The Left's War on Science

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cytg111

Diamond Member
Mar 17, 2008
8,120
360
126
#27
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.

I am so very sad that we both spring forth from the same double helix.. cause it means I carry your potential for stupid within myself.. and that almost makes me wanna cry.
 
Nov 4, 2004
23,236
509
126
#28
Oh look, a conservative has another "war on something" except this time he wants to bothsides it, lol...
 
Jul 15, 2003
71,293
556
126
#29
theres so much wrong with the OP i cannot even begin to break it all down.
 

dawp

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2005
8,018
125
126
#30
i think slow is proving that his user name is an apt one..
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
47,076
469
126
#31
not sure if serious.
I'm pretty sure it's sarcasm but these days it's harder to tell. Maybe the convention of /s would help.

No Trump supporter has any grounds to complain about anyone else regarding science. Dear Leader hasn't the grasp of a properly educated grade school student, well, in most anything but especially anything involving science.
 
Jan 12, 2005
14,924
2,465
126
#32
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.

As the video says, while there is truth to science-denying religious types on the right, they don't stifle progress as the examples in the video from the left do.
 
Nov 4, 2004
23,236
509
126
#33
As the video says, while there is truth to science-denying religious types on the right, they don't stifle progress as the examples in the video from the left do.
So you're stance is religious types aren't stifling scientific progress? LOL...

That's like, their gig man, can't say i'm surprised you spin it any other way.
 
Jul 12, 2006
92,907
1,250
136
#34
This is how we know the OP is just an insufferable self-hating troll. Even he can't believe such a nonsense proposition.
 
Jul 12, 2006
92,907
1,250
136
#35
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.
Yeah, if you wanted to classify the "light sciences," Economics/Finance/"Business science" would be the absolute lowest tier. Pretty much all of it is pure garbage.

The issue I have with sociology, behavior, even some clinical stuff is the overall reliance on self-reporting. You can pretty effectively control for such effects, but it all depends on the model and the skill of the investigator. There is some really good stuff coming out of there, but there doesn't seem to be a solid system where these fields universally adopt the more rigorous model design and data analysis.
 

cytg111

Diamond Member
Mar 17, 2008
8,120
360
126
#36
Yeah, if you wanted to classify the "light sciences," Economics/Finance/"Business science" would be the absolute lowest tier. Pretty much all of it is pure garbage.

The issue I have with sociology, behavior, even some clinical stuff is the overall reliance on self-reporting. You can pretty effectively control for such effects, but it all depends on the model and the skill of the investigator. There is some really good stuff coming out of there, but there doesn't seem to be a solid system where these fields universally adopt the more rigorous model design and data analysis.
This is the definite breakdown :
 
Jan 12, 2005
14,924
2,465
126
#37
Lots of name calling... the sign of brilliance. The left has made several subjects too taboo to discuss. In the video an example was given where one person was even fired for using science to explain why men tend to make more in their lifetimes. When it comes to certain subjects the liberals are no better than flat earthers.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
43,345
971
126
#38
This is how we know the OP is just an insufferable self-hating troll. Even he can't believe such a nonsense proposition.
No no no, you don't understand. You see, progressives, whose entire ideology is based upon the advancement of progress, are actually blocking progress. While conservatives, whose entire ideology is based upon the conservation of the status quo or even a return to some idealized 'good old days,' are the real progressives.

Also, the sun rises in the west, and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
 
Mar 1, 2000
26,844
201
126
#39
Seriously. WTF is this nonsense? I mean it literally makes no sense at all.
Every day I come to realize the people we're struggling against are truly a lost cause and simply can not be shown the error of their ways. Beyond help.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,817
1,319
126
#40
Lots of name calling... the sign of brilliance. The left has made several subjects too taboo to discuss. In the video an example was given where one person was even fired for using science to explain why men tend to make more in their lifetimes. When it comes to certain subjects the liberals are no better than flat earthers.
Pseudoscience would be the correct term.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
43,345
971
126
#41
Lots of name calling... the sign of brilliance. The left has made several subjects too taboo to discuss. In the video an example was given where one person was even fired for using science to explain why men tend to make more in their lifetimes. When it comes to certain subjects the liberals are no better than flat earthers.
Serious question, when have you ever made a post without namecalling?

For example, right here you just accused people of holding beliefs that they already told you they don't hold, and then called them flat earthers (which, ironically, is a conservative movement).
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
43,345
971
126
#42
Seriously. WTF is this nonsense? I mean it literally makes no sense at all.
Every day I come to realize the people we're struggling against are truly a lost cause and simply can not be shown the error of their ways. Beyond help.
A lot of political propaganda involves telling people who actually share very similar belief systems that they are hopelessly different.
Slow is a good example of this, as is TH. Slow was never a lefty, like he says, but deep down he really is a bitter progressive who feels progressivism has gone too far. While TH is actually a big govt socialist, but only within national and ethnic boundaries.
Political propagandists take advantage of these small differences, which could otherwise be bridged through honest and rational discussion, with wedge issues (and just plain lies) to drive us apart, make our differences seem irreconcilable, and most importantly, generate fear of the other side in order to drive the voters to the polls.
 
