4 ms·

Disclaimer: I'm not American. But my view is that the American right has placed itself outside the Overton window of anyone with a higher education. For exampl

Disclaimer: I'm not American. But my view is that the American right has placed itself outside the Overton window of anyone with a higher education. For example, the President is a climate change denier. How do you expect those views to be represented in universities when they fly in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence? In most countries, this problem doesn't exist because parties with ideas equivalent to the GOP don't exist or are marginal.

throwaway7312 9y ago
Climate change isn't a very good example. Individuals who subscribe to anthropogenic global warming and individuals who are skeptical of it have equal levels of scientific comprehension. [1] It's more accurate to note that either side of the political divide in the United States has its share of unscientific beliefs. On the right, you have things like creationism and anti-vaxxers. On the left, you have things like gender theory and anti-GMO. Dismissing either side as rubes because of deeply held (if unscientific) ideologies doesn't help bridge the divide any. >> In most countries, this problem doesn't exist because parties with ideas equivalent to the GOP don't exist or are marginal. As an American who has not lived in or visited America for quite some time, I agree there is typically more uniformity in most intranational political ideologies worldwide. Though I would not agree "most countries" don't have parties similar to America's GOP. I think it'd be more accurate to say most Western European and Western European-descent countries do not have parties like America's GOP. Meanwhile, most non-Western European or non-Western European-descent countries do not have parties like America's Democrat Party. For example, every major political party in Asia and Africa, with very few exceptions, pursues an ethnonationalist agenda. This is more akin to the modern American GOP than the modern American Democrat Party. On the other hand, in Western Europe, ethnonationalist parties tend to be not only out of favor, but illegal. America is a rather strange country politically in that regard. Half of it is more like Western Europe. The other half is more like the rest of the world. In that sense, I suppose it is a bit like if you created a country made up half of England and half of China. The result would be a type of tumult similar to that of the U.S. (if a bit more extreme). [1] https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1148067 https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1148067
- pm90 9y ago
  The right and left are not equivalent. While anti-GMO may be a personal preference for many hipsters, its most certainly not the defining agenda of the left. Also the left seem to be much more willing to change their beliefs in the face of scientific evidence, whereas the Right is more theology, faith and other such nonsense. So don't say they're equivalent, because they simply aren't.
  - please_be_real 9y ago
    the left refuses to acknowledge that a fetus is a life... yet they are still pro abortion. so whats that mean for your claim of "scientific evidence" ?
moduspol 9y ago
> For example, the President is a climate change denier. How do you expect those views to be represented in universities when they fly in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence? That scientific evidence is created, studied and reviewed by people who self-select to study it and are very much part of the overwhelming liberal bias in academia. That's not to say the evidence isn't valid--but this is kind of a "chicken and egg" situation. If you already distrust academia, you are less likely to unconditionally accept that groupthink and bias could have no possible impact on the conclusions. You can't personally measure changes in climate without implicitly trusting the measurements and adjustments of these institutions, so it's tougher to accept the need for dramatic changes in policy. Put differently: If science in academia had more conservative thinkers, the party's position might change, or at least soften over time. Or it's even possible the science could be made better by having more diverse viewpoints in the fields.
ataturk 9y ago
There's a difference between being skeptical about all things and being a "climate change denier" which is just a label to batter opponents with. Science, first and foremost, must remain objective. All too many times in the past humanity has learned that everything we believe ended up being wrong. In fact, that is a law of humanity--what we perceive is wrong, what we measure is flawed, how we measure and deduce is subject to change. Thinking evolves via a marketplace of ideas and experimentation, not because one group or another tells us all this is how it is. Copernicus was not believed about Heliocentrism. Galileo was put on trial for his beliefs about the same issue.

throwaway7312 9y ago

Climate change isn't a very good example. Individuals who subscribe to anthropogenic global warming and individuals who are skeptical of it have equal levels of scientific comprehension. [1] It's more accurate to note that either side of the political divide in the United States has its share of unscientific beliefs. On the right, you have things like creationism and anti-vaxxers. On the left, you have things like gender theory and anti-GMO. Dismissing either side as rubes because of deeply held (if unscientific) ideologies doesn't help bridge the divide any. >> In most countries, this problem doesn't exist because parties with ideas equivalent to the GOP don't exist or are marginal. As an American who has not lived in or visited America for quite some time, I agree there is typically more uniformity in most intranational political ideologies worldwide. Though I would not agree "most countries" don't have parties similar to America's GOP. I think it'd be more accurate to say most Western European and Western European-descent countries do not have parties like America's GOP. Meanwhile, most non-Western European or non-Western European-descent countries do not have parties like America's Democrat Party. For example, every major political party in Asia and Africa, with very few exceptions, pursues an ethnonationalist agenda. This is more akin to the modern American GOP than the modern American Democrat Party. On the other hand, in Western Europe, ethnonationalist parties tend to be not only out of favor, but illegal. America is a rather strange country politically in that regard. Half of it is more like Western Europe. The other half is more like the rest of the world. In that sense, I suppose it is a bit like if you created a country made up half of England and half of China. The result would be a type of tumult similar to that of the U.S. (if a bit more extreme). [1] https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1148067 https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1148067

pm90 9y ago
The right and left are not equivalent. While anti-GMO may be a personal preference for many hipsters, its most certainly not the defining agenda of the left. Also the left seem to be much more willing to change their beliefs in the face of scientific evidence, whereas the Right is more theology, faith and other such nonsense. So don't say they're equivalent, because they simply aren't.
- please_be_real 9y ago
  the left refuses to acknowledge that a fetus is a life... yet they are still pro abortion. so whats that mean for your claim of "scientific evidence" ?

moduspol 9y ago

> For example, the President is a climate change denier. How do you expect those views to be represented in universities when they fly in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence? That scientific evidence is created, studied and reviewed by people who self-select to study it and are very much part of the overwhelming liberal bias in academia. That's not to say the evidence isn't valid--but this is kind of a "chicken and egg" situation. If you already distrust academia, you are less likely to unconditionally accept that groupthink and bias could have no possible impact on the conclusions. You can't personally measure changes in climate without implicitly trusting the measurements and adjustments of these institutions, so it's tougher to accept the need for dramatic changes in policy. Put differently: If science in academia had more conservative thinkers, the party's position might change, or at least soften over time. Or it's even possible the science could be made better by having more diverse viewpoints in the fields.

ataturk 9y ago

There's a difference between being skeptical about all things and being a "climate change denier" which is just a label to batter opponents with. Science, first and foremost, must remain objective. All too many times in the past humanity has learned that everything we believe ended up being wrong. In fact, that is a law of humanity--what we perceive is wrong, what we measure is flawed, how we measure and deduce is subject to change. Thinking evolves via a marketplace of ideas and experimentation, not because one group or another tells us all this is how it is. Copernicus was not believed about Heliocentrism. Galileo was put on trial for his beliefs about the same issue.