What you believe should be true limits what you are willing to believe is true.
This was previously published on New Plateaus.
Just looking at the names: Conservative and Liberal (or Progressive), it’s logical to assume that the first group is going to be more apt to resist change: change in policy, style, fashion, technology, tradition, religion, etc. Sometimes what we discovery via science is the trigger for such change. So it makes sense that, at times, conservatives might also be apt to deny certain findings.
Indeed, that’s the conventional wisdom.
It’s why books like this are written: “The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality” by Chris Mooney
However, when we enter politics, another wrinkle gets introduced: ideology—how one believes the world should be. And ideology seems to mean more today than in the recent past. People are more active and reactive, more jumpy and fearful of who gets elected or that bill getting passed or the Supreme Court deciding one way or another. In the realm of that emotion, it’s revealed that ideology creates enemies of science from all sides.
I recently saw this headline from Slate.com succinctly making this very point: “GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left”
GMO refers to genetically modified foods. The headline attacks progressives who rally against such food despite little evidence that they are bad for us to eat. It compares GMO opponents to the conservative politically-minded who deny evidence of climate change.
There are all sorts of other examples.
Stereotypically …
Conservatives don’t like:
-the science behind evolution
-the science behind climate change
-the science behind man-made climate change
-the science showing the benefits of universal health care or any number of other government-funded programs
-the science showing the benefits of treatment over incarceration for addicts
-the science showing that homosexuality is not a choice (but then like the science showing how race and gender imprint certain behavioral attributes)
Liberals don’t like:
-the science behind the safety of genetically modified foods
-the science behind the impact one’s genes has on their intelligence, behavior, and personality—with the notable behavioral exception of sexual orientation.
-the science showing that the income gap between men and women is largely explained by gender roles in marriage
-new technology that allows humans to consume at the level we currently are (Stephen Levitt, author of Freakonomics postulates the theory that among this population there’s an urge to see humanity be punished for what we’ve done to the Earth.)
There are wrinkles within this wrinkle. It’s not exactly apples to apples, because liberals’ problems with science sometimes go the other way: misusing scientific data to promote a cause later revealed to be bogus. Such scares have historically involved climate change and the supposed ends of food, oil, forests, and minerals.
This piece from Reason.com introduces us to some of these wrinkles: Conservatives Don’t Care About Science. (Neither Do Liberals.)
Finally, one could go into economics. It’s not as hard a science, though, so I didn’t mention the shortcomings on both sides, ignorance of the data regarding growing the economy, job creation, fair taxation, and deficit spending.
Whether economics, the use of science for one’s own agenda, or good ‘ole science denial, I think it all boils down to what you’re most afraid of—afraid of change; afraid of being taken advantage of; afraid of others being exploited; afraid of being invaded—that dictates one’s acceptance of truth vs. one’s insistence that their ideology is the way of the world.
to new plateaus,
-Brandon
p.s. I previously wrote about evidence and evolution. This last time was about how hype influences truth as seen in the NFL referee debacle. Here, we looked at how ideology can skew the picture. I hoped you enjoyed this trio of articles : )
Read more on Ethics & Values.
Image credit: jurvetson/Flickr
Sorry for being long-winded. I’ll keep it short:
You may not believe in natural selection, but natural selection believes in you.
I call the bluff of any politician who says the earth is only 9000 years old. I’m not asking you to prove that your theory is accurate. I’m asking you to prove you’re really committed to your theory. Show that you’re willing to stake financial and political capital on your theory. If you’re so sure, then roll the dice. Anybody can attack K12 education. You can bully schoolteachers into teaching almost anything, and taking over a school board is like taking candy from a baby. I’m not impressed. I’d like to see you take on the big boys, the people… Read more »
who you be talkin to?
This seems like a pretty darn specific list of poli-gripes.
A 9000yo Congressional Earth
K-12 Teachers as lesser-beings to Big Boyz
Oil Companies sending pecan sandies
Bio-terrorists, anthrax and bears – Oh My!
Bio-Defense Department who likes Phil Collins?
Alternative life-style Geologists with Natural Gas? Oh My!
Lobbyists? Good goodnessth…not Lobbyists!
Who is this person you be talkin at? Or is this just some sort of angry agenda of God only knows what?
