The Left's War on Science

Jan 12, 2005
14,974
2,515
126
#1
A great short video. It explains how the left has made some subjects too taboo to even bring up and study. A pretty interesting part was that the fact-seeking, not-emotion-driven and tolerant leftest company Google fired an employee for daring to use basic science to explain why men earn more money compared to women in their lifetimes, generally speaking.

An eye opening part for me was the stat that one is more likely to be taught sociology in college by a Marxist than a Republican.

Academia has been taken over by people that value feelings over logic in certain cases. The result of everyone getting a trophy.

 
Last edited:

HurleyBird

Golden Member
Apr 22, 2003
1,770
84
126
#2
An eye opening part for me was the stat that one is more likely to be taught sociology in college by a Marxist than a Republican.
That came as a surprise to you?

But honestly, when science rubs up against tribal identity, the later will win every time. Some tribes may find their dogma better grounded in science at some particular point in time, but I think that's just incidental. It's not a left wing or right wing issue, it's a fundamental issue with human nature.
 
Last edited:

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,670
92
126
#3
That came as a surprise to you?

But honestly, when science rubs up against tribal identity, the later will win every time. Some tribes may find their dogma better grounded in science at some particular point in time, but I that's just incidental.
When you’re only paying adjunct professors $20k/year to teach sociology you can’t afford Republicans and have to settle for Marxists who are just happy to have a job since it’s not like investment banks are tripping over themselves to hire guys who quote Das Kapital.

BTW sociology is no more real science than Scientology is.
 
Feb 16, 2005
13,205
208
136
#4
just pulling out all the stops to hit maximum derp today, aren't you?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,880
1,382
126
#5
The part where Stossel offered that countries needlessly banned DDT ignores the effect it had on birds of prey. Their eggs broke because the shells were too thin...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Eggshell_thinning

There are good alternatives to DDT. His remarks weren't scientific at all.
 
Jan 12, 2005
14,974
2,515
126
#8
The part where Stossel offered that countries needlessly banned DDT ignores the effect it had on birds of prey. Their eggs broke because the shells were too thin...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Eggshell_thinning

There are good alternatives to DDT. His remarks weren't scientific at all.

That is a fair point. It probably didn't matter in all areas, but is a reason to ban DDT in at least some areas. The point of the video still stands no different though, and there are plenty of other examples.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,670
92
126
#9
Most sociology "experiments" are observational studies of typical or expected patterns of behavior and not falsifiable thus not science (see any number of famous examples such as the Asch Conformity Study for evidence of this). The discipline may follow some of the principles of the scientific method, but so do chiropractors and many other disciplines which aren't science.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
43,372
1,024
126
#10
Yeah, more than half of Republicans believe that the big bang and evolution are part of a liberal conspiracy to turn America away from God, but it's 'the left' that hates science. Right.

W.T.F.
 
Mar 11, 2004
17,765
289
126
#11
Uh, OP, we get that you don't actually know science for jack shit, but the Google guy did not use "basic science", and considering that several of the scientists that did the studies he cited for his rationale came out and said he deliberately misinterpreted their results and clearly doesn't understand the science (as you conservative idiots are so prone to doing), well you'd have to be a goddamned moron (as you and the rest of the conservatives that constantly resort to the same methods are so keen to prove) to claim that the science backs up his claims. But don't let that stop you from pushing your lies or anything or reinforcing how you are either too stupid or are similarly intentionally not comprehending things.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,880
1,382
126
#12
Yeah, more than half of Republicans believe that the big bang and evolution are part of a liberal conspiracy to turn America away from God, but it's 'the left' that hates science. Right.

W.T.F.
Yeh, well, you're the real racist!
 
Mar 11, 2004
17,765
289
126
#13
Yeah, more than half of Republicans believe that the big bang and evolution are part of a liberal conspiracy to turn America away from God, but it's 'the left' that hates science. Right.

