4 ms·

No surprise that Republicans distrust so-called science (and rightfully so, imo) > a 2014 study found that "[b]y 2006, however, the ratio of Democrats to Repub

No surprise that Republicans distrust so-called science (and rightfully so, imo) > a 2014 study found that "[b]y 2006, however, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans had climbed to more than 11:1." [0] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_American_academics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_American_... Many of those "progressive" academics put politics above truth and support curbing free speech if it's "harmful", acadamics who stray from the orthodoxy are silenced and lose their jobs. The fact that sociology, anthropology (especially things like Critical Social Justice Theory, Critical Race Theory) are considered to be scientific [1] and that studies that go counter to any common sense are spread by the media as fact add to that. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair Any reasonable person can see that many academics in the humanities have the goal of bringing about social change and not actually finding the truth and that muddies the waters, so it's not surprising that people start doubting science as a whole, including STEM.

SenAnder 3y ago
> Many of those "progressive" academics put politics above truth. Such a claim needs a citation. So here it is: 157 university [institutional review boards] provided reviews of 9 hypothetical proposals that were identical in their treatment of human Ss but differed in sociopolitical sensitivity and in level of ethical concerns (e.g., presence or absence of deception, debriefing). [..] Nonsensitive proposals that did not involve ethical problems were approved 95% of the time vs only 40–50% of the time for comparable sensitive ones. Content analysis of the narratives that accompanied decisions revealed that the primary reason for rejection of sensitive proposals was the potential political impact of the proposed findings (e.g., discrediting of affirmative action policies). [0] As for the Wikipedia article on political views of American academics, it's amusing to see it include a section on loyalty oaths during McCarthyism [1], but nothing on the fact that diversity statements are, today, required for one-fifth of academic jobs in the US [2]. Edit: I should clarify how damning a result the 50% vs 95% approval rate really is. At first glance it seems like there would be half as many published studies with politically unfavorable results than there should be. But it's far worse, because the people on the review boards are a sample of the researchers. If half the time they will deny a valid study for political reasons, how likely are they to propose such a study? In other words, they're like goalkeepers. They let the opponent's ball score half the time. But there is nearly nobody on the opposing team. They have a 50% fail rate at defending their goal, they don't have a relative 50% chance at scoring an own goal. [0] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-12806-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-12806-001 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_American_academics#McCarthyism_and_loyalty_oaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_American_ac... [2] https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-statements-required-for-one-fifth-of-academic-jobs/ https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-...

SenAnder 3y ago

> Many of those "progressive" academics put politics above truth. Such a claim needs a citation. So here it is: 157 university [institutional review boards] provided reviews of 9 hypothetical proposals that were identical in their treatment of human Ss but differed in sociopolitical sensitivity and in level of ethical concerns (e.g., presence or absence of deception, debriefing). [..] Nonsensitive proposals that did not involve ethical problems were approved 95% of the time vs only 40–50% of the time for comparable sensitive ones. Content analysis of the narratives that accompanied decisions revealed that the primary reason for rejection of sensitive proposals was the potential political impact of the proposed findings (e.g., discrediting of affirmative action policies). [0] As for the Wikipedia article on political views of American academics, it's amusing to see it include a section on loyalty oaths during McCarthyism [1], but nothing on the fact that diversity statements are, today, required for one-fifth of academic jobs in the US [2]. Edit: I should clarify how damning a result the 50% vs 95% approval rate really is. At first glance it seems like there would be half as many published studies with politically unfavorable results than there should be. But it's far worse, because the people on the review boards are a sample of the researchers. If half the time they will deny a valid study for political reasons, how likely are they to propose such a study? In other words, they're like goalkeepers. They let the opponent's ball score half the time. But there is nearly nobody on the opposing team. They have a 50% fail rate at defending their goal, they don't have a relative 50% chance at scoring an own goal. [0] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-12806-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-12806-001 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_American_academics#McCarthyism_and_loyalty_oaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_American_ac... [2] https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-statements-required-for-one-fifth-of-academic-jobs/ https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-...