Anti intellectualism directed against science.

stevevw said:

Am I really. If its a non issue then why is there a culture war happening over this at the moment. Why are so many in the know including those within education saying its a problem. Why have the majority of States banned or are planning to ban CRT and its tenets being taught in schools.

Click to expand...

Because if there's no boogyman to be scared of, how will they get people to vote for them?

Expanding on my previous comment about social constructs... The national border between the US and Canada is a social construct. Nevertheless, if you divide residents into Americans and Canadians, there are genetic differences between the two groups, meaning that there is a correlation between citizenship and genetics. This fact does not mean that US/Canadian citizenship has a basis in human genetics or other biology.

sfs said:

Because if there's no boogyman to be scared of, how will they get people to vote for them?

Click to expand...

I guess thats a bit like the Woke ideology being promoted by the Left. By creating this monster of Western oppressors over minority victims that society needs saving from. The point is both the Left and the Right of politics are peddling mistruths over facts aned truth and this is dictating how we live as a society through policy and law and to some extent the reality we find ourselves in today.

sfs said:

Expanding on my previous comment about social constructs... The national border between the US and Canada is a social construct. Nevertheless, if you divide residents into Americans and Canadians, there are genetic differences between the two groups, meaning that there is a correlation between citizenship and genetics. This fact does not mean that US/Canadian citizenship has a basis in human genetics or other biology.

Click to expand...

I think this is a false analogy of the genetic basis for race. America and Canada are relatively recently formed nations so most peoples ancestory won't trace back to these contries. But you can establish over 99% accuracy through genetics of a persons self identified race/ethnicity to around four groups of race being “white, black, Hispanic, and East Asian”.

In areas where the populations have not migrated as much such as in Europe you can link their self identified race/ethnicity to a specific geograophical location of within 300km for 50% and 700km for 90% of their race/ethnicity. So you can in the wideer scale of populations use borders (geographical areas) which do correspond to race/ethnicity in most cases. You can even trace those in the US to specific locations around the world.

The point is Woke and CRT ideology and even some science as the AMA paper claims that there is no biological or genetic basis for race/ethnicity is simply wrong and misleading. Thats because the basis for their conclusions is about politics and not science. They want to deny facts because it doesn't align with their ideological view which is anti-intellectual..


Rosenberg et al. reporting that “one can show by using data from many genes and gene sites, and clustering algorithms, that humanity can be shown to form genetic clusters that correspond to geography which of course correspond to evolutionary history.” This association of location with genetic clustering (and these geographic clusters do correspond to old “classical” notions of race) is not without scientific meaning, because the groupings represent the history of human migration and genetic isolation.

Even within Europe, a paper by Novembre et al. reported, using half a million DNA sites, 50% of individuals could be placed within 310 km of their reported origin and 90% within 700 km of their origin. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.

If races/ethnic groups can be diagnosed with over 99% accuracy by using information from many bits of the genome, then the statement “Race and ethnicity are social constructs, without scientific or biological meaning” is simply wrong.
Once again: are “races” social constructs without scientific or biological meaning?

Hans Blaster said:

The "culture war" is being "fought" by the reactionary right to the slow evolution of our society. "CRT" is one of the rally points they use in their "war".

Click to expand...

The reactionary Right in the Culture war though sometimes exaggerated is a reaction to radical ideologies of the Left. So boths sides are guilty of anti intellectuial thinking. Its not about slowing the natural evolution of societal change. Its about intervening to socially engineer unnatural changes.

Social evolutionary change comes naturally and doesn't need to be forced upon society and the majority can see the sense in it. But that is exactly what Woke and PC ideology does. It polices speech and thinking and imposes an ideological belief on society that many disagree with.

Theres an important difference between equality which I think Western society has achieved great progress and equity where the ideology thinks its not enough and we need to completely tear down the West and reengineer it according to a particular belief about the world and that despite any efforts to make society equal and fair that this is just another sign of Whites trying to control society to benefit them. In that sense its anti science as it denies the natural evolution of things and places human made ideologies as the driver.

Hans Blaster said:

But let's get back to attacks on science...

Click to expand...

Todays version of CRT and Woke is an attack on science. But lets say we do move on to other forms of anti science thinking what forms would these be. Because I think you will find no matter the reason for being anti science the same type of thinking will apply that is behind these ideological positions. As I mentioned earlier even science in the form of scientism can be anti science and anti intellectual.

sfs said:

But what biological basis is there that has any relevance to, well, anything? Even framing the issue as whether there are biological differences between the races already relies on the kind of misconception I'm talking about. Racial categories vary geographically and with time, they lump people together with very different genetic backgrounds, and they treat differences as if they were characteristic of all members of a race, rather than statistical differences between groups.

In short, saying that there is a correlation between racial categories and biology is not the same as saying that there is a biological basis for racial categories. The former is true and the latter is false. Racial categories don't exist to describe biology.

Click to expand...

Yes its a matter of balance and considering all the factors. The fear is that radicals like in the past will use this to descriminate. But that doesn't justify denying natural basis altogether as they still can give important knowledge regarding health for example. People from different ethnic backgrounds are more supceptible to certain diseases regadless of mixing.

But that is not what CRT and Woke ideology does. A good example is the ideological belief that sex is only a social contruct. There is some truth that sex in the way of gender is a social construct. But there is also truth that sex and gender have a biological basis. This is important as identifying gender for medical reasons ios important.

But what these ideologies do is deny any natural basis altogether because they take the post structuralist view that there is no fixed nature so that they can advance the idea that there are no differences between males and females and that theres nothing natural stopping anyone becoming the opposite sex. So its not that there is no truth to race or gender being a social construct but that the claim there is no natural basis at all is the issue which leads to a misrepresentation of reality.

This is a good example of what I was talking about earlier in how scientific facts are not always clear and that some can highlight part of the truth but neglect to mention the whole truth and they get away with it as it becomes policy and reality for society. I mean now even some scientific journals are promoting the idea that sex is a social construct just as the article I linked says that teh AMA claims that race has nothing to do with genetics and biology which as Coyne says is just simply not true. So if scientific journals are doing it then what does that say for the science.

stevevw said:

If its a non issue then why is there a culture war happening over this at the moment.

Click to expand...

The only people worried about a ‘culture war’ are a small group of right wing reactionary Christians who are angry that OTHER people care less and less about what the right wingers think.

Larnievc said:

The only people worried about a ‘culture war’ are a small group of right wing reactionary Christians who are angry that OTHER people care less and less about what the right wingers think.

Click to expand...

Actually the majority of people regardless of political association dislike the current culture war and PC and think its gone too far and ironically many on the Left side of politics agree.

Political Correctness Isn’t as Popular as You Think
Despite the real differences between liberals and conservatives, even liberals are not uniformly supportive of the rise of PC culture. We now know that people, even many liberal ones, are worried that we are too politically correct, and the public does not want this toxic movement to grow further.
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/political-correctness-isnt-as-popular-as-you-think/

Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture.
A new poll asks Americans whether or not “political correctness” is a problem without offering any characterization of what the term means. It finds that overwhelming majorities of Americans — including the vast majority of young people, the vast majority of black people, etc. — think that it is a problem.
People don’t like "PC culture"

stevevw said:

The reactionary Right in the Culture war though sometimes exaggerated is a reaction to radical ideologies of the Left. So boths sides are guilty of anti intellectuial thinking. Its not about slowing the natural evolution of societal change. Its about intervening to socially engineer unnatural changes.

Social evolutionary change comes naturally and doesn't need to be forced upon society and the majority can see the sense in it. But that is exactly what Woke and PC ideology does. It polices speech and thinking and imposes an ideological belief on society that many disagree with.

Theres an important difference between equality which I think Western society has achieved great progress and equity where the ideology thinks its not enough and we need to completely tear down the West and reengineer it according to a particular belief about the world and that despite any efforts to make society equal and fair that this is just another sign of Whites trying to control society to benefit them. In that sense its anti science as it denies the natural evolution of things and places human made ideologies as the driver.

Click to expand...

OK, I get it. You don't like modern society. But this ^^^^^ is exactly what I am trying to tell you is off topic in the Phys & Bio. Sci. Section. It's politics. Take it there.

stevevw said:

Todays version of CRT and Woke is an attack on science. But lets say we do move on to other forms of anti science thinking what forms would these be. Because I think you will find no matter the reason for being anti science the same type of thinking will apply that is behind these ideological positions. As I mentioned earlier even science in the form of scientism can be anti science and anti intellectual.

Click to expand...

As we've tried to tell you "CRT & woke" are orthogonal to science. They are not related. As for "other things" there are plenty of other topics in this thread alone. We don't need new ones. We'll be able to see the others if these "woke" posts just stop.

stevevw said:

I think this is a false analogy of the genetic basis for race. America and Canada are relatively recently formed nations so most peoples ancestory won't trace back to these contries. But you can establish over 99% accuracy through genetics of a persons self identified race/ethnicity to around four groups of race being “white, black, Hispanic, and East Asian”.

In areas where the populations have not migrated as much such as in Europe you can link their self identified race/ethnicity to a specific geograophical location of within 300km for 50% and 700km for 90% of their race/ethnicity. So you can in the wideer scale of populations use borders (geographical areas) which do correspond to race/ethnicity in most cases. You can even trace those in the US to specific locations around the world.

Click to expand...

I've been talking about race but it's not clear what you're talking about -- first race, then something called race/ethnicity, then smaller populations. Yes, there are genetic differences between human populations. I know that because I'm a population geneticist -- I even worked on several of the first large-scale studies of human genetic variation. Human genetic variation has structure on just about every distance scale. That's why I said that racial categories are correlated with genetic variation. Is it a good way of representing that variation? No. Thinking in terms of race contributes to the kind of statement you've made above, in which you seem to have forgotten the existence of South Asians, Native Americans, and Arabs, and in which you treat Hispanic as if it were a well-defined genetic category.

The crux of the matter can be seen in the US definition of 'Black'. Historically, it did not mean someone with entirely African ancestry , nor did it mean someone with predominantly African ancestry. For much of our history and in much of our country, it meant anyone who had any recent African ancestry whatsoever -- the 'one drop' rule. This is not a classification based on genetics or any other aspect of biology. It is a classification that is fundamentally based on social structures, and one designed specifically for the purpose of identifying people that it was okay to oppress.

stevevw said:

Actually the majority of people regardless of political association dislike the current culture war and PC and think its gone too far and ironically many on the Left side of politics agree.

Click to expand...

I agree- that is exactly what I said. It is the Christian right who are all bent out of shape because their opinion about how society works is being increasingly marginalised and rejected by more and more people.

Larnievc said:

I agree- that is exactly what I said. It is the Christian right who are all bent out of shape because their opinion about how society works is being increasingly marginalised and rejected by more and more people.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood what I said. The majority of people (the silent majority) regardless of religion and politics dislike Woke and PC ideology. Even a large portion of the Left dislike PC.

So your claim that its just the Christian Right is wrong. There are those on the Right who are not Christians, there are those on the Left who oppose the Right and are also not Christians and there is a mix of people including young people who are mostly non Christian from both sides of politics and also people of colour who ironically PC ideologues claim they are protecting who all dislike PC culture being practiced in society.

sfs said:

I've been talking about race but it's not clear what you're talking about -- first race, then something called race/ethnicity, then smaller populations.

Click to expand...

As the article I linked mentions ethnicity is similar to race. Coyne uses 'ethnic' groups as he dislikes the word race as it can be misused ie

Now you can call these groups “ethnic groups” instead of “races”, or just “geographic groups”

if races/ethnic groups can be diagnosed with over 99% accuracy by using information from many bits of the genome, then the statement “Race and ethnicity are social constructs, without scientific or biological meaning” is simply wrong.

Race and ethnicity, even when diagnosed by individuals themselves, do have scientific biological meaning:

sfs said:

Yes, there are genetic differences between human populations. I know that because I'm a population geneticist -- I even worked on several of the first large-scale studies of human genetic variation. Human genetic variation has structure on just about every distance scale. That's why I said that racial categories are correlated with genetic variation. Is it a good way of representing that variation? No. Thinking in terms of race contributes to the kind of statement you've made above, in which you seem to have forgotten the existence of South Asians, Native Americans, and Arabs, and in which you treat Hispanic as if it were a well-defined genetic category.

Click to expand...