Mar 1, 2000
26,844
201
126
#43
A lot of political propaganda involves telling people who actually share very similar belief systems that they are hopelessly different.
Slow is a good example of this, as is TH. Slow was never a lefty, like he says, but deep down he really is a bitter progressive who feels progressivism has gone too far. While TH is actually a big govt socialist, but only within national and ethnic boundaries.
Political propagandists take advantage of these small differences, which could otherwise be bridged through honest and rational discussion, with wedge issues (and just plain lies) to drive us apart, make our differences seem irreconcilable, and most importantly, generate fear of the other side in order to drive the voters to the polls.
Oh, I get it. I'm just saying... WTF and throwing my arms up and (wishing I could) walk away. It's just mindbloggling how thick some people are.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
63,565
369
126
#44
Lots of name calling... the sign of brilliance. The left has made several subjects too taboo to discuss. In the video an example was given where one person was even fired for using science to explain why men tend to make more in their lifetimes. When it comes to certain subjects the liberals are no better than flat earthers.
Sadly you found your argument on a rejection of science that has nothing to do with a rejection of science but a rejection if injecting a scientific argument into a corporate environment that set out to try to attract more women into its sphere. He got fired with justification for failing, as so many engineers do, for failing to understand the context in social terms. Google wanted to be welcoming to women, not to announce scientific reasons as to how hard that might be, compounding the appearance of being unwelcoming.
 

Stokely

Senior member
Jun 5, 2017
611
93
96
#45
I work with a fair number of scientists, and yep most of them are on the left side of our political spectrum. They are about data. Sure, there are scientists/doctors that are not--you can always find some doc to vouch for bullshit like "toxic cleansing" and whatnot--but at a certain point it gets pretty stupid to just discard what large numbers of scientists are saying just because it goes against what the politicians on your team are pushing. Yes, we should always be skeptical of claims and examine the methods and facts and types of studies used. Assume something is untrue until facts show that it is true, or at least plausible. In my experience, nobody is more skeptical of their own results than a good objective scientist, and I think that is the majority. They do make mistakes and that is where peer review helps.
 
Dec 12, 2000
19,380
218
126
#46
In the video an example was given where one person was even fired for using science to explain why men tend to make more in their lifetimes.
No. He was fired for being an asshole and contributing to a toxic work environment. If James Damore was using "science" to make his argument, he should've published his analysis in the appropriate journal. Perhaps he would've included additional research from other Fortune 500 companies in different industries to prove his point. His research would've been peer-reviewed.

But no. Damore went with pure emotion. He published a "manifesto" memo and circulated it within his company, which was divisive and negatively affected Google's corporate culture. He probably violated their code of conduct in so doing.

Emotion and feelings aren't science--why would you confuse the two?
 
Feb 6, 2002
17,356
631
136
#47
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.
I have a stupid question, when one applies to be an adjunct professor isn't asking political affiliation illegal??
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
#48
Pseudoscience would be the correct term.
Pseudoscience can still have value. Sociology doesn't meet the standards to call it a true science but does feature some of the methods of science and does have some amount of predictive power (in some cases). Being a science doesn't make it more important, there's not much science involved in most art but our world is made a lot better with Monet paintings in it.
 
Feb 6, 2002
17,356
631
136
#49
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.
If someone uses science to commit a crime and law enforcement comes down on that person it isn't law enforcement's war on science.

Get it? Nice attempt at manipulation.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
63,565
369
126
#50
No. He was fired for being an asshole and contributing to a toxic work environment. If James Damore was using "science" to make his argument, he should've published his analysis in the appropriate journal. Perhaps he would've included additional research from other Fortune 500 companies in different industries to prove his point. His research would've been peer-reviewed.

But no. Damore went with pure emotion. He published a "manifesto" memo and circulated it within his company, which was divisive and negatively affected Google's corporate culture. He probably violated their code of conduct in so doing.

Emotion and feelings aren't science--why would you confuse the two?
I don't think you have to carry this out to emotion and feelings. I see it more a matter of an engineering literal mindedness injected into a context that is holistic in approach. I think it is also almost impossible for some pin heads to see this, but sadly, the attitude given a footing in a business culture can be destructive to corporate intentions. In a business that is trying to send out social signals to promote applications related to gender with the intention to broaden employee diversity, will not want messages that associate the corporation with ideas that easily appear to send a different message. Unfortunately, that may mean that being too literal minded and well intentioned in one direction once expressed, will require remedial action. You don't need to be wrong about your science to get fired. You get fired to remind other employees who is in charge of corporate messaging, and specifically, not them.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS