Why Conservatives Don't Trust Science

[bailaviborita]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b86dzTFJbkc

As Jonathan Haidt notes, it isn't that Conservatives distrust "science"- it is that Conservatives distrust scientists, especially when scientists become advocates. And for good reason- those advocates "sanctify" (he uses the word "sacralization") people, treatises, or objects, rally around them, and become blind to anything that conflicts with what those people, treatises, or objects represent.

Thus, "victim identity groups" have become "sanctified" by the Left and all people and groups who refuse to agree with the advocates positions with respect to those groups are labeled as "evil." When one is labeled as evil- then there is no room for debate, compromise, nuance- or even humor. Thus, there is no room for "science."

[bailaviborita]

I think this basically describes the climate scientists, the Black Lives Matter folks, the Pro abortion advocates, the "White privilege" nutters, the women in combat advocates, etc.

For the women in combat folks- it seems to me that they believe (sanctification begets religious-like belief) that the differences- to include physical and physiological- between men and women are social constructions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/op...&nlid=62971638

excerpt:

There were, however, troubling signs on Thursday that Mr. Carter could
face political opposition and bureaucratic foot*dragging as the new policy is
carried out.

Their attitudes echo those of leaders who decades ago warned about the
perils of integrating African*Americans in the military and, more recently,
suggested that allowing openly gay people to serve in uniform would hurt unit
cohesion.

The naysayers this time appear to be driven primarily by sexism. The
military, after all, has long been led by men.

The American military has said that physical standards will not be lowered
to enable women to serve in all roles. The Army and the Marine Corps found in
recent studies that women were injured more often than men during combat
training exercises, especially those that required carrying heavy equipment.
Rather than use that as an excuse to bar women from combat roles, the
military must find ways to more effectively train women for front*line combat
and other warfare scenarios that female service members have routinely faced
in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years.

For the White Privilege folks, this essay really speaks to their logic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/ma...&nlid=62971638

excerpt:

Whiteness is not a kinship or a culture. White people are no more closely related to one another, genetically, than we are to black people. American definitions of race allow for a white woman to give birth to black children, which should serve as a reminder that white people are not a family. What binds us is that we share a system of social advantages that can be traced back to the advent of slavery in the colonies that became the United States. ‘‘There is, in fact, no white community,’’ as Baldwin writes. Whiteness is not who you are. Which is why it is entirely possible to despise whiteness without disliking yourself.

When he was 4, my son brought home a library book about the slaves who built the White House. I didn’t tell him that slaves once accounted for more wealth than all the industry in this country combined, or that slaves were, as Ta-Nehisi Coates writes, ‘‘the down payment’’ on this country’s independence, or that freed slaves became, after the Civil War, ‘‘this country’s second mortgage.’’ Nonetheless, my overview of slavery and Jim Crow left my son worried about what it meant to be white, what legacy he had inherited. ‘‘I don’t want to be on this team,’’ he said, with his head in his hands. ‘‘You might be stuck on this team,’’ I told him, ‘‘but you don’t have to play by its rules.’’

Even as I said this, I knew that he would be encouraged, at every juncture in his life, to believe wholeheartedly in the power of his own hard work and deservedness, to ignore inequity, to accept that his sense of security mattered more than other people’s freedom and to agree, against all evidence, that a system that afforded him better housing, better education, better work and better pay than other people was inherently fair.

My son’s first week in kindergarten was devoted entirely to learning rules. At his school, obedience is rewarded with fake money that can be used, at the end of the week, to buy worthless toys that break immediately. Welcome to capitalism, I thought when I learned of this system, which produced, that week, a yo-yo that remained stuck at the bottom of its string. The principal asked all the parents to submit a signed form acknowledging that they had discussed the Code of Conduct with their children, but I didn’t sign the form. Instead, my son and I discussed the civil rights movement, and I reminded him that not all rules are good rules and that unjust rules must be broken. This was, I now see, a somewhat unhinged response to the first week of kindergarten. I know that schools need rules, and I am a teacher who makes rules, but I still want my son to know the difference between compliance and complicity.

[bailaviborita]

I guess the last thing I'd add is an article on how we are all easily conned:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/op...&nlid=62971638

Monte
operators, like all good con men, are exceptional judges of character, but even
more important they are exceptional creators of drama, of the sort of narrative
sweep that makes everything seem legitimate, even inevitable.

