The Left's War on Science

[cytg111]

Found this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...how-many-americans-are-actually-anti-vaxxers/

of course fuelled by

https://www.oregonlive.com/clark-co...led-by-russian-propagandists-study-finds.html

... personal BFF to your current POTUS.

 

[darkswordsman17]

People on the left should be able to have a conversation about anti-science stances on the left without whatabouting the right's own anti-science BS. There's plenty of it on the left, from anti-vax to anti-GMO to anti-ecig (check the actual research, not CNN).

I get it. Slow started the thread so that kind of dooms it to whataboutism hell. Yet the left needs to address its own anti-science elements. They are plenty of them and these beliefs are common. We lack credibility in calling out the right for rejecting climate science when so many liberals reject science on so many things, including the bulk of western medicine.

You've got a major issue, being that you're taking the OP as honestly arguing in good faith, he's not. He simply says liberals are doing something that often is actually being done by conservatives.

"Guys, because some liberals are stupid, we lack any and all credibility to call out idiocy of conservatives." That's seriously your argument?

I like how you say we should be arguing their argument for them, but then show you are severely lacking knowledge of who is actually pushing the shit you're claiming liberals are.

Hahahahah, anti-ecig. Are you shitting me? You think science supports ecigs as a good thing? All it says is its likely better than traditional cigarettes as far as carcinogen causing. I'm assuming you're ignoring the nicotine issues though? Wow, talk about needing to call out anti-science idiocy, guess we should probably start with yours.

That's all true, but it doesn't effect the validity of my post. If science really doesn't work as a political argument as Glenn says, that is not a good thing.

No, your own post affected the validity of it because you're choosing to ignore that they're not offering much legitimate arguments, but expect us to have the discussion they're wanting for them. That's simply just stupid.

Did you account get hijacked? You've become a full on moron lately.

 

[Muse]

Edit: If you don't "like" this post, you are stupid!!!!

Everyone should be required to study at least one science from the bottom up.

From The Portable Nietzsche:

"Clever people may learn as much as they wish of the results of science--still one will always notice in their conversation, and especially in their hypotheses, that they lack the scientific spirit; they do not have that instinctive mistrust of the aberrations of thought which through long training are deeply rooted in the soul of every scientific person. They are content to find any hypothesis at all concerning some matter; then they are all fire and flame for it and think that is enough. To have an opinion means for them to fanaticize for it and thenceforth to press it to their hearts as a conviction. If something is unexplained, they grow hot over the first notion that comes into their heads and looks like an explanation--which results progressively in the worst consequences, especially in the sphere of politics. For that reason everyone should now study at least one science from the bottom up: then he will know what method means and how important is the utmost circumspection." -- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

 

[pmv]

Some relevant data regarding distrust of vaccines. Though the two sources seem to point in slightly different directions


https://yougov.co.uk/topics/interna...t-and-trump-voters-are-more-likely-believe-co

...seems to suggest Trump voters are vastly more suspicious of vaccines than are Clinton voters (and indeed, much more so than Brexit-supporters, who would maybe be their analogous group)

on the other hand...

http://theconversation.com/anti-vac...follow-the-usual-political-polarization-81001

Essentially, it doesn’t matter if you are conservative or liberal; the more political someone is, the more likely he or she is to think that vaccines are unsafe. Yet it is only the very conservative that are more likely to believe that vaccination should be a parent’s choice.

That seems to be purely US data, and it seems to suggest a distrust of vaccines is an equal, minority, opinion among everyone with strong political beliefs, but that the notion that that distrust should be pandered to seems to be more a conservative belief.

 

[fskimospy]

Some relevant data regarding distrust of vaccines. Though the two sources seem to point in slightly different directions

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/interna...t-and-trump-voters-are-more-likely-believe-co

...seems to suggest Trump voters are vastly more suspicious of vaccines than are Clinton voters (and indeed, much more so than Brexit-supporters, who would maybe be their analogous group)

on the other hand...

http://theconversation.com/anti-vac...follow-the-usual-political-polarization-81001

That seems to be purely US data, and it seems to suggest a distrust of vaccines is an equal, minority, opinion among everyone with strong political beliefs, but that the notion that that distrust should be pandered to seems to be more a conservative belief.

I posted this in another thread and unlike the conversation piece it is peer reviewed and uses questions explicitly tailored to get at this question instead of proxies. It finds that political conservatism is in fact linked with greater anti-vaxx opinions and actions in the US.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784985/

Doesn't have to be the end of the story of course, but it seems to be a more methodologically sound examination of the issue.

 

[woolfe9998]

You've got a major issue, being that you're taking the OP as honestly arguing in good faith, he's not. He simply says liberals are doing something that often is actually being done by conservatives.

Wrong. I'm not making anyone's argument for them or assuming anyone is arguing in good faith. I couldn't care less about the OP or his point. I have different reasons for my concern about anti-science attitudes on the left. The most important of them is that unlike the OP who is using this as a partisan attack, I actually give a damn about science and the fact that practically no one is consistent in accepting it.

"Guys, because some liberals are stupid, we lack any and all credibility to call out idiocy of conservatives." That's seriously your argument?

IRL most of the people I know - friends and family - are libs. We're talking dozens of people. The majority of them have some kooky anti-science beliefs. Some of it having to do with food. Like this notion that "natural" - whatever that supposedly means - is healthier. Homeopathics. Anti-vax. Anti-GMO. Etc. All of these beliefs have in common a suspicion of science and particularly western medicine.

But then they decry people on the right rejecting climate science. This is a problem. But it isn't just a problem of partisan hypocrisy. It's a problem, period, that almost everyone seems to reject science when they find it inconvenient. I oppose anti-science attitudes whether they come from the right or the left. And insofar as the left goes, there are not a minor or trivially small number of idiots. That is totally false. Rejection of western medicine is common among liberals, particularly coastal liberals. I know, I live here. There's also polling data on this.

I like how you say we should be arguing their argument for them, but then show you are severely lacking knowledge of who is actually pushing the shit you're claiming liberals are.

Nope, not lacking knowledge of anything we're discussing here.

Hahahahah, anti-ecig. Are you shitting me? You think science supports ecigs as a good thing? All it says is its likely better than traditional cigarettes as far as carcinogen causing. I'm assuming you're ignoring the nicotine issues though? Wow, talk about needing to call out anti-science idiocy, guess we should probably start with yours.

No, I'm not shitting you, and I guaranty you that you know far less about this topic than I do. I have read the actual research, mountains of it. Not CNN. Not cherry picked information. Not "research shows that there are fewer carcigens in ecigs" without telling you the actual statistical magnitude of the difference.

No, ecigs are not merely "likely better" with carcinogens. That is what they tell you in the news. What the actual research - over 15,000 toxicology studies - says, is cigarettes have about 10,000 times more carcinogens. Given that this is the reality, saying merely that e-cigs "have fewer carcinogens" is a lie of omission on a grand scale. Reading that you might assume that e-cigs have 90% of the carcinogens instead of 1/100th of 1 percent. E-cig vapor is no more dangerous than artificially flavored foods, bacon, or the air you breath anywhere near a roadway. Cigarettes are 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more cancer causing than any of those things.

The point being that there has been a massive disinformation campaign going on for a decade now. And it's convinced people who smoke to keep smoking. So go ahead and repeat what you read in the media about e-cigs, but its misinformation and it's killing people.

So far as nicotine goes, go and find me peer reviewed scientific research which concludes that nicotine consumption on its own causes any disease or injurious condition in humans. Not some study from 1992 which concluded that nicotine injections cause tumors in rats. Not some speculative article in a scientific journal that says based on its mechanism of action, nic theoretically might cause this or that. An actual study that shows actual diseases caused in actual humans. An epidemiological study.

Bear in mind that nic has been studied on its own - separately from cigarettes - since the 1960's, long before ecigs. And they've got nothing, other than the fact nic consumption reduces your risk of Parkinson's Disease.

Nic is addictive. There is no evidence it causes any diseases in humans in spite of the fact that "nicotine" is the subject of a lot of negative emotion because of decades of anti-cigarette messaging talking about how addictive it is and the fact the tobacco companies lied about this. But people are confused. They don't understand that "addictive" is not the same thing as "dangerous." Nic is dangerous when it's paired with smoke because smoke contains dozens of carcinogens and hundreds of toxic chemicals.

Currently, it looks like nic has about the same health implications as caffeine, which right now is understood to be anywhere from zero to mildly positive. If you think different, then find me your peer reviewed research. Good luck.

No, your own post affected the validity of it because you're choosing to ignore that they're not offering much legitimate arguments, but expect us to have the discussion they're wanting for them. That's simply just stupid.

What would you consider a legitimate argument? You have to first tell me what you believe. That only a tiny number of liberals are anti-science about some things? I can guaranty that is bullshit. A majority believe GMO foods are harmful to your health, for example. I can find polling data on that if you'd like.

Did you account get hijacked? You've become a full on moron lately.

Sorry. But everyone who disagrees with you isn't a "moron." That's not how it works.

 

[Amused]

I already covered this. Among voters, science denialism is about equal left and right with each side having their pet denialism.

However, GMO hysterics are equally divided. Anti-vax, is shifting to the right now. Alt med, equally divided with the curious shift of the main cults of alt-med personality shifting hard right into Alex Jones territory.

The main difference is, the right-wing has politically and socially mainstreamed their science denialism and batshit conspiracies while the left still keeps it on the fringe for the most part. This has the effect of shifting people who used to be left, to the more accepting right wing. Expect to see that increase in the coming years since the right-wing has mainstreamed batshit.

And finally, addiction is a disease. Tp state an addictive substance is just fine and dandy because it does not cause disease is absurd. The addiction itself is a disease.

 

[Jhhnn]

Found this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...how-many-americans-are-actually-anti-vaxxers/

of course fuelled by

https://www.oregonlive.com/clark-co...led-by-russian-propagandists-study-finds.html

... personal BFF to your current POTUS.

Vlad's boys spreading poisonous FUD to Americans? It helped Trump get elected didn't it? They just want to be part of the MAGA, I'm sure.

 

[woolfe9998]

Sure.. First we'd habe to quantify the problem, with no regard to left and right, how many flatearthers(used as a cross denial metaphor here) are we looking at? When does it go from denial into looneytunes ala Alex Jones, what is misinformation and what is actual mental illness.. Personally I identify as progressive and globalist... I know of one science denier in my circles and he is an alt right dude... confused as fck believes in other crazy stuff as well..
Anyway, this excersice is pointless without numbers.

As I said in a previous most, most of the libs I know - and practically everyone I know here in the Bay Area is a lib - hold at least one anti-science belief. Many hold lots of them. They almost always relate to food and/or health. Also belief in "alternative medicine" which ranks about the same as "alternative facts." Belief in things like astrology. Very common among coastal liberals. But that is my own sample.

In the general population, only about a third of the people - that is of everyone - don't think GMO's are harmful to your health.

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567&page=1

There's a survey somewhere that says this is a higher among liberals than conservatives, but it's a common belief among both.

Anti-vax attitudes are similar between right and left. They may have gotten a little worse on the right over the past few years. It also shows that far left and far right - big surprise - are more likely to be suspicious of vaccines than moderate left or moderate right.

http://theconversation.com/anti-vac...follow-the-usual-political-polarization-81001

Anti-science attitudes are common in the general population, left, right and center, but especially far right and far left. This is a serious problem that isn't just a partisan problem.

 

[Meghan54]

Wrong. I'm not making anyone's argument for them or assuming anyone is arguing in good faith. I couldn't care less about the OP or his point. I have different reasons for my concern about anti-science attitudes on the left. The most important of them is that unlike the OP who is using this as a partisan attack, I actually give a damn about science and the fact that practically no one is consistent in accepting it.



IRL most of the people I know - friends and family - are libs. We're talking dozens of people. The majority of them have some kooky anti-science beliefs. Some of it having to do with food. Like this notion that "natural" - whatever that supposedly means - is healthier. Homeopathics. Anti-vax. Anti-GMO. Etc. All of these beliefs have in common a suspicion of science and particularly western medicine.

But then they decry people on the right rejecting climate science. This is a problem. But it isn't just a problem of partisan hypocrisy. It's a problem, period, that almost everyone seems to reject science when they find it inconvenient. I oppose anti-science attitudes whether they come from the right or the left. And insofar as the left goes, there are not a minor or trivially small number of idiots. That is totally false. Rejection of western medicine is common among liberals, particularly coastal liberals. I know, I live here. There's also polling data on this.



Nope, not lacking knowledge of anything we're discussing here.



No, I'm not shitting you, and I guaranty you that you know far less about this topic than I do. I have read the actual research, mountains of it. Not CNN. Not cherry picked information. Not "research shows that there are fewer carcigens in ecigs" without telling you the actual statistical magnitude of the difference.

No, ecigs are not merely "likely better" with carcinogens. That is what they tell you in the news. What the actual research - over 15,000 toxicology studies - says, is cigarettes have about 10,000 times more carcinogens. Given that this is the reality, saying merely that e-cigs "have fewer carcinogens" is a lie of omission on a grand scale. Reading that you might assume that e-cigs have 90% of the carcinogens instead of 1/100th of 1 percent. E-cig vapor is no more dangerous than artificially flavored foods, bacon, or the air you breath anywhere near a roadway. Cigarettes are 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more cancer causing than any of those things.

The point being that there has been a massive disinformation campaign going on for a decade now. And it's convinced people who smoke to keep smoking. So go ahead and repeat what you read in the media about e-cigs, but its misinformation and it's killing people.

So far as nicotine goes, go and find me peer reviewed scientific research which concludes that nicotine consumption on its own causes any disease or injurious condition in humans. Not some study from 1992 which concluded that nicotine injections cause tumors in rats. Not some speculative article in a scientific journal that says based on its mechanism of action, nic theoretically might cause this or that. An actual study that shows actual diseases caused in actual humans. An epidemiological study.

Bear in mind that nic has been studied on its own - separately from cigarettes - since the 1960's, long before ecigs. And they've got nothing, other than the fact nic consumption reduces your risk of Parkinson's Disease.

Nic is addictive. There is no evidence it causes any diseases in humans in spite of the fact that "nicotine" is the subject of a lot of negative emotion because of decades of anti-cigarette messaging talking about how addictive it is and the fact the tobacco companies lied about this. But people are confused. They don't understand that "addictive" is not the same thing as "dangerous." Nic is dangerous when it's paired with smoke because smoke contains dozens of carcinogens and hundreds of toxic chemicals.

Currently, it looks like nic has about the same health implications as caffeine, which right now is understood to be anywhere from zero to mildly positive. If you think different, then find me your peer reviewed research. Good luck.



What would you consider a legitimate argument? You have to first tell me what you believe. That only a tiny number of liberals are anti-science about some things? I can guaranty that is bullshit. A majority believe GMO foods are harmful to your health, for example. I can find polling data on that if you'd like.



Sorry. But everyone who disagrees with you isn't a "moron." That's not how it works.

Here....lots of peer reviewed studies at the end of this article that have examined nicotine exclusive of tobacco.....you do know they can both separate nicotine from tobacco and synthesize nicotine in labs, right? Oh, and they also mention health consequences of nicotine.....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/#ref59

 

[woolfe9998]

I already covered this. Among voters, science denialism is about equal left and right with each side having their pet denialism.

However, GMO hysterics are equally divided. Anti-vax, is shifting to the right now. Alt med, equally divided with the curious shift of the main cults of alt-med personality shifting hard right into Alex Jones territory.

The main difference is, the right-wing has politically and socially mainstreamed their science denialism and batshit conspiracies while the left still keeps it on the fringe for the most part. This has the effect of shifting people who used to be left, to the more accepting right wing. Expect to see that increase in the coming years since the right-wing has mainstreamed batshit.

And finally, addiction is a disease. Tp state an addictive substance is just fine and dandy because it does not cause disease is absurd. The addiction itself is a disease.

I would agree with this, except there are too many libs with selective anti-science beliefs to call it a fringe. The main difference is where the biggest distinction lies - with climate science. Because it's such an important issue, and a political one. The issues where libs are commonly anti-science don't enter our political radar screens nearly as often.

 

[fskimospy]

As I said in a previous most, most of the libs I know - and practically everyone I know here in the Bay Area is a lib - hold at least one anti-science belief. Many hold lots of them. They almost always relate to food and/or health. Also belief in "alternative medicine" which ranks about the same as "alternative facts." Belief in things like astrology. Very common among coastal liberals. But that is my own sample.

In the general population, only about a third of the people - that is of everyone - don't think GMO's are harmful to your health.

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567&page=1

There's a survey somewhere that says this is a higher among liberals than conservatives, but it's a common belief among both.

Anti-vax attitudes are similar between right and left. They may have gotten a little worse on the right over the past few years. It also shows that far left and far right - big surprise - are more likely to be suspicious of vaccines than moderate left or moderate right.

http://theconversation.com/anti-vac...follow-the-usual-political-polarization-81001

As I mentioned earlier in this thread the thing you're referencing isn't a particularly methodologically sound piece nor is it peer reviewed. Here's a better, peer reviewed study that comes to a different conclusion:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784985/

In particular, conservative respondents are less likely to express pro-vaccination beliefs than other individuals. Furthermore, ideology also has an indirect effect on immunization propensity.

As I also said before this doesn't have to be the last word on the issue but it's definitely a more rigorous examination than your link.

Anti-science attitudes are common in the general population, left, right and center, but especially far right and far left. This is a serious problem that isn't just a partisan problem.

While I agree anti-science attitudes are a problem on both the left and the right and that liberals do seem to 'own' the GMO issue (as well as the nuclear power one) we should be clear that all evidence I am aware of shows they are significantly more of a problem on the right. It's not just about the quantity of anti-science beliefs, the reason why many conservative anti-science beliefs are in the news is that they are consequential. If someone believes in astrology that's stupid and non-scientific but ultimately irrelevant. If someone believes climate change isn't real that's very relevant.

 

[woolfe9998]

Here....lots of peer reviewed studies at the end of this article that have examined nicotine exclusive to tobacco.....you do know they can both separate nicotine from tobacco and synthesize nicotine in labs, right? Oh, and they also mention health consequences of nicotine.....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/#ref59

Is there an epidemiological study which shows humans who consume nicotine apart from tobacco are getting certain diseases at a higher rate than the general population? By that, I mean, a study which follows a group of actual nic users, records all of their health data, and compares it to known disease rates in the general population. I ask, because a lot of what you read about these health risks is theoretical. We think nic causes this or that disease because of its mechanism of action on the body. That isn't empirical proof. Neither are animal studies. The scientific community has had about 60 years now to provide definitive proof that nic causes diseases. AFAIK no such proof exists, though many health professionals will tell you they "believe" that nic causes all kinds of things.