W.T.F.
Just standard conservative operating procedure: accuse others of that which you are guilty of (I feel putting the "guilty of" part is important because of how often its something they claim is a crime and it isn't, or it is a crime and they then are then found guilty of by a court of law). The funniest part is how they think they're exposing some grand hypocrisy. To be fair, they are, its just their own. And they have to make sure and do so in ways that thoroughly show how truly stupid they are. It truly is hilarious how they think if they just keep repeating lies enough that makes them true. Makes you understand why they're so gullible and susceptible to being manipulated and fleeced by the worst conmen.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
43,372
1,024
126
#15
The part where Stossel offered that countries needlessly banned DDT ignores the effect it had on birds of prey. Their eggs broke because the shells were too thin...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Eggshell_thinning

There are good alternatives to DDT. His remarks weren't scientific at all.
Interesting that in using that narrative as proof that 'liberals hate science,' he left out the fact that Rachel Carson was a scientist. And that she never said that DDT should be banned, just that the people should made more aware of certain substances being used and their potential for harm.
 
Mar 11, 2004
17,765
289
126
#16
Yeah, more than half of Republicans believe that the big bang and evolution are part of a liberal conspiracy to turn America away from God, but it's 'the left' that hates science. Right.

W.T.F.
Don't forget climate change.

I also love how they deliberately point to (often old) shit conservatives have by and large co-opted and now are also claiming just with the insanity ratcheted up. Look at DDT and pesticides, aren't conservatives running around screaming about it turning frogs gay and that being a deliberate conspiracy by liberals? I know of a growing amount of conservatives that push anti-GMO/"all natural" and other bullshit for complete bullshit reasons (where if you spend any time discussing the issue with them, its clear they don't understand basic science - they're the type that hears "chemical" and freaks out because they don't understand everything is chemicals, let alone when you're getting into complexities of manipulating the genomes of living organisms). We know they've taken over the anti-vax movement. We know they're now trying to bastardize gender and orientation studies to fit their narrative (often even in spite of the actual scientists saying they're completely misunderstanding it). These are the same types of people that would be pushing eugenics. And now they're crying because they can't use eugenics to argue about how superior males and others are, and acting like its some liberal conspiracy, and not, you know, because when these psychopaths used that before, it led to a whole lot of horrible things.

Here's the article of this by the way (wouldn't be surprised if the OP tried making a thread about it back when it came out in 2016): https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html

Also noteworthy, this guy has zero scientific credentials himself, and has consistently railed against environmental issues among other scientific topics. But he's a self stylized "contrarian" much like the other right wing dipshits claim they're doing. Just like how they're "just asking questions". So full of shit, its a wonder its not oozing out of their ears (but then I shouldn't be surprised at how much of it comes out of their mouths). They must wear diapers to keep from ruining their pants. Or maybe its just because they have the mental development of literal babies.
 
Mar 11, 2004
17,765
289
126
#17
Interesting that in using that narrative as proof that 'liberals hate science,' he left out the fact that Rachel Carson was a scientist. And that she never said that DDT should be banned, just that the people should made more aware of certain substances being used and their potential for harm.
I get a kick out of them ignoring who was President in 1972 when DDT was banned.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
43,372
1,024
126
#18
For the record, if the OP ever wanted to have an honest discussion about certain factions in "the left" that are anti-science (or at least pseudoscience), that would not bother me. Hey, maybe we could even find common ground talking about the anti-science factions on both side, from Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop to Pence's young earth creationism.
But that wouldn't be divisive and partisan, so unfortunately, I doubt he would let that happen.
 
Last edited:

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
3,642
163
126
#19
Personally I think it's questionable whether sociology is a 'science'. But not everything has to be a science to be valuable. History, for example, or the study of literature are not 'sciences', but are nevertheless worthwhile disciplines. Perhaps philosophy as well (though I'm wondering if there's an infinte regress in that, as the question of whether philosophy is a science is surely a philosophical question?)