That’s the power of the good con artist: the ability to identify your deepest
need and exploit it. It’s not about honesty or greed; we are all suckers for
belief

I think this goes to Haidt's point about rallying around something that causes one to "believe"- even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

That's what makes NPR commentators note, "They still don't believe in Global Warming"- as if we're all a bunch of Kepler's looking at evidence that the Earth really does go around the Sun, but unable to admit that openly - because, you know- society believes that it is the other way around...

[Trapper John]

As a Conservative and practicing Scientist I am really conflicted here!

What I hate, both as a Scientist and a Conservative is the co-opting of a scientific hypothesis by political groups (usually Liberals) in the false belief that the scientific hypothesis is fact and supports the political agenda i.e., "sacralization" as Haidt calls it.

Second, I hate the ease at which Scientists will comport to the process and the message that is politically motivated. Probably strongly influenced by the liberal academic environment.

Third, I find the terms such as Social Sciences, Political Science, etc. to be a giant con in that adding "Science" to the discipline's name some how makes it more legitimate. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Social "Sciences" are opinions and like ass holes, everyone has one and thinks the other guy's stinks.

Science is a method of study to uncover truths. This begins with a hypothesis that (1) accounts for and is consistent with that which is known, (2) is predictive, and (3) is experimentally testable.

A scientist will conduct the experiment and the results of which will either support the hypothesis or will refute it. In the latter case, the scientist will modify the hypothesis to account for the new facts revealed by the experimental result and repeat the process. This is an iterative process always trying to refute the hypothesis.

When this process is co-opted for the sake of "sacralization" in support of a political agenda it loses all legitimacy and scientists that allow themselves to be so used lose all credibility - at least in my mind.

I have to hand it to him, Haidt did a terrific job in explaining the tactic being employed by the progressive liberals to divide us and demonize the opposition.

So anyone have thoughts about effective counter strategies?

[Team Sergeant]

"it isn't that Conservatives distrust "science"- it is that Conservatives distrust scientists, especially when scientists become advocates."


Steel on target here. The low IQ voters fail to make that leap every time.

Just like the ultra-left wing "media" the scientists have also taken up sides and will lie cheat and steal to move their fabricated agendas along. And if that lie makes money so much better that the liberal left can use it as a cash cow.

climate change, a scam that will make billions for the socialist movement.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

"it isn't that Conservatives distrust "science"- it is that Conservatives distrust scientists, especially when scientists become advocates.".......

Just like the ultra-left wing "media" the scientists have also taken up sides and will lie cheat and steal to move their fabricated agendas along. And if that lie makes money so much better that the liberal left can use it as a cash cow.

climate change, a scam that will make billions for the socialist movement.

Emphasis added.

You are exactly correct! It has gotten to the point that if a scientist challenges the current paradigm he will never receive funding to continue his research. Many scientist (especially the young ones) cave to funding pressure that exists within government and non-government funding agencies. I have sat on numerous grant review committees that do precisely that.

The problem is that we are funding that work that will promote the agenda and deny funding to that work that challenges it.

I have seen this in health care research since the late 70's-early 80's. This is one of the main reasons that health care costs have gotten so out of control. No new drugs that actually alter the course of a disease, only treat symptoms.

I feel a rant coming on- Nevermind!

[bailaviborita]

Just today I got an email soliciting three grants worth tens of thousands for research aimed at "progressive" causes. Specifically: make a more "equitable" world, combat climate change, and increase voter participation/community "organizers" in the political process.

So- if I want funding, basically my research needs to support one of these Democrat political platform issues...

[blacksmoke]

Propaganda at its finest. Conservative views are anti-science, therefore stupid. Of you want to be smart, you have to be liberal, or believe in x. I honestly don't care if global warming/climate change is real. If God wanted us to have clean burning fuel that doesn't polute, He would have put some down there.

Oh and the slavery BS. The economy of the south sucked compared to the Union, and if slavery was so integral to the prosperity of the U.S., we would have collapsed when it was banned, huh?

[blacksmoke]

What I really wanted to say, CBS news quoted a survey of Muslims in the US, 25%of which said violence against America was justified or some crap. Then went on to say the survey was conducted by a guy who was listed by SPLC as an "Islamophobe."