The liberal war on science

[Dusty Bake Activate]

The Liberals' War on Science: Scientific American

Believe it or not—and I suspect most readers will not—there's a liberal war on science. Say what?

We are well aware of the Republican war on science from the eponymous 2006 book (Basic Books) by Chris Mooney, and I have castigated conservatives myself in my 2006 book Why Darwin Matters (Henry ****) for their erroneous belief that the theory of evolution leads to a breakdown of morality. A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Many conservatives seem to grant early-stage embryos a moral standing that is higher than that of adults suffering from debilitating diseases potentially curable through stem cells. And most recently, Missouri Republican senatorial candidate Todd Akin gaffed on the ability of women's bodies to avoid pregnancy in the event of a “legitimate rape.” It gets worse.

The left's war on science begins with the stats cited above: 41 percent of Democrats are young Earth creationists, and 19 percent doubt that Earth is getting warmer. These numbers do not exactly bolster the common belief that liberals are the people of the science book. In addition, consider “cognitive creationists”—whom I define as those who accept the theory of evolution for the human body but not the brain. As Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker documents in his 2002 book The Blank Slate (Viking), belief in the mind as a tabula rasa shaped almost entirely by culture has been mostly the mantra of liberal intellectuals, who in the 1980s and 1990s led an all-out assault against evolutionary psychology via such Orwellian-named far-left groups as Science for the People, for proffering the now uncontroversial idea that human thought and behavior are at least partially the result of our evolutionary past.

There is more, and recent, antiscience fare from far-left progressives, documented in the 2012 book Science Left Behind (PublicAffairs) by science journalists Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell, who note that “if it is true that conservatives have declared a war on science, then progressives have declared Armageddon.” On energy issues, for example, the authors contend that progressive liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste-disposal problem, anti–fossil fuels because of global warming, antihydroelectric because dams disrupt river ecosystems, and anti–wind power because of avian fatalities. The underlying current is “everything natural is good” and “everything unnatural is bad.”

Whereas conservatives obsess over the purity and sanctity of sex, the left's sacred values seem fixated on the environment, leading to an almost religious fervor over the purity and sanctity of air, water and especially food. Try having a conversation with a liberal progressive about GMOs—genetically modified organisms—in which the words “Monsanto” and “profit” are not dropped like syllogistic bombs. Comedian Bill Maher, for example, on his HBO Real Time show on October 19, 2012, asked Stonyfield Farm CEO Gary Hirshberg if he would rate Monsanto as a 10 (“evil”) or an 11 (“f—ing evil”)? The fact is that we've been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years through breeding and selection. It's the only way to feed billions of people.

Surveys show that moderate liberals and conservatives embrace science roughly equally (varying across domains), which is why scientists like E. O. Wilson and organizations like the National Center for Science Education are reaching out to moderates in both parties to rein in the extremists on evolution and climate change. Pace Barry Goldwater, extremism in the defense of liberty may not be a vice, but it is in defense of science, where facts matter more than faith—whether it comes in a religious or secular form—and where moderation in the pursuit of truth is a virtue.

 

[Serious]

Interesting read...

Just when i thought people were beginning to become more informed about "life".

Public Acceptance of Climate Change Affected by Word Usage

Jan. 22, 2013 — Public acceptance of climate change's reality may have been influenced by the rate at which words moved from scientific journals into the mainstream, according to anthropologist Michael O'Brien, dean of the College of Arts and Science at the University of Missouri. A recent study of word usage in popular literature by O'Brien and his colleagues documented how the usage of certain words related to climate change has risen and fallen over the past two centuries. Understanding how word usage affects public acceptance of science could lead to better science communication and a more informed public.

"Scientists can learn from this study that the general public shouldn't be expected to understand technical terms or be convinced by journal papers written in technical jargon," O'Brien said. "Journalists must explain scientific terms in ways people can understand and thereby ease the movement of those terms into general speech. That can be a slow process. Several words related to climate change diffused into the popular vocabulary over a 30-50 year timeline."