Fair enough. Here’s the story, available in multiple news outlets, which inspired my challenge: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hamilton/the-bible-and-congressman-broun_b_1958689.html I’ll try to speak more plainly. There are these people called “geologists,” and they study the science of the earth, like rocks and volcanoes. They are hired by oil companies to find oil, which comes from the ground. When they search for oil, they use a theory that the Earth is billions of years old. This theory is accurate enough that these geologists have found a lot of oil. The oil companies sell this oil to us, and we use the oil products in our… Read more »
I’m sorry…who in GOD’s name came up with the idea that science had any bloody role or position in the political continuum? Perpetuating the non-fitting relationship as real is a waste of time and hysteria. Why not politicize boxers & briefs? Just say what you want to say and leave poor science out of it! I’ll say: Conservatives love God, Family Values and Wisdom based in evaluation of historical data and experience. They resent and avoid emotionally-based decision-makers that cross-over into their domains. God and Family values exist as primary motivators and natural boundary-makers to all plans and actions. God… Read more »
Thanks for illustrating a classic anti-science attitude hand-in-hand with reflexive anti-liberal generalizations and false assumptions. You’ve helped to clarify precisely why solid scientific facts and evidence are desperately needed in our political process… because reality matters more than opinion. No, really–it does!
LOL…and then there are opinions of reality ya know! Just ask my pals on Thorozine. And I’ve yet to see ANY “solid scientific fact.” Only an arrogant scientist will claim such things. In the 1980s, shrimp was said to contain deadly amounts of Colesterol. 1990s…”ummmm….we think that maybe Shrimp does not contain colesterol. Human-based scientific arrogance is actually pretty amusing to watch in action. In 1900, Tomatoes were factually poisonous. Radiation was factually good for you and harmless when used to help the shoe store elect your proper size. We know jack about the world. We control less-than jack. Hate… Read more »
Umm….if everything is created by God and Nature, then who created God and Nature?
If everything was created by something, then who Created the Creator?
Again. How and why do God and science have to be positioned as mutually exclusive?
In this case I was not separating God and science. (Besides, I don’t think “God and Nature” is the same as “God and science.”)
I was asking about the idea that everything is created by something, “without one exception to date.” If there are no exceptions, that means that God was created by something. If God was not created by something, then that is an exception. One cannot say logically that everything has a creator and say not everything has a creator.
The conservative wisdom of Rick Santorium: using historical data coupled with his wealth of scientific experience: “I think there are a lot of problems with the theory of evolution, and do believe that it is used to promote to a worldview that is anti-theist, that is atheist.” The feminist liberal ‘philosopher’ Luce Irigaray: using her insightful scientific knowledge on the classic scientific masterpiece Principia “…it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us” There is that stupid word privilege again !! We’d be all better off if they moved their wares towards the field… Read more »
I’m reminded of a spoof article that came out 10-15 years ago that was sent to a postmodernist journal. The article suggested that the pull of gravity was something that was entirely socially and culturally constructed. The author used all the important buzzwords and cited all the right people, and it got published, but he sent it in to test how easy it was to get published. When he told them later he wasn’t serious, only half the journal editors were outraged, and the other half thought the joke was itself very postmodern and perfectly appropriate….
For some people, sure, evolution is just cocktail party banter. If you want the best medical care possible, I recommend going to a doctor who DOES subscribe to the theory of evolution. I recommend staying away from a hospital that does not believe in natural selection, if there are any out there. If your doctor really is against the theory of evolution, then no antibiotics for you, not flu vaccine, etc. Heck, he may not even feel the need to wash his hands. If there’s no such thing as evolution, then penicillin should work just as well today as it… Read more »
Sorry, should say “Pleistocene.” I think I just made up the other word.
To “restore” something is to choose a particular desired state and to aim for re-creating that. The concept almost by definition assumes a single, clear state of things. For example, restoring megafauna to North America that will be similar to the ones that disappeared when humans first arrived in the Americas – lions to take the niche of sabre-tooth cats, elephants to take the place of mammoths and mastodons, etc. That is choosing a particular point in the natural history of North America. One could just as easily choose a point before those animals ever appeared anywhere, though it’s obviously… Read more »
The UN defines environmental degradation as “a reduction of the capacity of the environment to meet social and ecological objectives and needs.” Given that standpoint, restoration projects are going to be oriented towards specific goals and have various constraints. In the African lion’s case, there’s no larger ecological purpose for conservation efforts because the lion’s own niche can be filled by the spotted hyena, however it continues to exis in the wild in large part thanks to economic and scientific justifications. There’s a real problem with restoration ecology in that many government policies concerning development and extractive resource use already… Read more »
I submit that “ecological needs” and “healthy ecosystems” are not really scientific concepts at all but cultural and political values. An ecosystem can go through such radical changes that all you’re left with is a few species that take over, like with a giant algae bloom. That’s still an ecosystem. That is still life, and it’s still nature, and it’s still the planet. We have decided that “biodiversity” means “health” for an ecosystem, but that’s our take on things. I support biodiversity. I think it’s a great thing for human survival, but I don’t assign it the value of “healthy… Read more »
Does potable water count as a cultural or political value? Is disease a scientific concept? I’m not saying that an ecosystem can be called alive, but I think it’s an apt metaphor.
The reason that biodiversity is considered an indicator of ecosystem health is not because someone decided that more=better but because (among other things) it increases stability, that is, the ability of an ecosystem to reorganize itself following a disturbance.
Thank you, I think this helps me make my point. Yes, potable water is a crucial goal, and science can help figure out how to make it more available. But it is still a political/cultural goal. When I say it’s political, I don’t mean that it’s therefore automatically not good or rational. Making more water available to people would not really be a scientific goal, per se, unless we were giving people water as part of an experiment. (In that case, it’s a *good* thing that ideology shapes science, because we ought to have rules limiting the use of human… Read more »
I concede that, like medicine or engineering, ecology is an applied, rather than fundamental science. In a materialistic sense, there’s no difference between a rainforest and a cow pasture, or a young child and a person on their deathbed, or a skyscraper and a pile of rubble. What’s your basis for claiming that ecosystems are always in flux? I agree that perturbations (less perjorative than “disturbance, dontchathink?) are happening constantly, from either stochastic events like fire, insect population booms, flooding, phosphorus cycles in a body of water, etc. or anthropogenic ones like introduction of invasive species or clearcutting. However, generally… Read more »
Sure, there are some people out there with peculiar and downright unscientific ideas about environmentalism, but those ideas haven’t been taken seriously in the scientific world for decades. The term “straw man” comes to mind.
Your account of restoration ecology is a pretty extreme misrepresentation. When a site is being considered for intervention, there are actual, quantifiable metrics to be weighed against each other to achieve a desired result. No one is picking a point on a timeline and declaring “pre-anthropogenic disturbance=good”
I just wish I had enough faith left in the scientific and government reporting agencies to actually believe the information provided to me is not skewed towards a desired outcome in all to many cases, or in the news agencies on the right and left to actually do fact based investigative reporting. I would love to feel like a I have objective information to form my opinions around but I honestly don’t even know where to turn to look for one most of the time.
I’m so glad to read someone who’s willing to take on ALL the ideological blind spots in American pop science. Environmentalism is a political and social movement coming out of a very particular late twentieth century context. Sometimes it is driven by important scientific discoveries, and sometimes it is driven by philosophical assumptions that are at best unprovable and at worst flat-out wrong. For example: assumptions about a “natural state,” the fragility of the biosphere, value judgments about ecological “health,” and, ironically, arrogance about the power of human beings. What has happened in American culture is not really the victory… Read more »
wellokaythen,
I like your take. A perspective that includes an ever-changing Earth I believe to be a wise one and you comment about evolution and creationism compromising is intriguing.
Also, I wrote an article for an environmental magazine about how the movement has lost its way due to its alarmism. I interviewed several activists, and the most refreshing were the environmentalists on the Right. They broke the stereotypes and offered a more practical, less emotion-driven plea. It makes me wonder, then, if a more reliable expert on Right-typical issues would be someone from the Left.
I think the doomsday mindset that developed in environmentalism in the 1960’s and 1970’s was in many ways a product of the Cold War. That’s not a full explanation, but I think that certainly contributed to that outlook. The Cold War introduced billions of people to the idea that humans by their own hands could destroy most of the life on the planet, if not all life. It convinced many people that humanity was headed towards a massive dead end. It’s not such a stretch from the fear of global nuclear war to fear of nuclear winter to fear of… Read more »
“Certainly the actual scientific theory of natural selection does not assume that there is a design or an end point. It does not assume there’s a “progress” of any kind. There is no “improvement” involved in evolution.” Yes. Its seems as though we have forgotten the lessons of the past or maybe never learned them. Getting rid of teleological explanations was supposed to be a victory of science but with environmentalism telelogy has come right back. “For example: assumptions about a “natural state,” the fragility of the biosphere, value judgments about ecological “health,” and, ironically, arrogance about the power of… Read more »
The idea that the universe or the Earth or the biosphere is in some sort of “delicate balance” is really a philosophical or even theological assumption, not something well-supported by scientific study. We see equilibrium or balance because that’s what we’ve chosen to see, not because it’s really there. It seems “delicate” because it doesn’t really exist, so it looks like we’re always losing it. Cosmologically, the universe is not really a balanced system, if by balance we mean permanently sustainable or cyclical. (Probably) eventually, all the stars will burn out, all life on earth will end. The universe is… Read more »
Yes indeed. Entropy rules and there are no exceptions to this rule. Everything else is a passage of time.
Hmm…
Is entropy subject to entropy? If everything is subject to entropy without exception, then that means entropy is subject to entropy. If entropy is exempt from entropy, then there is a non-entropic part of the universe.
Reminds me of the omnipotence paradox: if God can do anything, can He make something so big He can’t move it? If He can, then he’s not all-powerful. If He can’t, then he’s not all-powerful.
So, is entropy subject to itself?
I’m what’s called a “splitter.” I have a natural instinct to rebel against ideas that suggest there are no exceptions.
I’m not sure what you mean by: is entropy subject to entropy. Is dirty subject to dirty -:)
The arrow of time has been debated for quite a while, and the best explanation to date, is that overall entropy always increases (local entropy does not have to), and this is the underlying concept that drives the perception for the arrow of time.
That old saying: if you are not a liberal before you are twenty you have no heart but if you are a liberal after you are twenty you have no brain. There is a clear clustering of both liberal and conservative beliefs, to be sure – with emphasis on beliefs and more precisely, emotional beliefs. Few beliefs are based in rationality. As Pinker wrote, the divide of liberal and conservative is better understood as a difference in vision: Tragic Vision (cluster of conservative beliefs): humans are limited in knowledge, wisdom and virtues and society must recognize these limitations – “from… Read more »
elissa: “The scientific method cares zero about either of the above belief systems, which is why both liberal and conservative clustering of beliefs systems are more emotional attachments than a search for truth.” Not entirely. I am less likely to believe the science of liberals simply because, as you suggest, their “truth” is something they want to use to “fashion a better world.” Your conservative version carries no implications for me (for the most part). A conservative “truth” is less likely to have an immediate policy solution that is implicated. So, to use global warming, I do not trust the… Read more »
I’m not sure about the live and let live: some standard conservative clusters of beliefs (not yours necessarily):
Restrictions on abortion, prostitution, and drugs, strong military (draft), importance of religion within a society, tougher on crime, generally more censorship of various mediums, more defined family and social structures (same sex marriage for example), stronger adherence to mostly mythical original principles – all of these things can be limits on your freedom.
elissa,
Yes, all those things can be limits on freedom and certain strains of conservatism are more “libertarian” than others. However, only two of the ones you mentioned are really science-driven: abortion and same-sex marriage. prostitution, drugs and the military, for example, are not positions driven by any claim of “science.”
With abortion, yes, the belief that the fetus is a unique person does drive the policy. Gay marriage is a bit different. There, conservatives are opposing the policy consequences emanating from liberal “truth.” So, they are fighting fire with fire, so to speak.
-Jut
Counterpoint: Conservative ‘truths’ DO have immediate policy implications… look no further than ‘drill, baby, drill.’
Or “let’s pass a law specifically for Terri Schiavo.” And if you think mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasounds are “live and let live,” you’re kidding yourself.
Regarding Terry Schiavo, I agree. It was a dumb resolution (or law, whatever it was). However, on a state level, pass whatever you want. Medicine is regulated by the state; if Florida wanted to pass that law restricting the practice of medicine, fine, whatever. Same with trans-vaginal ultrasounds. It is a legitimate medical procedure that can be diagnostically necessary. Again, it is a medical issue that should be addressed by the states. And, those might be examples of ideologically-driven issues. But, “drill baby drill”? How do you figure? That is more of an economic decision. I can say, “burning of… Read more »
Abortion isn’t science driven. They are trying to put personhood on something that Dies NATURALLY 50% of the time. You gonna jail every last women for having a period?
Just Passing: I have news for you: we put personhood on people, as well, and, left to their own devices, die NATURALLY 100% of the time. And, if they don’t die naturally, but at the hands of others, we call that a crime. But, don’t fool yourself. The whole (or almost the whole) pro-life/pro-choice debate is an attempt to use science and logic to determine whether or not abortion should be permissible. And, if you think your “period” example is actually a relevant counterargument, I do not think you really understand the pro-life position to begin with. But, to answer… Read more »
Hmm…drilling in the Arctic vs. legalized abortion.
I see a perfect compromise for both sides. If the oil companies can discover a way to get oil from human fetuses, then government under either party will definitely make abortion more widely available. If only the big corporations could find a way to make (more?) money from abortions, you could get a lot more Republican politicians behind it. Win win.
As I suggest below, “drill, baby, drill” translates into:
“Hire more geologists to find more oil based on the theory that the earth is billions of years old, which is what people who actually work with the earth believe. Let’s increase production using a theory we don’t think is true but is certainly good enough to make a lot of money This money gained from the theory can then fund my campaign that says the theory isn’t true.”
It’s the proponents of GMO foods who are ignoring science.
For example…???
Some reasons to be very, very cautious:
GMOs Linked to Organ Disruption in 19 Studies: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/?p=1340
Toxin from GM crops found in human blood: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/toxin-from-gm-crops-found-in-human-blood/1/137728.html
GMOs Alter the Genetic Make Up of Our Healthy Bacteria: http://www.naturalnews.com/028635_GMOs_bacteria.html#ixzz28pHS6v7m
Now glyphosate found in people’s urine: http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/13631
US Doctors’ Association Calls for Moratorium on GMO Foods: http://www.financialsensearchive.com/editorials/engdahl/2009/0521.html
You’ve posted heavily discredited studies like Seralini and Aria that’s been universally rejected by the science community. And the opinion of a fake medical group called “American Academy of Environmental Medicine” who is listed under Quackwatch. There is broad scientific consensus that GM food is not as riskier, and often times is actually safer, than conventional plant breeding techniques. There is not a single major science organization that have stated GM food as dangerous. This is based on over 25 years of research based on over a hundred different peer reviewed studies on the safety of GM food. Problems with… Read more »
One of the great recent examples here is seen in the ways in which the very methodological and framing faults that one side will excoriate the other for sociological research in the area of same-sex marriage are even more egregiously committed by their own side. We tend to be rather generous when it comes to the standard to which we hold research that underwrites our prejudices, whatever those prejudices happen to be.
Also note that hysteria over vaccines supposedly causing autism is largely found on the left. As is New Age foolishness, most types of “alternative” medicine, etc.
Great point, Copyleft! One, because I forgot about that issue, and two, because I know anti-gov’t folks on the right who also have serious disdain for vaccines.
It always intrigues me when the left and right come together, questioning our ideas of political ideology being on a straight line continuum. I think, rather, it’s more of circle. Vaccines also do a “nice” job of combining the two great fears that define the right and the left: fear of gov’t mandating vaccines and fear of corporations pushing them.
It’s not “alternative” when it was used for thousands of years before modern medicine came to be known. and go figure society ended up surviving long enough to discover modern medicine.
Personally. I’d rather depend on God’s medecine than Man’s. (wow how conservitive of me)
Of course any moron can watch any, ANY, ad for medicine and see that HALF the commercial is reserved for potential side effects.
Yes, we survived via something called the ‘scientific method,’ which tested claims objectively and made conclusions based on evidence… something that seems in remarkably short supply in the alt-medicine/quack trade. We also died astoundingly fast and often back then, you know.
Do you know what they call alternative medicine that’s been tested and proven to actually work? Medicine.