporary historical context is of much application. BusaDave9 did not simply pull his frustration out of his ass.

[chadn737]

Not currently, in the US.

 

The issue is not an abstract or theoretical comparison of the potential flaws of ideological approach, but the situation now obtaining in the US, the reality on this forum, etc.

 

 

 

 

But it isn't, at the moment, "characteristic of all". And no such assumption was "obvious" anyway - you were mistaken about that.

 

 

Yes currently in the US. Where does opposition to a technology like nuclear power come from? How about primary opposition to GMOs? How about primary opposition to vaccine use? Is it coincidence that it is the most Left leaning school districts are seeing increases in the incidence in preventable childhood diseases due to kids not being vaccinated?

Good. See you there.

 

Since the subject of this thread is the contemporary demise of science I don't think the other-than-contemporary historical context is of much application. BusaDave9 did not simply pull his frustration out of his ass.

 

 

History is always relevant and its not just historical examples that are at hand. Nuclear power, vaccinations, GMOs.....all find opposition that has strong political biases. They often get ignored because the Left has created an illusion that only the Right is guilty of opposition to science and technology....one that has been bought into by many here as well. Early in my career I found that a lot of the anti-science I had to deal with was largely anti-Evolution from the Right. Now, when I get into scientific debates, that its typically around the issue of GMOs and its coming from people on the political Left. BusaDave9 didn't pull his frustration out of his ass and neither am I. I have friends who are scientists and work in government. They see political opposition to approval of many GMOs coming from appointees from this current administration. Where once Evolution and Stem Cells seemed to be the scientific issue of the day, now its GMOs. The opposition to these technologies is just as inhibitory to science as the opposition from the right towards stem cells was nearly a decade ago.

 

If you want to say that the Right has been guilty of holding back science, then I agree completely. What amases me is that people believe this nonsense that the political left is somehow not guilty of the same thing when I see it happening around me today and deal with it on a daily basis.

Edited December 10, 2014 by chadn737

[Acme]

... How about primary opposition to vaccine use? Is it coincidence that it is the most Left leaning school districts are seeing increases in the incidence in preventable childhood diseases due to kids not being vaccinated?

Do you have some data to support your implication that political left-leaning is the primary motivation for anti-vaccers? This page indicates a wide range of historical opposition to vaccinations. >>

History of Anti-vaccination Movements

In Conclusion

 

Although the time periods have changed, the emotions and deep-rooted beliefs whether philosophical, political, or spiritual that underlie vaccine opposition have remained relatively consistent since Edward Jenner introduced vaccination. ...

[overtone]

Yes currently in the US. Where does opposition to a technology like nuclear power come from?

You seem to be assuming that opposition to nuclear power is unscientific, or opposed to science somehow. That is an error common among those of your political persuasion. As far as "technology like nuclear power", the current Left in the US is not a source of opposition at all.

 

How about primary opposition to GMOs?

Again, you seem to be confusing debate or opposition to something with irrationality and error and unscientific approaches. You also seem to be assuming that your opinion on GMO issues is scientifically based and soundly reasoned. You are incorrect in that matter - your political bias is the only visible base for some of the goofy nonsense you've posted here on that topic.

 

How about primary opposition to vaccine use?

That is primarily a rightwing phenomenon, in the US - its associated with fundamentalist churches, people rigidly opposed to taxation and "big government" and the like, and most of those people self-identify as rightwing or conservative.

Edited December 10, 2014 by overtone

[chadn737]

Do you have some data to support your implication that political left-leaning is the primary motivation for anti-vaccers? This page indicates a wide range of historical opposition to vaccinations. >>

History of Anti-vaccination Movements

 

If you look at the rough correlation of vaccinations and voting by state, those with highest vaccination rates typically voted Republican and those with lowest typically voted for Obama. http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2014/10/20/are_liberals_or_conservatives_more_anti-vaccine_108905.html

[Acme]

If you look at the rough correlation of vaccinations and voting by state, those with highest vaccination rates typically voted Republican and those with lowest typically voted for Obama. http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2014/10/20/are_liberals_or_conservatives_more_anti-vaccine_108905.html

I think you will agree that correlation does not equal causation. Do you have something that shows anti-vaccers hold their stance for political reasons?

[chadn737]

You seem to be assuming that opposition to nuclear power is unscientific, or opposed to science somehow. That is an error common among those of your political persuasion. As far as "technology like nuclear power", the current Left in the US is not a source of opposition at all.

 

Again, you seem to be confusing debate or opposition to something with irrationality and error and unscientific approaches.

 

Yeah, when it the studies clearly favor the conclusion that nuclear power is safe and reliable and clean....that GMOs are safe....its is unscientific. To use your argument in reverse, you seem to be assuming that opposition to "climate change" or "opposition to evolution" is unscientific or opposed to science somehow. I've seen people cite research and use pretty good logical arguments as reasons to disagree with anthropomorphic globabl warming or Darwinian evolution. But they are still unscientific because they cherry pick the data and ignore the larger body of data. I see the EXACT same thing everyday in opposition to GMOs.

 

That is primarily a rightwing phenomenon, in the US - its associated with fundamentalist churches, people rigidly opposed to taxation and "big government" and the like, and most of those people self-identify as rightwing or conservative.

 

 

Um...no. Its primary a factor of rich liberal whites who also believe that organic food is safer and homeopathy is better. If you seperate undervaccination from unvaccination (the former being a factor of impoverishment), then the typical unvaccinated child is:

 

"were more likely to be non-Hispanic white, have a mother who was older, married and who had a college degree. These children were more likely to live in a household with an annual income exceeding $75,000."

 

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/science/demographics-unvaccinated-children

 

That demographic doesn't particulary fit in with the description you just mentioned. Its far more typical of the sort of rich white liberals living in places like Oregon (highest rate of unvaccinated children).

 

I think you will agree that correlation does not equal causation. Do you have something that shows anti-vaccers hold their stance for political reasons?

 

I don't claim that it is for political reasons, I claim that it is a characteristic of those on the Left and a movement that finds its political support largely in leftist politics. I would no more say that people reject evolution for political reasons. These believes are held a priori or independent of the politics, but then manifested in their politics and the regions where the political left dominates. Its the same with GMOs and nuclear power. In the states that have passed or attempted to pass anti-GMO legislation....these are all "Blue states" that typically are Left leaning. Opposition to the technology comes from groups that are associated with the political left like Greenpeace.

And as far as political ideology driving anti-science....this is very evident in a lot of the anti-GMO movement who oppose the technology in large part because of the involvement of large corporations. Similar opposition to modern medicine can be seen and the rise of alternative medicine as a form of anti-corporatism, a characteristic of the political left.

[Acme]

 

I think you will agree that correlation does not equal causation. Do you have something that shows anti-vaccers hold their stance for political reasons?

I don't claim that it is for political reasons, I claim that it is a characteristic of those on the Left and a movement that finds its political support largely in leftist politics.

 

OK.

From your earlier link:

Oregon (7.1%); Obama +12

Idaho (6.4%); Romney +32

Vermont (6.2%); Obama +36

Michigan (5.9%); Obama +9

Maine (5.5%); Obama +15

Alaska (5.3%); Romney +14

Arizona (4.9%); Romney +9

Wisconsin (4.9%); Obama +7

Washington (4.7%); Obama +15

Colorado (4.6%); Obama +5

Utah (4.4%); Romney +48

I count 7 Obama & 4 Romney and the Obama margin is 99 and the Romney margin is 103. What shall we conclude in regards to your claim? Moreover, shouldn't we enquire as to Romney & Obama's stance on vaccination before drawing any conclusions here?

[overtone]

If you look at the rough correlation of vaccinations and voting by state, those with highest vaccination rates typically voted Republican and those with lowest typically voted for Obama.

1) That is not a good proxy for your contention about left vs right, however. If you look at the list of 11 states with high exemption rates you see maybe two - Oregon and Michigan - that anyone would call politically leftwing overall. And in Michigan the exemptions are coming from religious conservatives (likewise in Illinois, a high-exemption state left out of that list). In Idaho, Utah, Colorado, etc, the vaccination exemptions are found among Mormons and other religious fundies - mostly rightwing conservatives. There is also an anti-vaccination bloc among fundamentalist black people and Muslims - both groups Obama voters, neither group politically Left in general.

 

Mistaking "Obama voter" for "political Left" is of course an error characteristic of the US authoritarian Right. So is failing to correct ones statistics for built in biases - the chances of a State voting for Obama in 2012 were not 50/50.

 

2) If you look at more thorough and better reasoned analyses of the same data, which as usual involves a Leftwing source: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/vaccine-exemptions-states-pertussis-mapyou see more significant correlations: the rate of exemptions is higher where exemptions are easier to get, and lower when more children are being supported by welfare programs. Since States voting for Romney tended to have more rigidly authoritarian governments and more welfare dependent children than those voting for Obama, they had lower exemption rates on those grounds.

 

Again, that does not support any conclusions about Leftwing opposition to science. Notice that the Leftwing source there, a standard one of the Left (Mother Jones), seems to disapprove of people failing to vaccinate their children.

 

3) The most striking correlation is between geography and vaccination exemption - western States have higher exemption rates. Do you associate western geography with Leftwing ideology, in US politics? I do not.

 

 

Yeah, when it the studies clearly favor the conclusion that nuclear power is safe and reliable and clean....that GMOs are safe....its is unscientific.

No one is reasoning like that here.

 

To use your argument in reverse, you seem to be assuming that opposition to "climate change" or "opposition to evolution" is unscientific or opposed to science somehow.

As noted, you are unable to follow even simple arguments in this matter. You can't "reverse" them, because you haven't grasped them in the first place.

 

 

 

 

"were more likely to be non-Hispanic white, have a mother who was older, married and who had a college degree. These children were more likely to live in a household with an annual income exceeding $75,000."

http://www.immunizat...inated-children

 

That demographic doesn't particulary fit in with the description you just mentioned.

 

It fits my description just fine. The description it doesn't fit is yours - older married white couples with incomes over 75k and children of school age are the traditional rightwing center of the Republican Party, not characteristically leftwing. This is especially true of places like Vermont and Michigan, where such people are the upper class "mansion on the hill" types one finds at the country club and Rotarian meetings and Chamber of Commerce dinners.

This is the core:

I don't claim that it is for political reasons, I claim that it is a characteristic of those on the Left and a movement that finds its political support largely in leftist politics.

And that claim has no basis in reality whatsoever. Where do such claims come from, and how do they persist in the face of evidence and argument? Edited December 10, 2014 by overtone

[billvon]

 

Yeah, when it the studies clearly favor the conclusion that nuclear power is safe and reliable and clean....that GMOs are safe....its is unscientific.

 

 

The claims that "nuclear power is safe" and "GMO's are safe" are also unscientific (and provably wrong.) Both have risks.

 

Fortunately science does not seek to prove either one, nor should it. Science instead quantifies the risk. A nuclear power plant might have a loss-of-coolant accident, on average, once every 600 years, and a GMO might increase your odds of dying of an allergic reaction by .003%. Such responses are, in general, scientifically supportable.

 

And as far as political ideology driving anti-science....this is very evident in a lot of the anti-GMO movement who oppose the technology in large part because of the involvement of large corporations. Similar opposition to modern medicine can be seen and the rise of alternative medicine as a form of anti-corporatism, a characteristic of the political left.

 

Both sides have certainly taken good science and used it for their own ends. Unfortunately, we are also seeing the rise of well-funded bad science that seeks purely to support a political agenda.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Let's not make this another discussion about GMO's. Keep discussion in line with the OP.

