Wierdest liberal narrative of all: right "anti-science"

[renard_ruse]

I've pretty much ignored this narrative since it popped up in the mid-2000s because it seemed so bizarre, so stupid, so partisan, and so beyond the pale of ridiculous, I assumed nobody, even liberals themselves took it seriously.

It doesn't even make any sense. Usually I can figure out the implied "logic" behind even the most ridiculous ideological claims but this one has never had any semblance of any logic whatsoever. Its just plain wierd.

Yet, they keep persisting with it. Seem to be digging it up again lately. These people do everything they do based on hardcore market and focus group research so they must feel there is some segment of the public who will believe it. So, perhaps its time to confront this absurd narrative head on, though it seems pathetic to even dignify something so stupid, far fetched, and bizarre.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

It is probably one of the most serious issues of our day. That you cannot see it speaks volumes.

 

[renard_ruse]

During much of the second half of the 20th century, it was the New Left who was opposed to science, which they associated with capitalist innovation and corresponding environmental destruction (not without some validy of course).

Yet, what changed? Well, the universities are completely controlled by liberals. Universities rely heavily on government research monies, this is particularly true of the sciences. More often than not, its "conservatives" and others on the political right who want to take away the government teat.

This has apparently been translated into some sort of "opposition to science" which is of course completely nutty. Still, for leftists in academia is a way to seize the offensive and attack those who might limit the research $$$ coming their way. Cutting government spending in no way indicates any opposition to "science" (whatever that possibly means anyway).

 

[unregistered]

 

[renard_ruse]

Of course, there are occasionally ethical concerns from both right and left about certain scientific experiments, such as those that involve the destruction of potential life (in the case of the right often regarding the unborn and the left often the treatment of animals).

These are difficult issues for many and to allow those who are self-interested in conducting the experiments to do so with no ethical limits or oversight wouldn't make any sense. Scientists are human and obviously capable of doing horrible things when allowed complete reign, history has shown over the centuries and doesn't even need to be discussed further, every reasonable person would acknowledge this. Yet, these narrow areas are a tiny part of science and obviously don't mean those concerned about these few narrow situations are "against science" in general (the 99% of the rest of science in which there are no reasonable ethical concerns).

 

[renard_ruse]

Further, there can occasionally be issues, such as those with strong political implications, in which bias of researchers can become a concern.

There is often peer presure in academia, this has become increasingly true in recent decades, with colleges often some of the least tolerant places for those who don't follow the "politically correct" line. In general, this is less of a problem in the hard sciences than in the social sciences or liberal arts, but can still rear its head. No reasonable person could deny that the attitudinal environment in many universities today is decidedly liberal and peer review often becomes an effort to prove to ones collegues one is "on the reservation" with the prevailing "pc" viewpoint.

On issues with controversial political implications, academics can be susceptible to letting bias, consciously or unconsciously, influence their research and be susceptible to peer pressure to conform. To express concerns about this is a valid thing, and again, doesn't in any way imply "opposition to science" at all. It's an outright and deliberate lie to make such a charge.

 

[Liar]

It's stories like this that drive the narrative.

http://news.yahoo.com/congressman-calls-evolution-lie-pit-hell-175514039.html

So tell me again, how weird is it?

 

[renard_ruse]

It's stories like this that drive the narrative.

http://news.yahoo.com/congressman-calls-evolution-lie-pit-hell-175514039.html

So tell me again, how weird is it?

I don't click on links. Can you summarize?

 

[Liar]

I don't click on links.

How the hell have you survived more than five seconds on the Internet? It's all links, man.

Can you summarize?

ATHENS, Ga. (AP) — Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell" meant to convince people that they do not need a savior.

 

[phrodeau]

I don't click on links. Can you summarize?

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) believes that he needs a savior, and that evolution and the Big Bang theory are lies from the pit of Hell, wherever that is.

 

[Ishmael]

The first thing you do in science, any science, is eliminate the outliers. In politics you embrace them.

The facts are that since the end of the space race federal R&D spending as a percentage of the federal budget has increased during republican administrations and decreased during democrat administrations. If the adage 'putting your money where your mouth is' has any validity at all, the democrats seem to come up short.

Ishmael