There may be such a study in the link you provided, but that's a lot of footnotes. If such a study exists, it would be the first I've seen.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nicotine-all-bad/

On e-cigs:

https://www.theguardian.com/science...dec/29/e-cigarettes-vaping-safer-than-smoking

 

[woolfe9998]

As I mentioned earlier in this thread the thing you're referencing isn't a particularly methodologically sound piece nor is it peer reviewed. Here's a better, peer reviewed study that comes to a different conclusion:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784985/



As I also said before this doesn't have to be the last word on the issue but it's definitely a more rigorous examination than your link.



While I agree anti-science attitudes are a problem on both the left and the right and that liberals do seem to 'own' the GMO issue (as well as the nuclear power one) we should be clear that all evidence I am aware of shows they are significantly more of a problem on the right. It's not just about the quantity of anti-science beliefs, the reason why many conservative anti-science beliefs are in the news is that they are consequential. If someone believes in astrology that's stupid and non-scientific but ultimately irrelevant. If someone believes climate change isn't real that's very relevant.

Yeah, it both does and does not matter how consequential the beliefs are. Because someone who believes one form of bullshit can be easily convinced to believe another. Anti-science attitudes need to be combated wherever they exist. In many ways, it isn't even all that useful to look at it in partisan terms. We have a general populace which is quite anti-science. Two-third of Americans think GMO's are harmful to your health. Most people hold some form of supernatural belief, and not just organized religion. Etc. etc.

If you want an example of a consequential anti-science belief that is common among libs, it's ecigs. No polling available, but it's always, always democratic pols who vote for laws to ban or heavily restrict them, while reps oppose it. The reps are correct on this.

And here is why it is so consequential in spite of it not being perceived that way. Back in 2009 when ecigs were first introduced, about 80% of the general population believed they were safer than cigarettes. Now, after 10 years of misinformation which is mainly in the form of presenting scientific information to the public in a very selective manner, only about 50% believe that ecigs are safer. The most obvious example of this disinformation is never, ever, ever telling the public about the actual numeric difference in carcigens between ecigs and cigarettes, at most acknowledging that there is some difference but never telling us how much. You have to actually look at toxicology studies off pub med to get the whole truth.

Anyway, we have about 40 million smokers in the US. If cigs have a 50% adult kill rate as claimed, that is 20 million deaths in this generation alone. A lot of healthcare. Very expensive.

Since 2010 about 5 million fewer people smoke, and we've gained a roughly equal number of vapers. That's great for public health, but the conversion rate is flattening out now. And the reason: it's tough to quit smoking no matter what method you use, and when people are telling you the thing you are switching to isn't any better than cigarettes, why bother? This misinformation campaign, whether well intended or not, is killing and will continue to kill millions of people because it is causing people to maintain their cigarette habits.

These nanny-state do gooders don't want that of course. They want everyone to quit nicotine entirely. But what's left of smokers - the ones who didn't quit after all the anti-cigarette advertising of the past several decades - won't cooperate. Because these people are just too addicted to nic. Yet they're being fed misinformation about ecigs and many of them are deciding not to quit smoking because of it.

Some issues are more consequential than you may think.

 

[Amused]

I would agree with this, except there are too many libs with selective anti-science beliefs to call it a fringe. The main difference is where the biggest distinction lies - with climate science. Because it's such an important issue, and a political one. The issues where libs are commonly anti-science don't enter our political radar screens nearly as often.

It is still fringe among the left in that it isn't in the political leadership. And when it does popup among elected officials, it is called out and educated or shunned. Which is what the right used to do too. But now they've gone full Alex Jones and Trumpian. They literally see no fallout in being batshit because their base is soi highly propagandized and primed to believe absurdities.

 

[woolfe9998]

It is still fringe among the left in that it isn't in the political leadership. And when it does popup among elected officials, it is called out and educated or shunned. Which is what the right used to do too. But now they've gone full Alex Jones and Trumpian. They literally see no fallout in being batshit because their base is soi highly propagandized and primed to believe absurdities.

Yes, I agree that anti-science positions tend to be more often supported by politicians and opinion leaders on the right than on the left and I get why that is alarming. Yet I still wouldn't call beliefs held by large numbers of people - heck, anti-GMO is a majority position on the left - a "fringe."

There are far too many people - left, right and center - who have anti-science beliefs. It's a national problem.