[chadn737]

 

The claims that "nuclear power is safe" and "GMO's are safe" are also unscientific (and provably wrong.) Both have risks.

 

Fortunately science does not seek to prove either one, nor should it. Science instead quantifies the risk. A nuclear power plant might have a loss-of-coolant accident, on average, once every 600 years, and a GMO might increase your odds of dying of an allergic reaction by .003%. Such responses are, in general, scientifically supportable.

 

Both sides have certainly taken good science and used it for their own ends. Unfortunately, we are also seeing the rise of well-funded bad science that seeks purely to support a political agenda.

 

In theory yes such risks are "quantifiable" or "demonstrateable"....the problem comes in when there is no data indicating such risk and one party advocates against it regardless. We can again draw direct comparisons to the right-wing and climate change. One can find experts (as one can always find experts) who do not believe climate change is a factor of human activity. There are also non-anthropomorphic forces also affecting climate change (I agree whole heartedly that there is anthropomorhic ones as well, this is an illustrative point) and enough conflicting factors in climate change that it is undeniable that some of climate prediction models perform badly. So if you want to argue that opposition to nuclear power or GMOs has a scientific basis...even if it is a weak basis....then one must admit, if one is to be intellectually honest, that the same is true of climate change denial....even if the evidence is weak.

 

It is clear that there is a direct parrallel in the way the Left has cherry picked its scientific data regarding subjects like nuclear power or GMOs and the way the Right cherry picks its data regarding climate change. Both are contemporary issues...ironically related given the benefits nuclear power and GMOs offer in addressing climate change....and both illustrate two political polar opposites ignoring scientific evidence over political agenda/ideology.

Edited December 12, 2014 by chadn737

[swansont]

 

It is clear that there is a direct parrallel in the way the Left has cherry picked its scientific data regarding subjects like nuclear power …

 

 

Having a hard time with a sentence that starts with "it is clear" that lacks any sort of citation to back it up.

[chadn737]

 

 

Having a hard time with a sentence that starts with "it is clear" that lacks any sort of citation to back it up.

 

The primary source of political opposition to GMOs and nuclear power comes from the environmental left/green movements and/or anti-corporatist movements like the Occupy Movement.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/

http://occupywallstreet.net/event/march-against-monsanto-may-25th

http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/greenpeace/00b8c260409147c89ebaffc706de0f0a

 

[swansont]

 

The primary source of political opposition to GMOs and nuclear power comes from the environmental left/green movements and/or anti-corporatist movements like the Occupy Movement.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/

http://occupywallstreet.net/event/march-against-monsanto-may-25th

http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/greenpeace/00b8c260409147c89ebaffc706de0f0a

 

 

The first link contains a pretty crappy set of arguments, which I would be happy to expound upon, but your claim was not that the left is opposed to nuclear power, it was that the left is cherry-picking its claims in its opposition to nuclear power. I see nothing in any of those links that points out a single instance of cherry-picking. So it is still unclear to me that the left's opposition to nuclear power is based on cherry-picking.

[chadn737]

 

The first link contains a pretty crappy set of arguments, which I would be happy to expound upon, but your claim was not that the left is opposed to nuclear power, it was that the left is cherry-picking its claims in its opposition to nuclear power. I see nothing in any of those links that points out a single instance of cherry-picking. So it is still unclear to me that the left's opposition to nuclear power is based on cherry-picking.

Given your last post, it was not clear whether you were arguing against the claim that it is the Left opposing these technologies or if you were attacking the claim of cherry picking. These sources were meant to demonstrate the former, not the latter.

 

As far as cherry picking, there is inherent evidence of such in the anti-GMO arguments made. For instance Occupy Wallstreet cites health effects, which the overwhelming evidence suggest that there is none, as well as statements from scientific bodies both in the US and Europe. Claiming unsubstantiated health effects on largely discredited studies (I.e. Seralini) while ignoring numerous studies to the contrary is by definition cherry picking.