5 ms·

"Why would they? There's been lots of noise lately about how conservatives don't respect science or the intellectual sphere. Why would they? They know we're po

by jolux 11y ago

"Why would they? There's been lots of noise lately about how conservatives don't respect science or the intellectual sphere. Why would they? They know we're politically biased." This is where it took a turn for me. I'm basically in agreement with everything else, and it's personally eye opening to gain a greater understanding of these kinds of biases, but when you take a few bad apples in the social sciences (literally what? five? six?) and extrapolate that out to justify distrust of all of science, it becomes problematic. The leftists I know (not including myself, though I share similar views) don't dislike conservative attitudes towards social science or other "soft" sciences, in fact most of them take it as a foregone conclusion that conservatives won't like them. They dislike point blank denial of facts such as that of human-caused climate change perpetuated mostly by conservative think tanks and consumed by an undereducated population of people who legitimately don't know better. The problem is really that we live in a culture that does not value education very highly, nor does it enable good forms of it for the majority of our nation. And just for fun, let's take the opposites of this so-called "urban intellectualism" that is expressed with these characteristics: "... is ingenious, a deep thinker." vs. is dumb, a shallow thinker. "... values artistic, esthetic experiences." vs. values uncreative, ugly experiences "... is inventive." vs is uninventive "... is sophisticated in art, music, and literature." vs. knows nothing of art, music, or literature "... likes to reflect, play with ideas" vs likes to avoid introspection, take things at face value, and move on. Pardon me if a few of those don't seem obviously better to more than just liberals than their alternatives. I know a lot of conservatives who would be exceptionally proud to call themselves inventive, sophisticated, deep thinkers with passions in art and literature. You're doing intellectual conservatism a disservice by acting like these are all things conservatives would be offended to see described as "openness." If being an intellectual, sophisticated person is synonymous with being a blinkered bourgeois intellectual liberal then I'm friends with an awful lot of blinkered bourgeois liberals who are also big fans of Austrian economics.

isolate 11y ago
> point blank denial of facts such as that of human-caused climate change Science can't prove/disprove AGW because there's no control, which means that it isn't and can't be a fact. (I believe we should assume AGW to be safe.)
- scarmig 11y ago
  By that standard, science also can't confirm human's shared ancestry with apes, or the Big Bang. Science doesn't fit in a test tube.
  - isolate 11y ago
    > Science doesn't fit in a test tube. Karl Popper begs to disagree. (By the way, I also believe we evolved from apes. I am not so sure about the Big Bang just because it's so strange and hard to comprehend, but okay, I'm not like against it or anything.)
  - tbrownaw 11y ago
    Yep. And I generally take such "this is how we got here" reconstructions somewhat less seriously than I take laws / principles that can be experimented with and used to do things (and somewhat more seriously than predictions of the future based on said reconstructions).
- js8 11y ago
  > Science can't prove/disprove AGW because there's no control, which means that it isn't and can't be a fact. This is so wrong... If it was correct, what would be point of doing science? Let's face it - the point of science is to build models of reality. And every model (except of usage of the world in logic) by definition is a type of inductive reasoning about reality. The reason why we want to have models is to be able to predict situations where we don't have control; for instance, we don't want build two bridges that are to be used by people to see which one fails. So you're pretty much rejecting inductive reasoning in that sentence. The AGW theory, specifically, is not a fact (GW is a fact), it's a model that tells us what's gonna happen (conditionally on our emissions) with the planet. And you can believe it's a good model even without having control (just like you can believe that a computer model of a bridge is a useful tool). For instance, because you understand laws of thermodynamics, and you can measure what greenhouse gas is. (Oh, on 2nd reading, I understand where you're coming from. Model is technically not a fact, fact is some observation. But I guess in common language, most of the things we call facts are actually models.)
wdmeldon 11y ago
This post almost entirely reinforces the article. The lefts tendency to treat "undereducated" people like they are children is in no way helpful. > blinkered bourgeois liberals who are also big fans of Austrian economics This is the icing on the proving the point cake.
- jolux 11y ago
  I'm not treating them like children, you missed the point of my last comparison. I'm saying that this article holds a definition of conservatism that is highly stereotypical and not at all representative of much of academic conservatism. I'm trying to defend my conservative friends here.
defen 11y ago
> They dislike point blank denial of facts such as that of human-caused climate change perpetuated mostly by conservative think tanks and consumed by an undereducated population of people who legitimately don't know better. The left disregards science when it suits their politics as well, e.g. IQ - https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/645301814955388930 https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/645301814955388930 Regarding the opposites-list - just because someone doesn't consider himself an "ingenious, deep thinker" doesn't mean he thinks he's a dumb, shallow thinker. It's all relative - who or what are you comparing yourself to? Compared to Steven Pinker, I'm a dumb, shallow thinker. Compared to the average American, I'm probably ingenious, a deep thinker. The statement as given is not quantifiable on a 1-5 scale.
- CM30 11y ago
  Yep. Politics and science do not mix, at least well. Science has no political bias, it has a reality bias that just about everyone will disagree with in some way.
- jolux 11y ago
  It's absolutely a relative question, which is why it's not asking for an objective answer. It's asking for self perception, which may also be problematic but is different from what you're implying. If you cite a single tweet claiming IQ is replicable (admittedly from a reputable source) you're only showing one side of the story while claiming "the left" rails against IQ without science behind it. Well, there is science behind it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man
jldugger 11y ago
> The problem is really that we live in a culture that does not value education very highly, nor does it enable good forms of it for the majority of our nation. > Pardon me if a few of those don't seem obviously better to more than just liberals than their alternatives. I know a lot of conservatives who would be exceptionally proud to call themselves inventive, sophisticated, deep thinkers with passions in art and literature. You may think it obviously better, but the question is about "openness to new experiences." I.e., if you think if yourself as an ingenious, deep thinker, but prefer only 'sophisticated art, music and literature' I see someone whose ego won't allow for new experiences.
- jolux 11y ago
  You're inferring a lot of information based on stereotypes and also misunderstanding the OP. It's not talking about "sophisticated" art, it's asking whether you consider yourself to be sophisticated in art, i.e. you appreciate what makes good art good and enjoy experiencing art. I don't think of myself as an ingenious, deep thinker just as I don't think of myself as an eater of burgers. I engage in deep thinking and discuss deep thinking with my colleagues and sure it defines me sometimes but other times I'll screw something obvious up and realize that I'm really just a fucking idiot. Everyone is in some way and anyone telling you otherwise is hiding something.
tbrownaw 11y ago
"... is ingenious, a deep thinker." vs. is dumb, a shallow thinker. Vs. is able to explain things so that they seem obvious. "... values artistic, esthetic experiences." vs. values uncreative, ugly experiences Vs. values practicality. "... is inventive." vs is uninventive Vs. understands the value of having standards. "... is sophisticated in art, music, and literature." vs. knows nothing of art, music, or literature Vs. enjoys things as things rather than solely on the meta level. "... likes to reflect, play with ideas" vs likes to avoid introspection, take things at face value, and move on. Vs. prefers using ideas over taking them apart.
- jolux 11y ago
  Yes but none of those are mutually exclusive which is the point I'm trying to make.
13thLetter 11y ago
"point blank denial of facts" ...such as the relative safety of nuclear power and GMO foods? Or the potential effectiveness of missile defense? Ideology of all stripes can, and does, frequently come hand-in-hand with flat denial of inconvenient facts.
- jolux 11y ago
  The difference is that the American right is ideologically homogeneous and the American left is a mess of different ideologies that agree on a few things and so elect candidates from the Democratic party. And furthermore, you're implicitly and explicitly misrepresenting the arguments against all of those things which you claim leftists hawk as evil. Nuclear power is powerful, sure, I don't think anyone denies that. But it leaves us with piles of toxic waste and very few ways to rid ourselves of it, so it's not as if it's a done deal. Especially not when sources like solar and wind have many of the same benefits without the toxic aftereffects. As for GMO foods, I'm an aspiring synthetic biologist myself and I can say that there's nothing inherently dangerous with the scientific side of it, nor does there seem to be anything explicitly awful going on with commercial GMOs right now. The problems I have with GMOs are more what I see as potential problems, specifically that the companies creating them have less than sterling reputations for concern of public safety. I'm also generally wary of deregulation of industry, because historically it has not ended well. I think people shouldn't trust large companies implicitly, especially when these large companies are saying "please trust us". I should highlight that none of these constitute point blank denial of science in the way the denying global warming does. As for complaints with the potential effectiveness of missile defense, you'll have to be a bit more specific.

by jolux 11y ago

isolate 11y ago

> point blank denial of facts such as that of human-caused climate change Science can't prove/disprove AGW because there's no control, which means that it isn't and can't be a fact. (I believe we should assume AGW to be safe.)

scarmig 11y ago
By that standard, science also can't confirm human's shared ancestry with apes, or the Big Bang. Science doesn't fit in a test tube.
- isolate 11y ago
  > Science doesn't fit in a test tube. Karl Popper begs to disagree. (By the way, I also believe we evolved from apes. I am not so sure about the Big Bang just because it's so strange and hard to comprehend, but okay, I'm not like against it or anything.)
- tbrownaw 11y ago
  Yep. And I generally take such "this is how we got here" reconstructions somewhat less seriously than I take laws / principles that can be experimented with and used to do things (and somewhat more seriously than predictions of the future based on said reconstructions).
js8 11y ago
> Science can't prove/disprove AGW because there's no control, which means that it isn't and can't be a fact. This is so wrong... If it was correct, what would be point of doing science? Let's face it - the point of science is to build models of reality. And every model (except of usage of the world in logic) by definition is a type of inductive reasoning about reality. The reason why we want to have models is to be able to predict situations where we don't have control; for instance, we don't want build two bridges that are to be used by people to see which one fails. So you're pretty much rejecting inductive reasoning in that sentence. The AGW theory, specifically, is not a fact (GW is a fact), it's a model that tells us what's gonna happen (conditionally on our emissions) with the planet. And you can believe it's a good model even without having control (just like you can believe that a computer model of a bridge is a useful tool). For instance, because you understand laws of thermodynamics, and you can measure what greenhouse gas is. (Oh, on 2nd reading, I understand where you're coming from. Model is technically not a fact, fact is some observation. But I guess in common language, most of the things we call facts are actually models.)

wdmeldon 11y ago

This post almost entirely reinforces the article. The lefts tendency to treat "undereducated" people like they are children is in no way helpful. > blinkered bourgeois liberals who are also big fans of Austrian economics This is the icing on the proving the point cake.

jolux 11y ago
I'm not treating them like children, you missed the point of my last comparison. I'm saying that this article holds a definition of conservatism that is highly stereotypical and not at all representative of much of academic conservatism. I'm trying to defend my conservative friends here.

defen 11y ago

> They dislike point blank denial of facts such as that of human-caused climate change perpetuated mostly by conservative think tanks and consumed by an undereducated population of people who legitimately don't know better. The left disregards science when it suits their politics as well, e.g. IQ - https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/645301814955388930 https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/645301814955388930 Regarding the opposites-list - just because someone doesn't consider himself an "ingenious, deep thinker" doesn't mean he thinks he's a dumb, shallow thinker. It's all relative - who or what are you comparing yourself to? Compared to Steven Pinker, I'm a dumb, shallow thinker. Compared to the average American, I'm probably ingenious, a deep thinker. The statement as given is not quantifiable on a 1-5 scale.

CM30 11y ago
Yep. Politics and science do not mix, at least well. Science has no political bias, it has a reality bias that just about everyone will disagree with in some way.
jolux 11y ago
It's absolutely a relative question, which is why it's not asking for an objective answer. It's asking for self perception, which may also be problematic but is different from what you're implying. If you cite a single tweet claiming IQ is replicable (admittedly from a reputable source) you're only showing one side of the story while claiming "the left" rails against IQ without science behind it. Well, there is science behind it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man

jldugger 11y ago

> The problem is really that we live in a culture that does not value education very highly, nor does it enable good forms of it for the majority of our nation. > Pardon me if a few of those don't seem obviously better to more than just liberals than their alternatives. I know a lot of conservatives who would be exceptionally proud to call themselves inventive, sophisticated, deep thinkers with passions in art and literature. You may think it obviously better, but the question is about "openness to new experiences." I.e., if you think if yourself as an ingenious, deep thinker, but prefer only 'sophisticated art, music and literature' I see someone whose ego won't allow for new experiences.

jolux 11y ago
You're inferring a lot of information based on stereotypes and also misunderstanding the OP. It's not talking about "sophisticated" art, it's asking whether you consider yourself to be sophisticated in art, i.e. you appreciate what makes good art good and enjoy experiencing art. I don't think of myself as an ingenious, deep thinker just as I don't think of myself as an eater of burgers. I engage in deep thinking and discuss deep thinking with my colleagues and sure it defines me sometimes but other times I'll screw something obvious up and realize that I'm really just a fucking idiot. Everyone is in some way and anyone telling you otherwise is hiding something.

tbrownaw 11y ago

"... is ingenious, a deep thinker." vs. is dumb, a shallow thinker. Vs. is able to explain things so that they seem obvious. "... values artistic, esthetic experiences." vs. values uncreative, ugly experiences Vs. values practicality. "... is inventive." vs is uninventive Vs. understands the value of having standards. "... is sophisticated in art, music, and literature." vs. knows nothing of art, music, or literature Vs. enjoys things as things rather than solely on the meta level. "... likes to reflect, play with ideas" vs likes to avoid introspection, take things at face value, and move on. Vs. prefers using ideas over taking them apart.

jolux 11y ago
Yes but none of those are mutually exclusive which is the point I'm trying to make.

13thLetter 11y ago

"point blank denial of facts" ...such as the relative safety of nuclear power and GMO foods? Or the potential effectiveness of missile defense? Ideology of all stripes can, and does, frequently come hand-in-hand with flat denial of inconvenient facts.

jolux 11y ago
The difference is that the American right is ideologically homogeneous and the American left is a mess of different ideologies that agree on a few things and so elect candidates from the Democratic party. And furthermore, you're implicitly and explicitly misrepresenting the arguments against all of those things which you claim leftists hawk as evil. Nuclear power is powerful, sure, I don't think anyone denies that. But it leaves us with piles of toxic waste and very few ways to rid ourselves of it, so it's not as if it's a done deal. Especially not when sources like solar and wind have many of the same benefits without the toxic aftereffects. As for GMO foods, I'm an aspiring synthetic biologist myself and I can say that there's nothing inherently dangerous with the scientific side of it, nor does there seem to be anything explicitly awful going on with commercial GMOs right now. The problems I have with GMOs are more what I see as potential problems, specifically that the companies creating them have less than sterling reputations for concern of public safety. I'm also generally wary of deregulation of industry, because historically it has not ended well. I think people shouldn't trust large companies implicitly, especially when these large companies are saying "please trust us". I should highlight that none of these constitute point blank denial of science in the way the denying global warming does. As for complaints with the potential effectiveness of missile defense, you'll have to be a bit more specific.