 

[Amused]

Yes, I agree that anti-science positions tend to be more often supported by politicians and opinion leaders on the right than on the left and I get why that is alarming. Yet I still wouldn't call beliefs held by large numbers of people - heck, anti-GMO is a majority position on the left - a "fringe."

There are far too many people - left, right and center - who have anti-science beliefs. It's a national problem.

Actually, Anti-GMO believes are equally divided between right/left (with an ever so slight lean to the right) with the only difference being the left are slightly more willing to try to regulate it than the right.

In fact, as the shift occurs, more and more there are no longer ANY majority left science denials. GMO and alt-med were the last ones. And those have shifted right.

 

[woolfe9998]

Actually, Anti-GMO believes are equally divided between right/left (with an ever so slight lean to the right) with the only difference being the left are slightly more willing to try to regulate it than the right.

In fact, as the shift occurs, more and more there are no longer ANY majority left science denials. GMO and alt-med were the last ones. And those have shifted right.

Anti-GMO is a majority on the left. Even if you're correct that it's now more so on the right, it doesn't matter as much as you think. Because the movement we're seeing in the polls isn't the left getting any more rational. It's the right getting less rational.

The problem is that everyone is viewing this through a partisan lens, like it's a contest. Look, only 42% of libs believe this horseshit while 56% conservatives do. We win!

I'll say it again: anti-science beliefs are common in the general population. And they're common on the left. This is distressing because as I said in another post, when someone can be led to believe one kind of bullshit, they can be manipulated to believe another.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, it both does and does not matter how consequential the beliefs are. Because someone who believes one form of bullshit can be easily convinced to believe another. Anti-science attitudes need to be combated wherever they exist. In many ways, it isn't even all that useful to look at it in partisan terms. We have a general populace which is quite anti-science. Two-third of Americans think GMO's are harmful to your health. Most people hold some form of supernatural belief, and not just organized religion. Etc. etc.

Meh, I suspect nearly everyone in the world believes at least a few things that are bullshit so I don't find this to be a particularly meaningful distinction. It matters very, very much what bullshit people believe in though.

If you want an example of a consequential anti-science belief that is common among libs, it's ecigs. No polling available, but it's always, always democratic pols who vote for laws to ban or heavily restrict them, while reps oppose it. The reps are correct on this.

And here is why it is so consequential in spite of it not being perceived that way. Back in 2009 when ecigs were first introduced, about 80% of the general population believed they were safer than cigarettes. Now, after 10 years of misinformation which is mainly in the form of presenting scientific information to the public in a very selective manner, only about 50% believe that ecigs are safer. The most obvious example of this disinformation is never, ever, ever telling the public about the actual numeric difference in carcigens between ecigs and cigarettes, at most acknowledging that there is some difference but never telling us how much. You have to actually look at toxicology studies off pub med to get the whole truth.

Anyway, we have about 40 million smokers in the US. If cigs have a 50% adult kill rate as claimed, that is 20 million deaths in this generation alone. A lot of healthcare. Very expensive.

Since 2010 about 5 million fewer people smoke, and we've gained a roughly equal number of vapers. That's great for public health, but the conversion rate is flattening out now. And the reason: it's tough to quit smoking no matter what method you use, and when people are telling you the thing you are switching to isn't any better than cigarettes, why bother? This misinformation campaign, whether well intended or not, is killing and will continue to kill millions of people because it is causing people to maintain their cigarette habits.

These nanny-state do gooders don't want that of course. They want everyone to quit nicotine entirely. But what's left of smokers - the ones who didn't quit after all the anti-cigarette advertising of the past several decades - won't cooperate. Because these people are just too addicted to nic. Yet they're being fed misinformation about ecigs and many of them are deciding not to quit smoking because of it.

Some issues are more consequential than you may think.

As far as I've seen the number of smokers has been in steady and significant decline for the past ~30 years so I don't know how much of that continued decline I would attribute to ecigs. Regardless, I agree with you that they seem to have few health issues at least from what we know currently and people should know that.

So I think this would be a good example - you're totally right that liberals could be inhibiting takeup of ecigs by people who would otherwise smoke instead. From a quick perusal the research seems to say that we don't have good data on how ecig use affects current smokers or what effects it has on inducing people to smoke who would not do so otherwise but I agree the most likely answer is net harm reduction, perhaps significant net harm reduction. Does harm from skepticism about ecigs even get to a rounding error as compared to harm from skepticism about climate change? Absolutely not.

As for a partisan lens, considering the tribal nature of American society it's not partisan to simply point out what is factually true. Before we worry about why conservatives are more anti-science about shit that matters the most we have to acknowledge that it's true and that political and tribal constraints will continue to reinforce this about issues that matter very much.

 

[Amused]

Anti-GMO is a majority on the left. Even if you're correct that it's now more so on the right, it doesn't matter as much as you think. Because the movement we're seeing in the polls isn't the left getting any more rational. It's the right getting less rational.

The problem is that everyone is viewing this through a partisan lens, like it's a contest. Look, only 42% of libs believe this horseshit while 56% conservatives do. We win!

I'll say it again: anti-science beliefs are common in the general population. And they're common on the left. This is distressing because as I said in another post, when someone can be led to believe one kind of bullshit, they can be manipulated to believe another.

I agree with your last statement.

As for the distribution of anti-GMO belief... Nope, the work has been done here. This guy was forced to admit it's evenly divided now and sources his evidence well.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/ske...eft-vs-right/#Science_denialism_politics_GMOs

Much of the food and alt-med science denial is shifting right because the cheerleaders and cults of personality are shifting right. David Wolf, Food Babe, Mike Adams, Mercola, and his hooker wife Erin. All have shifted into right-wing conspiratard land with Alex Jones.

This makes sense, as the right has legitimized and mainstreamed batshit conspiracy thinking, those who follow it find a home there.



And in 2016 you can see it is equal:



http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/12/01/the-new-food-fights/ps_2016-12-01_food-science_3-07/

 

[woolfe9998]

As far as I've seen the number of smokers has been in steady and significant decline for the past ~30 years so I don't know how much of that continued decline I would attribute to ecigs. Regardless, I agree with you that they seem to have few health issues at least from what we know currently and people should know that.

Smoking has indeed declined a lot over 30 years but you might want to look at how the declination rate topped out in the early 2000's, actually went the other way for a few years, then began declining in 2008-2009, right after ecigs hit the US market.

https://www.google.com/search?q=smo...QIHclDCrgQ9QEwAXoECAQQBg#imgrc=O1slW0rnSykezM:

And then there's the fact that survey data shows millions of vapers and those same surveys will tell you the majority of them quit smoking before they switched. If millions of people are saying they dropped cigarettes for ecigs, that's pretty definitive.

Accordingly, it's nigh impossible that ecigs are responsible for none of this decline.

Public health messaging worked great for many decades, getting the people who are susceptible to that kind of messaging to quit. Those who remain are the hardcore nic heads who have tried to quit over and over again and failed. These people want alternatives to cigs which have nicotine but don't pose the same health risk.

So I think this would be a good example - you're totally right that liberals could be inhibiting takeup of ecigs by people who would otherwise smoke instead. From a quick perusal the research seems to say that we don't have good data on how ecig use affects current smokers or what effects it has on inducing people to smoke who would not do so otherwise but I agree the most likely answer is net harm reduction, perhaps significant net harm reduction. Does harm from skepticism about ecigs even get to a rounding error as compared to harm from skepticism about climate change? Absolutely not.

Well, that's a tough comparison to make because the theoretical possibility with climate change is that it could, in the most extreme scenario, cause the extinction of our species.

I would not trivialize this by talking about "rounding errors" though. Ecigs are an attractive alternative to cigarettes. If we can convert even half those 40 million smokers into vapers, the public health benefit would be huge. If climate change is a bigger threat than smoking, so what? It doesn't diminish the importance of the issue.

As for a partisan lens, considering the tribal nature of American society it's not partisan to simply point out what is factually true. Before we worry about why conservatives are more anti-science about shit that matters the most we have to acknowledge that it's true and that political and tribal constraints will continue to reinforce this about issues that matter very much.

There's no doubt about the importance of tribalism in our thinking, or that it's a real problem. There's value in framing the issue of science denialism in less partisan terms. Because when you talk about science denial as a serious problem in the general population, it's more likely people will listen than when you frame it as a partisan attack, the way that Slow is doing here or the way many libs also frame it.

Don't worry, I get how consequential the right's denial of climate science is. It's a massively big deal. Yet it's a function of two things: political tribalism on the one hand, and on the other, the tendency of human beings to be suspicious of things they do not fully understand. Like science. And that last part isn't really a partisan issue.

What it means is that people are easily manipulated which is not a good thing.

 

[SlowSpyder]

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Left-Behind-Feel-Good-Anti-Scientific/dp/161039321X

Simple reality is the left has made some subjects even taboo to look into. The left has waged a war on science when it comes to some categories. I'd wager that today the left is doing more to actively harm scientific progress than the right. Don't mistake what you've been conditioned to as the norm with reality.


https://psmag.com/environment/who-is-more-anti-science-conservatives-or-liberals

"The researchers found that liberals were just as likely as conservatives to interpret study results in a way that aligned with their preconceived beliefs, and both were equally likely to deny the credibility of results that conflicted with their views."

And another: https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html

^Looks like Stossel took words right out of this one.

The left is just too smug to realize they are stopping progress.

 

[woolfe9998]

I agree with your last statement.

