The Left's War on Science

[snoopy7548]

The left's war on science? Ok buddy...

 

[cytg111]

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.

Meth. You are smoking meth right?

 

[SlowSpyder]

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).

All the time. Take this one for instance.

 

[blankslate]

the Left are wary of right wingers who use site social sciences, anthropology or evolutionary biology because those groups would gladly use them to justify things like racism and sexism.

It is not a war on science. Not in the way that the right wages it

One of my favorite recent podcasts is Joe Rogan's Interview with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying a pair of married evolutionary biologists and a highlight of that podcast is a considered and nuanced discussion of the #metoo movement using insights from their field of study... that takes up about 25-30 minutes of that podcast

Dollars to Donuts that a right winger would take pieces of that segment out of context to try and discredit #metoo.

And you wonder that we don't trust the right wingers who talk about their interpretation of science.

Get outta of here with that utter Bullcrap.


____________

 

[Thebobo]

BTW sociology is no more real science than Scientology is.

You can't get a PHD from Harvard Stanford etc in Scientology but you can in sociology. So what does that tell you? Well it tells me you are wrong.

 

[Thebobo]

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.

Everything with you is labels and then shoehorning everyone into you ideas of them. I have a short video you should watch.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You can't get a PHD from Harvard Stanford etc in Scientology but you can in sociology. So what does that tell you? Well it tells me you are wrong.

No, political science, sociology, etc. are bullshit. Just because you can get a degree in bullshit doesn't mean it isn't bullshit.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

No, political science, sociology, etc. are bullshit. Just because you can get a degree in bullshit doesn't mean it isn't bullshit.

so says prof slow

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

so says prof slow

There is no one who knows a job or profession better than someone who is ignorant and has never done it.

 

[fskimospy]

There is no one who knows a job or profession better than someone who is ignorant and has never done it.

He really is a great example of the Dunning-Krueger effect.

 

[SlowSpyder]

There is no one who knows a job or profession better than someone who is ignorant and has never done it.

Wow, people that believe in their own bullshit, go figure. I don't need to be a psychic to understand psychics are bullshit. There are dots to connect here.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

He really is a great example of the Dunning-Krueger effect.

We see that a good deal with people not know what they are even discussing. In this case it isn't sociology, it's "science", willfully being limited to one narrow sense. In the real world there is more than one sense to words more often than not. Dictionaries would be these people's friend

Science-

a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
"the science of criminology"

Sociology is a science in a correct sense.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wow, people that believe in their own bullshit, go figure. I don't need to be a psychic to understand psychics are bullshit. There are dots to connect here.

You are willfully ignorant and proud of it. I just called your bullshit with sociology and you can find a dictionary and argue with it. An argument from a lack of knowledge and comprehension is what you put forward with predictable results.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You are willfully ignorant and proud of it. I just called your bullshit with sociology and you can find a dictionary and argue with it. An argument from a lack of knowledge and comprehension is what you put forward with predictable results.

Shit man, the dots weren't that far a part, but you still couldn't get the line drawn.

 

[pmv]

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.

Though the problem is that pseudosciences are not simply 'not-sciences'. Not being a science is fine, but pretending to be one when you aren't is a problem. Even if there's still something of value in there, it's quite likely to be obscured by the scientistic trappings.

I have the impression that within both sociology and psychology there's some internal disagreement about the value of even trying to be a science.

I actually have really mixed-feelings about sociology. I find it discusses and examines a lot of very interesting topics, but at the same time I always feel a bit cynical about credentialing or professionalizing topics which involve other people's "lived experience".

For example the kind of 'ethnography' stuff that involves some middle-class professional sociologist going and interacting with some out-group (urban youth, or council-tenants, or EDL members or football hooligans...) and 'explaining' them and their ways to a middle-class academic audience. That stuff is very interesting and yet also has obvious pitfalls - presuming the sociologist is somehow a neutral observer, outside the system being observed, when they are themselves part of the social system. Sociologists are generally more sensitive to that than are social anthropologists, though.

Wow, people that believe in their own bullshit, go figure. I don't need to be a psychic to understand psychics are bullshit. There are dots to connect here.

I don't have to be a psychic to understand that you're full of it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Shit man, the dots weren't that far a part, but you still couldn't get the line drawn.

I gave you fact. You try to draw lines in your zero dimensional universe. That you do not like reality, do not blame others.

Which dictionary publisher will you call and excoriate first? Thought so, none, because they happen to be right in 3D land.

 

[Meghan54]

Pseudoscience can still have value.

Why would you believe in fake science? Oh, yeah, I forgot.......

 

[NAC4EV]

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.

I am reminded of this

 

[SlowSpyder]

I don't have to be a psychic to understand that you're full of it.

Here you're about as accurate as one, though.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Here you're about as accurate as one, though.

Ah, so you actually believe in psychics. Interesting.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Ah, so you actually believe in psychics. Interesting.

No, I don't. No reread in that context.

 

[Victorian Gray]

No, I don't. No reread in that context.

lordy

 

[MrSquished]

This guy spyder is more delusional than the wackjob conservatives on my FB feed. Holy jeezus.

 

[SlowSpyder]

This guy spyder is more delusional than the wackjob conservatives on my FB feed. Holy jeezus.

What in particular? Example?

 

[Amused]

It is simply stunning how the right-wing cult has projected all of their faults onto their opponents.

The punchline is, this cuts both ways. Both the left and the right have their pet science denials and both are equally damaging to progress.

But yeah, keep trying to make it look like the climate change and evolution denialists aren't just as bad here. In defense of the left at least they haven't mainstreamed anti-vax like the right-wing did. But then, the right-wing mainstreamed all of their fringe and became the batshit party so...

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/ske...cience-denialism-pseudoscience-left-vs-right/