4 ms·

As conservative ideology becomes more and more unmoored from reality how do you propose we keep conservatives participating in academia? I'm not just being snar

by 1_2__3 10y ago

As conservative ideology becomes more and more unmoored from reality how do you propose we keep conservatives participating in academia? I'm not just being snarky - it seems to me the increasing liberalization of colleges is inextricable from the increasing non-fiction of conservative thinking.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
hackuser 10y ago
The idea that conservatives should be represented in academia is a kind of a affirmative action, ironically - but for a group that has great power in the nation and world, not an oppressed one. The test in academia should be not ideology, but whether your theories withstand scrutiny. Should environmental science departments hire climate change deniers, for ideological diversity? Should biology departments hire creationists? Should political science and history departments hire people who say Saddam Hussein had WMD and Obama is Kenyan?
- WalterSear 10y ago
  >The test in academia should be not ideology, but whether your theories withstand scrutiny. Any what do you do, hypothetically speaking, if this requirement keeps out a large proportion of a specific ideological group, or if the process of science changes the views of individuals of that group, to the point where they leave it? And, what if, said ideological group is unwilling to accept that?
  - hackuser 10y ago
    I'm not sure I understand the question. Why should people be included based on ideology? Put plainly, we want people who are factually right. Who wants otherwise? The Middle Ages were defined, in a sense, by the priority of ideology over rationality. The enlightenment was a rejection of ideology in favor of factual accuracy about the world. The ideology may say the Sun revolves around the Earth, but the facts say otherwise. The ideology may say that that climate change isn't happening, but the facts say otherwise.
    - WalterSear 10y ago
      I'm not saying people should be excluded based on ideology, I'm asking what you do if a particular ideology is incompatible with seeking and holding "theories that withstand scrutiny". Tbh, I think that is ultimately what we are dealing with - a very popular culture and ideology that eschews reason in favour of conformity.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    Tell the ideological group to swallow their fears and learn science.
- 13years 10y ago
  >Should environmental science departments hire climate change deniers, for ideological diversity? No, but part of the issue is actually embedded in this question. The description "climate change deniers" has become the accepted way to describe dissenters of certain climate theory. Name what other scientific theories in which dissenters are labeled as such? Big bang deniers? standard model deniers? The anti-science string theorists? Of course critics of all these theories exist and we consider them still scientists. If valid critics don't exist, then something is very wrong. The "anti-science", "denier" and from the opposing side "climate change hoax" memes are intended to shutdown discussion resulting in no information exchanging groups of different viewpoints and perpetuating the divergence of their views. Education on such subjects stalls when there can not exist a discussion where opposing sides have respect.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > critics of all these theories exist and we consider them still scientists. That's not true; many are called "crackpots" and the like, and are excluded and ignored; the difference here is that these non-scientists are funded and backed by ideologues and the fossil fuel industry. Not all ideas are valid or scientific; in fact, most are not. The standards for being taken seriously, especially by scientists, are clear.
    - 13years 10y ago
      >That's not true; many are called "crackpots" and the like Not a term that is regularly circulated in scientific discussion. More typically these are labels around subjects in which politics has involved itself. When politics becomes involved, the stakes become much higher as money and power are involved and it becomes in ones best interest to silence opposition often by any means because the opposing opinion now is a direct threat to your career, business etc. Whereas beforehand opposing opinion was just that, an opinion with no more power to influence change and not threatening. We can see this precisely unfold with climate change. Prior to 1997 conservative and liberal views were more closely inline. However, 1997 was the first time a political solution was proposed that favored political world views of liberal vs conservative. All of a sudden now opinion matters and critics became more involved and vocal. I would suspect if the political solution favored conservative world views then the terms 'climate change deniers' would be originating from the right as opposed to the left. The left would have become critical if they felt the solution was an impact to their political world views. http://www.livescience.com/56396-americans-misinformed-on-climate-change.html http://www.livescience.com/56396-americans-misinformed-on-cl...
- brighteyes 10y ago
  > The idea that conservatives should be represented in academia is a kind of a affirmative action, ironically No, it would be affirmative action if they were given preferential treatment in order to increase their numbers. If instead just existing discrimination against them were removed, that would not be affirmative action. > Should environmental science departments hire climate change deniers, for ideological diversity? Strawman - no one is suggesting that. Historically, many great scientists have been conservative as well as religious. Many people that fall into those groups accept evolution, climate change, and so forth - for example, the Catholic church accepts both of those. Science isn't a partisan issue. But on college campuses, it looks that way with conservatives a shrinking minority.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    I agree that people should not be discriminated against on college campuses for the ideology, only for bad ideas. But I don't know that conservatives are discriminated against or that their numbers are shrinking. I've seen no data, and I've only heard those stories as part of the propaganda campaign to discredit anyone who might oppose the ideologues' movement. EDIT: For some data, see the parent's other post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13352697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13352697
    - brighteyes 10y ago
      E.g. the Boston Magazine link that was posted in this discussion tells the story of a few students that are afraid to "come out" as conservative. That's very common, if you talk to conservatives on campus. Now, this isn't necessarily focused, intentional discrimination. It might just be the usual "it's hard to be a small minority" issue. The majority might be "only" as guilty as it is when it doesn't accomomodate other minorities. But there is more - just look at what people say about conservatives in this very thread. They are a hated minority. Some of their peers are even open enough as to admit their bias in surveys, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/08/survey-finds-social-psychologists-admit-anti-conservative-bias https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/08/survey-finds-...
losteric 10y ago
Get rid of these catch all groups. Reality is not binary. There's nothing stopping a climate change scientist from being fiscally conservative or religiously oriented, there's plenty of room in America for pro-gun pro-choice advocates, or other amalgamations of thought... Similarly, there are plenty of pro-gun rights liberals, Christian pro-choice activists, and anti-globalist pro-spending liberals... Americans need to focus on policies, not parties. The problem isn't liberal colleges or disconnected rural districts... it's the simplified "us vs them" mentality, the complete disregard for policy nuance and critical thinking.
- mmirate 10y ago
  > the simplified "us vs them" mentality, the complete disregard for policy nuance and critical thinking Pray tell, to what extent would the median-intelligence US citizen understand the words "nuance" and "critical thinking", let alone possess, to a nontrivial extent, the virtues named by those words? After all, the "us vs them" mental data-structure suffices for many things that many people enjoy, such as spectator sports. (And in expressing how HN discussions are in a bubble insofar as participants mostly possess undergraduate educations and/or jobs that normally require such; simply put, that's not a microcosm of the entire US population.) (I'm not saying your suggestion isn't what must happen; I'm saying it isn't in the realm of what can happen.)
  - losteric 10y ago
    You're being extremely condescending, everyone is capable of free thinking. Prisoners of Plato's allegorical cave are blind through a lack of opportunity, not a lack of ability. Critically-minded citizens should act as Socratic teachers. Our job is to ask the right questions, gently probing until we've disassembled their chains and lead them to the light. It's a slow path, taken one question at a time.
    - eropple 10y ago
      In a vacuum, I would applaud your thinking. Unfortunately, the nature of a country of three hundred million people means that you've got to scale, and Socratic dialogue doesn't scale. Of course, we've had our educational system trashed, so I'm not sure that's an answer, either...

by 1_2__3 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

hackuser 10y ago

The idea that conservatives should be represented in academia is a kind of a affirmative action, ironically - but for a group that has great power in the nation and world, not an oppressed one. The test in academia should be not ideology, but whether your theories withstand scrutiny. Should environmental science departments hire climate change deniers, for ideological diversity? Should biology departments hire creationists? Should political science and history departments hire people who say Saddam Hussein had WMD and Obama is Kenyan?

WalterSear 10y ago
>The test in academia should be not ideology, but whether your theories withstand scrutiny. Any what do you do, hypothetically speaking, if this requirement keeps out a large proportion of a specific ideological group, or if the process of science changes the views of individuals of that group, to the point where they leave it? And, what if, said ideological group is unwilling to accept that?
- hackuser 10y ago
  I'm not sure I understand the question. Why should people be included based on ideology? Put plainly, we want people who are factually right. Who wants otherwise? The Middle Ages were defined, in a sense, by the priority of ideology over rationality. The enlightenment was a rejection of ideology in favor of factual accuracy about the world. The ideology may say the Sun revolves around the Earth, but the facts say otherwise. The ideology may say that that climate change isn't happening, but the facts say otherwise.
  - WalterSear 10y ago
    I'm not saying people should be excluded based on ideology, I'm asking what you do if a particular ideology is incompatible with seeking and holding "theories that withstand scrutiny". Tbh, I think that is ultimately what we are dealing with - a very popular culture and ideology that eschews reason in favour of conformity.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  Tell the ideological group to swallow their fears and learn science.
13years 10y ago
>Should environmental science departments hire climate change deniers, for ideological diversity? No, but part of the issue is actually embedded in this question. The description "climate change deniers" has become the accepted way to describe dissenters of certain climate theory. Name what other scientific theories in which dissenters are labeled as such? Big bang deniers? standard model deniers? The anti-science string theorists? Of course critics of all these theories exist and we consider them still scientists. If valid critics don't exist, then something is very wrong. The "anti-science", "denier" and from the opposing side "climate change hoax" memes are intended to shutdown discussion resulting in no information exchanging groups of different viewpoints and perpetuating the divergence of their views. Education on such subjects stalls when there can not exist a discussion where opposing sides have respect.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > critics of all these theories exist and we consider them still scientists. That's not true; many are called "crackpots" and the like, and are excluded and ignored; the difference here is that these non-scientists are funded and backed by ideologues and the fossil fuel industry. Not all ideas are valid or scientific; in fact, most are not. The standards for being taken seriously, especially by scientists, are clear.
  - 13years 10y ago
    >That's not true; many are called "crackpots" and the like Not a term that is regularly circulated in scientific discussion. More typically these are labels around subjects in which politics has involved itself. When politics becomes involved, the stakes become much higher as money and power are involved and it becomes in ones best interest to silence opposition often by any means because the opposing opinion now is a direct threat to your career, business etc. Whereas beforehand opposing opinion was just that, an opinion with no more power to influence change and not threatening. We can see this precisely unfold with climate change. Prior to 1997 conservative and liberal views were more closely inline. However, 1997 was the first time a political solution was proposed that favored political world views of liberal vs conservative. All of a sudden now opinion matters and critics became more involved and vocal. I would suspect if the political solution favored conservative world views then the terms 'climate change deniers' would be originating from the right as opposed to the left. The left would have become critical if they felt the solution was an impact to their political world views. http://www.livescience.com/56396-americans-misinformed-on-climate-change.html http://www.livescience.com/56396-americans-misinformed-on-cl...
brighteyes 10y ago
> The idea that conservatives should be represented in academia is a kind of a affirmative action, ironically No, it would be affirmative action if they were given preferential treatment in order to increase their numbers. If instead just existing discrimination against them were removed, that would not be affirmative action. > Should environmental science departments hire climate change deniers, for ideological diversity? Strawman - no one is suggesting that. Historically, many great scientists have been conservative as well as religious. Many people that fall into those groups accept evolution, climate change, and so forth - for example, the Catholic church accepts both of those. Science isn't a partisan issue. But on college campuses, it looks that way with conservatives a shrinking minority.
- hackuser 10y ago
  I agree that people should not be discriminated against on college campuses for the ideology, only for bad ideas. But I don't know that conservatives are discriminated against or that their numbers are shrinking. I've seen no data, and I've only heard those stories as part of the propaganda campaign to discredit anyone who might oppose the ideologues' movement. EDIT: For some data, see the parent's other post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13352697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13352697
  - brighteyes 10y ago
    E.g. the Boston Magazine link that was posted in this discussion tells the story of a few students that are afraid to "come out" as conservative. That's very common, if you talk to conservatives on campus. Now, this isn't necessarily focused, intentional discrimination. It might just be the usual "it's hard to be a small minority" issue. The majority might be "only" as guilty as it is when it doesn't accomomodate other minorities. But there is more - just look at what people say about conservatives in this very thread. They are a hated minority. Some of their peers are even open enough as to admit their bias in surveys, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/08/survey-finds-social-psychologists-admit-anti-conservative-bias https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/08/survey-finds-...

losteric 10y ago

Get rid of these catch all groups. Reality is not binary. There's nothing stopping a climate change scientist from being fiscally conservative or religiously oriented, there's plenty of room in America for pro-gun pro-choice advocates, or other amalgamations of thought... Similarly, there are plenty of pro-gun rights liberals, Christian pro-choice activists, and anti-globalist pro-spending liberals... Americans need to focus on policies, not parties. The problem isn't liberal colleges or disconnected rural districts... it's the simplified "us vs them" mentality, the complete disregard for policy nuance and critical thinking.

mmirate 10y ago
> the simplified "us vs them" mentality, the complete disregard for policy nuance and critical thinking Pray tell, to what extent would the median-intelligence US citizen understand the words "nuance" and "critical thinking", let alone possess, to a nontrivial extent, the virtues named by those words? After all, the "us vs them" mental data-structure suffices for many things that many people enjoy, such as spectator sports. (And in expressing how HN discussions are in a bubble insofar as participants mostly possess undergraduate educations and/or jobs that normally require such; simply put, that's not a microcosm of the entire US population.) (I'm not saying your suggestion isn't what must happen; I'm saying it isn't in the realm of what can happen.)
- losteric 10y ago
  You're being extremely condescending, everyone is capable of free thinking. Prisoners of Plato's allegorical cave are blind through a lack of opportunity, not a lack of ability. Critically-minded citizens should act as Socratic teachers. Our job is to ask the right questions, gently probing until we've disassembled their chains and lead them to the light. It's a slow path, taken one question at a time.
  - eropple 10y ago
    In a vacuum, I would applaud your thinking. Unfortunately, the nature of a country of three hundred million people means that you've got to scale, and Socratic dialogue doesn't scale. Of course, we've had our educational system trashed, so I'm not sure that's an answer, either...