In my experience it tends to be the more conservative, or at least technocratic, sociologists who most insist it is a science, because they have a bit of that 'science-envy' that conservatives so often suffer from (see also, economists, or evolutionary-psychologists or those who purport to study 'IQ' - all much stronger candidates than sociology for the title of fake science, because their practioners are far more inclined to claim to be more scientific than they are...and let's not mention 'creation science', eh?).

A lot of 'sciences' are not as scientific as they like to pretend (look how many non-evidence-based beliefs have persisted for centuries in medicine). But it seems to me a majority of those inclined to make unjustifiably strong claims to scientific rigour and confidence are conservatives.

On the whole those who lean left don't have such a strong tendency to scientism, i.e. pretending to be scientific when they aren't, because they are more willing to accept that something can be valuable without being a 'science'.

The one exception would be the really doctrinaire economistic Marxists, and they've almost died out now.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
3,642
163
126
#20
Most sociology "experiments" are observational studies of typical or expected patterns of behavior and not falsifiable thus not science (see any number of famous examples such as the Asch Conformity Study for evidence of this). The discipline may follow some of the principles of the scientific method, but so do chiropractors and many other disciplines which aren't science.
But the same is true of a lot of medical science. And much of economics. It's true though, I tend to think it all gets a bit dubious once you go beyond physics and maybe chemistry.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
3,642
163
126
#21
I think what does happen is there is a tendency to be suspicious of power, and you get that on both left and right. And that can lead to doubts and distrust of scientific claims, whether it's climate change or GMO or psychiatric medication or vaccines. And it's not entirely unjustified, just look at history, look at how often confident 'scientific' claims were made that turned out to be not true, how often 'scientific' authorities have abused their power (see especially psychiatry).
Even though climate-change deniers drive me to distraction, I can still sort-of see why people could feel that way.

If you lack the knowledge and extensive education needed to understand a topic for yourself, you are reduced to being asked to trust people. It's difficult. Ironically, I suppose the roots of such distrust of science is a topic for sociology.
 

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
7,688
414
136
#22
The right has a worse track record with being anti-science than does the left. However, there are definitely elements of the left which are anti-science. In certain areas, of course. Such as anything having to do with food, for example. I know many of these people, both online and IRL.
 
Jul 13, 2005
24,898
273
106
#23
Yeah!! I agree!! We need to follow the leadership of out President when it comes to science and global warming!! wink/wink
 
Last edited:
Jun 30, 2004
13,506
104
126
#24
Once again, the eight-legged chucklehead is wasting our time putting carts before horses, generalizing or judging academic disciplines without collecting evidence, and being a typical Rightie ideologue.

The social sciences are "science" as much as they employ scientific method and statistics. Have you done a study to determine how many sociology professors subscribe to "Marxism"? And do you really believe that Marx was wrong about everything in Das Kapital? Some of it seems to be proving out, now that we have issues with limits to our environment, income inequality, and demographic shifts with mass-migrations for any number of reasons.

No, the Spyder man is right about everything. Anyone else who thinks he's a chucklehead are wrong. Certain bodies of thought to which he's averse are completely wrong; other collections of ideas that actually may find there way into print must be completely right.

Here is the truth of the matter re sociology and psychology, however. Some people in those disciplines were actually responsible for the development of mass media propaganda science and psychological warfare. Particularly, Goebbels, or Harold Laswell. CIA picked up on their work early in the Cold War, and spent $1 billion annually in projects beginning in 1945 and ending in 1960. Congress put the kibosh on it during the Church Committee or Senate Intelligence Committee hearings of the mid-1970s.
The Russians caught up after millennium, evolving the techniques for the new media -- social media and the internet.

Of course, Spyder thinks the Russian psy-war threat is a hoax, as Donald the Asshole says it is.

This thread is a waste of time. I had said this before in my sweatshirt thread when Spyder announced that I was a dangerous radical.

Honestly . . . . what a waste.
 

dawp

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2005
8,029
136
126
#25
Yeah!! I agree!! We need to follow the leadership of out President when it comes to science and global warming!!
not sure if serious.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS