8 ms·

It's weird. If conservatives don't believe scientists, it's because the conservatives are labelled "morons". Could it be that conservatives just think there's

by MR4D 10y ago

It's weird. If conservatives don't believe scientists, it's because the conservatives are labelled "morons". Could it be that conservatives just think there's a lot more of this crappy "science" out there, and that a situation like this is the canary in the coal mine? When presented with examples like this, it's actually _irrational_ to think that there aren't other egregious papers out there. Possibly just a few, but possibly a large number of them. Thoughts?

wbillingsley 10y ago
Of course there are lots. There's a bucket-load of papers get published every year, and sometimes reviewers are in a hurry too and miss things. A miniscule number of papers ever replicated, and replication studies regularly find reproducability rates of less than 50%. Fortunately, critical thought does not stop at the point of publication. When researchers read each other's papers they (hopefully) do not blindly assume them to be bug-free.
- comstock 10y ago
  I think there's a general popular misunderstanding of the process of science as it is generally practiced. A single paper isn't as meaningful as you might think. It's more like an interesting blog post. You might use it as a starting point for your own investigation. A single paper does not represent "the truth" as we currently understand it. For that you need to have a broad scientific consensus. You might be able to get a better understanding of that from review papers citing recent advances in the field. Or from attending conferences/reading a broad range of papers yourself.
throwaway729 10y ago
My thought: ridiculous false equivalency. Conservatives don't distrust science carte blanc. Many of them will chuck money at asinine bullshit as long as it's billed as a way to kill the other team. Check out some of the more ridiculous stuff to come out of DoD. They distrust climate science. And they don't distrust the actual science, just the conclusions. And increasingly not even the most basic conclusion, just the most obvious causal theory behind that conclusion. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
- theWatcher37 10y ago
  Meanwhile, anti-vax is huge in liberal soccer-mom only-shops-at-whole-foods cities. The left has its fair share of science-denying morons as well.
  - skj 10y ago
    Plenty of anti-vaxers on the right, and the left makes plenty of fun of the ones on the left. Not really the same as climate deniers.
  - mtberatwork 10y ago
    > Meanwhile, anti-vax is huge in liberal soccer-mom only-shops-at-whole-foods cities. Is it really "huge"? Some links to polling data might help here otherwise I would also be reticent to proclaim that it's comparable to climate denial-ism. After all, we have a president that has publicly proclaimed climate change to be a hoax and sitting members of congress that eagerly attack climate scientists on their research [1]. [1] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/lamar-smith-unbound-lays-out-political-strategy-climate-doubters-conference http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/lamar-smith-unbound-l...
    - MagnumOpus 10y ago
      That same president has of course also publicly proclaimed vaccines to cause autism. He and his tens of millions of followers are the antithesis of the liberal soccer mum, of course. [1] http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-vaccines-autism-wrong-2017-1 http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-vaccines-autism-wrong-20...
  - viggity 10y ago
    The difference between vaccines and climate change is that we have hard evidence on vaccines. You can create a hypothesis and do a randomized double blind experiment. The results are conclusive. Climate Science is a bunch of computer models are not testable. When they're run and compared to what actually happened they're always off. e.g. Name a single climate science model that predicted "the pause" starting in '98? Climate Scientists don't release their model's code. They don't release the exact data that went into their model. Shit, isn't that one of the complaints about Wansink? That he isn't sharing his data? I'm not saying climate change isn't real, I'm saying that the level of certainty that climate scientists proclaim is problematic. I'm saying that labeling dissenters as deniers (reminiscent of holocaust deniers) is beyond the pale. I'm saying that fossil fuels have done more to advance the human condition than anything else in history of mankind.
kem 10y ago
I've had this same conversation with colleagues. I think there's a mixture of things going on. There's a lot more of this going on in a lot of fields, especially the biomedical and social sciences, but probably everywhere. I think conservatives are correct to pick up on this general phenomenon. They know there's a lot of systemic problems with research and academics, and approach things from that perspective. The problem, to me, is that they then overstep and use that to justify an equally pernicious position, which is to denounce or dismiss science in general, rather than to encourage fixes or constructive change. Of course, depending on the conservative, they're more likely denounce scientific research on certain topics and areas of research than others. It's throwing baby out with bathwater, basically. The scientific community then reacts poorly, in my opinion, by denying the kernel of truth there is to their concerns, and not addressing them. You can see this playing out in some conservative blogs. They're aware of the replication crisis, discuss it, and point to things like the email leaks by climate scientists, which in my memory were scientifically sort of moot, but did reveal how much scientists are very much human with human flaws and motivations. Maybe I'm wrong, though, and the typical response from the scientific community is best, though: maybe it's better to treat the problems with science separate from the conservative attacks, to tackle one problem at a time. I guess I see two problems, one being problems with academics and science, the other being the involvement of politicians in science. I think the second thing only makes the first problem worse. It's not like the politicians aren't serving their own unholy masters.
- theWatcher37 10y ago
  Also some of them are older and remember the "2nd iceage" and "uncontrollable acid rain" doom and gloom. Unfortunately the media has done a lot to poison the well on these topics, coupled with politicians all too happy to never let a crisis go to waste. Republicans yelling "small government" while trying to make a government big enough to police your bedroom. Democrats yell about stopping climate change and pump billions into crony companies that blow up and fail (all the while laundering taxpayer cash as campaign donations, republicans do this with defense groups). So you get leftists going "we shouldn't like, have new fighter jets man" and right ringers thinking global warming is a laundering scheme.
mythrwy 10y ago
It should be noted that some conservatives believe in man made climate change. (although they may differ on an appropriate response). And presumably (although I've never seen it) there is at least one liberal who doesn't.
- staticautomatic 10y ago
  Why should there be liberals who do not believe in global warming?
  - ajkjk 10y ago
    It's just statistically likely.
    - nashashmi 10y ago
      But then he is called a conservative.
      - ajkjk 10y ago
        No, that's not true. One's beliefs about climate change are not their politics; they just tend to correlate highly with politics.
        nashashmi 10y ago
        I meant more like "He must be a conservative!" kind of explanation (and therefore he should be ignored??).
    - staticautomatic 10y ago
      How so?
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Why shouldn't there?
theparanoid 10y ago
Some areas of science are mostly quackery. Nutrition for one. Some areas are resistant to quackery like physics and chemistry. And most are a mix like medicine. In school we're taught that every field is as self correcting as physics. Reality seems to be different.
- fao_ 10y ago
  > Nutrition for one. "Nutrition" isn't an area of science. Dietetics is, and is a very firm and established field. A lot of the false claims and bad dietary advice come from Nutritionists, which (in the UK at least) isn't a protected term. Anyone can claim to be a Nutritionist, and Nutritionists aren't known for rigourous data.
bryanrasmussen 10y ago
Hey, most likely all of them that reach conclusions abhorrent to the financial backers of conservative politicians and media!
Nomentatus 10y ago
Unfortunately, the academy and profit-driven-science have given anti-intellectuals and science-rejecting conservatives all too much ammunition over the last several decades. (None of which shows that armchair psuedo-science, or just pulling stuff out of your ass is a better way, of course.) [very good overview:] "https://reason.com/archives/2016/01/19/broken-science/print https://reason.com/archives/2016/01/19/broken-science/print http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/a-scientific-look-at-bad-science/399371/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/a-scient... " "The numbers speak for themselves: evidence based medicine is broken and in crisis. Cites: Ramirez JH. Data (i.e., evidence) about evidence based medicine. figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1093997 http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1093997 http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3725/rr/759895 http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3725/rr/759895

by MR4D 10y ago

wbillingsley 10y ago

Of course there are lots. There's a bucket-load of papers get published every year, and sometimes reviewers are in a hurry too and miss things. A miniscule number of papers ever replicated, and replication studies regularly find reproducability rates of less than 50%. Fortunately, critical thought does not stop at the point of publication. When researchers read each other's papers they (hopefully) do not blindly assume them to be bug-free.

comstock 10y ago
I think there's a general popular misunderstanding of the process of science as it is generally practiced. A single paper isn't as meaningful as you might think. It's more like an interesting blog post. You might use it as a starting point for your own investigation. A single paper does not represent "the truth" as we currently understand it. For that you need to have a broad scientific consensus. You might be able to get a better understanding of that from review papers citing recent advances in the field. Or from attending conferences/reading a broad range of papers yourself.

throwaway729 10y ago

My thought: ridiculous false equivalency. Conservatives don't distrust science carte blanc. Many of them will chuck money at asinine bullshit as long as it's billed as a way to kill the other team. Check out some of the more ridiculous stuff to come out of DoD. They distrust climate science. And they don't distrust the actual science, just the conclusions. And increasingly not even the most basic conclusion, just the most obvious causal theory behind that conclusion. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

theWatcher37 10y ago
Meanwhile, anti-vax is huge in liberal soccer-mom only-shops-at-whole-foods cities. The left has its fair share of science-denying morons as well.
- skj 10y ago
  Plenty of anti-vaxers on the right, and the left makes plenty of fun of the ones on the left. Not really the same as climate deniers.
- mtberatwork 10y ago
  > Meanwhile, anti-vax is huge in liberal soccer-mom only-shops-at-whole-foods cities. Is it really "huge"? Some links to polling data might help here otherwise I would also be reticent to proclaim that it's comparable to climate denial-ism. After all, we have a president that has publicly proclaimed climate change to be a hoax and sitting members of congress that eagerly attack climate scientists on their research [1]. [1] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/lamar-smith-unbound-lays-out-political-strategy-climate-doubters-conference http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/lamar-smith-unbound-l...
  - MagnumOpus 10y ago
    That same president has of course also publicly proclaimed vaccines to cause autism. He and his tens of millions of followers are the antithesis of the liberal soccer mum, of course. [1] http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-vaccines-autism-wrong-2017-1 http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-vaccines-autism-wrong-20...
- viggity 10y ago
  The difference between vaccines and climate change is that we have hard evidence on vaccines. You can create a hypothesis and do a randomized double blind experiment. The results are conclusive. Climate Science is a bunch of computer models are not testable. When they're run and compared to what actually happened they're always off. e.g. Name a single climate science model that predicted "the pause" starting in '98? Climate Scientists don't release their model's code. They don't release the exact data that went into their model. Shit, isn't that one of the complaints about Wansink? That he isn't sharing his data? I'm not saying climate change isn't real, I'm saying that the level of certainty that climate scientists proclaim is problematic. I'm saying that labeling dissenters as deniers (reminiscent of holocaust deniers) is beyond the pale. I'm saying that fossil fuels have done more to advance the human condition than anything else in history of mankind.

kem 10y ago

I've had this same conversation with colleagues. I think there's a mixture of things going on. There's a lot more of this going on in a lot of fields, especially the biomedical and social sciences, but probably everywhere. I think conservatives are correct to pick up on this general phenomenon. They know there's a lot of systemic problems with research and academics, and approach things from that perspective. The problem, to me, is that they then overstep and use that to justify an equally pernicious position, which is to denounce or dismiss science in general, rather than to encourage fixes or constructive change. Of course, depending on the conservative, they're more likely denounce scientific research on certain topics and areas of research than others. It's throwing baby out with bathwater, basically. The scientific community then reacts poorly, in my opinion, by denying the kernel of truth there is to their concerns, and not addressing them. You can see this playing out in some conservative blogs. They're aware of the replication crisis, discuss it, and point to things like the email leaks by climate scientists, which in my memory were scientifically sort of moot, but did reveal how much scientists are very much human with human flaws and motivations. Maybe I'm wrong, though, and the typical response from the scientific community is best, though: maybe it's better to treat the problems with science separate from the conservative attacks, to tackle one problem at a time. I guess I see two problems, one being problems with academics and science, the other being the involvement of politicians in science. I think the second thing only makes the first problem worse. It's not like the politicians aren't serving their own unholy masters.

theWatcher37 10y ago
Also some of them are older and remember the "2nd iceage" and "uncontrollable acid rain" doom and gloom. Unfortunately the media has done a lot to poison the well on these topics, coupled with politicians all too happy to never let a crisis go to waste. Republicans yelling "small government" while trying to make a government big enough to police your bedroom. Democrats yell about stopping climate change and pump billions into crony companies that blow up and fail (all the while laundering taxpayer cash as campaign donations, republicans do this with defense groups). So you get leftists going "we shouldn't like, have new fighter jets man" and right ringers thinking global warming is a laundering scheme.

mythrwy 10y ago

It should be noted that some conservatives believe in man made climate change. (although they may differ on an appropriate response). And presumably (although I've never seen it) there is at least one liberal who doesn't.

staticautomatic 10y ago
Why should there be liberals who do not believe in global warming?
- ajkjk 10y ago
  It's just statistically likely.
  - nashashmi 10y ago
    But then he is called a conservative.
    - ajkjk 10y ago
      No, that's not true. One's beliefs about climate change are not their politics; they just tend to correlate highly with politics.
      - nashashmi 10y ago
        I meant more like "He must be a conservative!" kind of explanation (and therefore he should be ignored??).
  - staticautomatic 10y ago
    How so?
- throwanem 10y ago
  Why shouldn't there?

theparanoid 10y ago

Some areas of science are mostly quackery. Nutrition for one. Some areas are resistant to quackery like physics and chemistry. And most are a mix like medicine. In school we're taught that every field is as self correcting as physics. Reality seems to be different.

fao_ 10y ago
> Nutrition for one. "Nutrition" isn't an area of science. Dietetics is, and is a very firm and established field. A lot of the false claims and bad dietary advice come from Nutritionists, which (in the UK at least) isn't a protected term. Anyone can claim to be a Nutritionist, and Nutritionists aren't known for rigourous data.

bryanrasmussen 10y ago

Hey, most likely all of them that reach conclusions abhorrent to the financial backers of conservative politicians and media!

Nomentatus 10y ago

Unfortunately, the academy and profit-driven-science have given anti-intellectuals and science-rejecting conservatives all too much ammunition over the last several decades. (None of which shows that armchair psuedo-science, or just pulling stuff out of your ass is a better way, of course.) [very good overview:] "https://reason.com/archives/2016/01/19/broken-science/print https://reason.com/archives/2016/01/19/broken-science/print http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/a-scientific-look-at-bad-science/399371/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/a-scient... " "The numbers speak for themselves: evidence based medicine is broken and in crisis. Cites: Ramirez JH. Data (i.e., evidence) about evidence based medicine. figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1093997 http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1093997 http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3725/rr/759895 http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3725/rr/759895