O'Brien's study found that, by 2008, several important terms in the discussion of climate change had entered popular literature from technical obscurity in the early 1900s.

These terms included:

Biodiversity -- the degree of variation in life forms within a given area
Holocene -- the current era of Earth's history, which started at the end of the last ice age
Paleoclimate -the prehistoric climate, often deduced from ice cores, tree rings and pollen trapped in sediments
Phenology -- the study of how climate and other environmental factors influence the timing of events in organisms' life cycles

Not every term was adopted at the same rate or achieved the same degree of popularity. Biodiversity, for example, came into popular use quickly in only a few years in the late 80s and early 90s. Other terms, like Holocene or phenology, have taken decades and are still relatively uncommon.

"The adoption of words into the popular vocabulary is like the evolution of species," O'Brien said. "A complex process governs why certain terms are successful and adopted into everyday speech, while others fail. For example, the term 'meme' has entered the vernacular, as opposed to the term 'culturgen,' although both refer to a discrete unit of culture, such as a saying transferred from person to person."

To observe the movement of words into popular literature, O'Brien and his colleagues searched the database of 7 million books created by Google. They used the "Ngram" feature of the database to track the number of appearances of climate change keywords in literature since 1800. The usage rate of those climate change terms was compared to the usage of "the," which is the most common word in the English language. Statistical analysis of usage rates was calculated in part by co-author William Brock, a new member of MU's Department of Economics and member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Public acceptance of climate change affected by word usage

 

[Slaimon Khan Shah]

I HOPE THESE SCIENTISTS DO GOOD.

 

[Broke Wave]

There is more, and recent, antiscience fare from far-left progressives, documented in the 2012 book Science Left Behind (PublicAffairs) by science journalists Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell, who note that “if it is true that conservatives have declared a war on science, then progressives have declared Armageddon.” On energy issues, for example, the authors contend that progressive liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste-disposal problem, anti–fossil fuels because of global warming, antihydroelectric because dams disrupt river ecosystems, and anti–wind power because of avian fatalities. The underlying current is “everything natural is good” and “everything unnatural is bad.”

So what... these are not valid concerns? I don't get it...

Trying to lump the insane "Avian Fatality" opposition which is very small with the valid safety based opposition to nuclear, and the obviously scientifically proven opposition to fossil fuels is some kind of trick IMO.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Liberals have been 'waging war' on 'Black' people, women, education, and a host of other issues but their fukkery has been obfuscated by the petty machinations of the Repubs and Dems under the guise of 'preventing loss of freedom' and 'progress'. 'Progress' to Liberals means the Gov't. controls everything because the general population is too stupid to think for themselves.​

 

[Food Mane]

So what... these are not valid concerns? I don't get it...

Trying to lump the insane "Avian Fatality" opposition which is very small with the valid safety based opposition to nuclear, and the obviously scientifically proven opposition to fossil fuels is some kind of trick IMO.

Yeah, his argument gets very thin there.

Overall, I don't think he wanted to do the heavy lifting and write a real article, so he just straw manned it. However, I do think he's right about nuclear energy (there are obviously concerns about weaponization as well) and genetically modified crops. He just didn't do the work needed to convince people who may not agree with him.

 

[acri1]

Interesting article, there's definitely some truth in it.

Don't get me wrong, conservatives are much worse, but it is true that a lot of people on the left believe in nonsense like homeopathy and are anti- any type of energy for little reason. Plus a lot hate on genetically modified foods for little reason.

That said, the right is still worse when it comes to being anti-science.

 

[daze23]

So what... these are not valid concerns? I don't get it...

Trying to lump the insane "Avian Fatality" opposition which is very small with the valid safety based opposition to nuclear, and the obviously scientifically proven opposition to fossil fuels is some kind of trick IMO.

it's basically a strawman, where you try to paint your opposition as a bunch of unreasonable 'tree-huggers'

the article is on point though about some things, but in general it conflates "liberal" with those on the far left