As for the distribution of anti-GMO belief... Nope, the work has been done here. This guy was forced to admit it's evenly divided now and sources his evidence well.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/ske...eft-vs-right/#Science_denialism_politics_GMOs

Much of the food and alt-med science denial is shifting right because the cheerleaders and cults of personality are shifting right. David Wolf, Food Babe, Mike Adams, Mercola, and his hooker wife Erin. All have shifted into right-wing conspiratard land with Alex Jones.

This makes sense, as the right has legitimized and mainstreamed batshit conspiracy thinking, those who follow it find a home there.

View attachment 3289

And in 2016 you can see it is equal:

View attachment 3290

http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/12/01/the-new-food-fights/ps_2016-12-01_food-science_3-07/

Good article. I've read most of it and so far it doesn't say anything inconsistent with what I've already said. It doesn't matter to me if that there are equivalent numbers right and left on GMO's. AFAIK the left's kooky beliefs have not declined. The right's have just gotten worse as they now not only have their own BS, but they've appropriated BS from the left and are now equaling or even exceeding us on that nonsense as well. This is a disturbing trend if it means that as a society, we are leaning more and more anti-science all the time.

I am very much on board with the last sentence, which reads:

And as a passionate liberal, I am disgusted by liberal science deniers, because I expect more out of them.

I expect more from libs and consequently I am not only interested in addressing this problem on the right. Most libs have no interest in discussing science denial on the left.

 

[fskimospy]

Smoking has indeed declined a lot over 30 years but you might want to look at how the declination rate topped out in the early 2000's, actually went the other way for a few years, then began declining in 2008-2009, right after ecigs hit the US market.

https://www.google.com/search?q=smo...QIHclDCrgQ9QEwAXoECAQQBg#imgrc=O1slW0rnSykezM:

And then there's the fact that survey data shows millions of vapers and those same surveys will tell you the majority of them quit smoking before they switched. If millions of people are saying they dropped cigarettes for ecigs, that's pretty definitive.

Accordingly, it's nigh impossible that ecigs are responsible for none of this decline.

Public health messaging worked great for many decades, getting the people who are susceptible to that kind of messaging to quit. Those who remain are the hardcore nic heads who have tried to quit over and over again and failed. These people want alternatives to cigs which have nicotine but don't pose the same health risk.

Well, that's a tough comparison to make because the theoretical possibility with climate change is that it could, in the most extreme scenario, cause the extinction of our species.

I would not trivialize this by talking about "rounding errors" though. Ecigs are an attractive alternative to cigarettes. If we can convert even half those 40 million smokers into vapers, the public health benefit would be huge. If climate change is a bigger threat than smoking, so what? It doesn't diminish the importance of the issue.



There's no doubt about the importance of tribalism in our thinking, or that it's a real problem. There's value in framing the issue of science denialism in less partisan terms. Because when you talk about science denial as a serious problem in the general population, it's more likely people will listen than when you frame it as a partisan attack, the way that Slow is doing here or the way many libs also frame it.

Don't worry, I get how consequential the right's denial of climate science is. It's a massively big deal. Yet it's a function of two things: political tribalism on the one hand, and on the other, the tendency of human beings to be suspicious of things they do not fully understand. Like science. And that last part isn't really a partisan issue.

What it means is that people are easily manipulated which is not a good thing.

Good information on e-cigarettes! It seems like they really are helping and that’s great - my dad, paternal grandmother and paternal grandfather all died of smoking related complications. Maybe that’s why I never took up smoking, haha.

While I hear your argument that framing things in partisan terms can turn off people’s desire to listen my concern is that not acknowledging what’s going on in the conservative community may cause a ‘both sides’ issue where conservative opinion makers see no consequences for continuing this and therefore have no motivation to change.

I absolutely believe that if conservative opinion leaders wanted to they could collectively turn around their base on climate change. The problem is they don’t want to do it.

 

[woolfe9998]

Good information on e-cigarettes! It seems like they really are helping and that’s great - my dad, paternal grandmother and paternal grandfather all died of smoking related complications. Maybe that’s why I never took up smoking, haha.

While I hear your argument that framing things in partisan terms can turn off people’s desire to listen my concern is that not acknowledging what’s going on in the conservative community may cause a ‘both sides’ issue where conservative opinion makers see no consequences for continuing this and therefore have no motivation to change.

I absolutely believe that if conservative opinion leaders wanted to they could collectively turn around their base on climate change. The problem is they don’t want to do it.

Yes, they don't want to because they're in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry.

I'm not worried about "both sides" here because on each of these issues, there is only one right side. That's the side of science. I'm happy to admit to conservatives that there's a non-trivial amount of science denial on the left. And now, as the argument goes, can we all just please start accepting what the scientific community is telling us?