What I said was a paraphrase of what Gerry Coyne said who is also a population geneticist.

even the crudely designated races of “white, black, Hispanic, and East Asian” in the U.S. are, as today’s paper shows, biologically distinguishable to the point where if you look at the genes of an unknown person, you have a 99.86% chance of diagnosing their self-identified “race” as one of the four groups above.

He also clarified why he uses ethnicity rather than race.

But the issue is that there are clusters within clusters within clusters, and where you draw the line and say “this cluster” is a “race” is purely subjective. That’s why I don’t like the term “race”, as it’s too freighted with biological misconceptions as well as social assumptions and, of course, the use of “race” as a way to divide and rank people. “Ethnicity” is a different matter, as it’s not freighted, and although the definition above conflates ancestry with “cultural tradition”, they’re often connected. But for biological purposes I’d stick with ancestry, which of course refers to shared genes.

What I object to in the JAMA article is this sentence (I’ve put it in bold):
Race and ethnicity are social constructs, without scientific or biological meaning.

sfs said:

The crux of the matter can be seen in the US definition of 'Black'. Historically, it did not mean someone with entirely African ancestry , nor did it mean someone with predominantly African ancestry. For much of our history and in much of our country, it meant anyone who had any recent African ancestry whatsoever -- the 'one drop' rule. This is not a classification based on genetics or any other aspect of biology. It is a classification that is fundamentally based on social structures, and one designed specifically for the purpose of identifying people that it was okay to oppress.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree and Coyne explained this as mentioned above. No one is denying that race was used as a category to descriminate and categorize people. That is why Coyne diden't want to use the wored 'race' as its loaded. But Woke and CRT ideology use that truth that race has been used to descriminate to then justify the position that race has no scientific or biological meaning at all.

You have to understand the thinking behind why ideologues take this position that there is absolutely no scientific basis for race. Its ideologically motivated just like some religions deny science with evolution. They don't want there to be any innate and natural basis for race, ethnicity, gender or sex or anything because it goes against their postmodernist and poststructuralist thinking that everything is socially constructed and the source of fact and truth is not in the objective worlede but in the subject.

Radicals believe that a male can identify as a real biological women. The same logic when applied to race is that an American if they want can identify as Chinese for example because there is no natural basis for race and its socially constructed like sex and gender. The point is its about balance. Not categoring people based on race is wrong and for that ideologues are correct and ideologues that want to emphasize innate race only are wrong. But Woke and CRT ideologues are also wrong and have gone to the other extreme in claiming there is absolutely no natural and scientific basis for race. It denies though small important differences that are real.

Hans Blaster said:

OK, I get it. You don't like modern society. But this ^^^^^ is exactly what I am trying to tell you is off topic in the Phys & Bio. Sci. Section. It's politics. Take it there.


As we've tried to tell you "CRT & woke" are orthogonal to science. They are not related. As for "other things" there are plenty of other topics in this thread alone. We don't need new ones. We'll be able to see the others if these "woke" posts just stop.

Click to expand...

This thread is about anti-intellectualism against science. What is being anti-intellectual against science. It by definition is using ideological beliefs as opposed to science. That usually happens through religious and political beliefs or any other ideology like Communism, Scientism, Postmodernism, Transgenerism, Mysticism, Marxism, Femisinism all the 'isms' that restricts thinking critically and rationally about the world and reality. Politics by definition is an ideological belief about how the world is and should be.

Look at it this way. Which side of politics mostly denies the science on climate change? The Right side. Why, because of their political beliefs. Who denies biological sex, Transgender ideology. Why, because of their ideological belief. Who mostly denies evolution? People of religious belief. Why, because of their religious belief.

If you can show me how being anti-intellectual against science doesn't involve ideological beliefs then we can discuss that. But I cannot think of anything that doesn't involve ideological beliefs. Being anti science is about ideological beliefs because according to the science method belief is a non scientific way of seeing and and gaining knowledge about the world and deals in the subjective rather than the objective.

PS. I just did a quick check of other posts and noticed religion being used a lot as anti-intellectual thinking. This makes sense as the 2 topics that everyone says to not debate with science is religion and politics. Why, because they involve subjective thinking and not scientific thinking and no one can ever come to any objective conclusion.

stevevw said:

This thread is about anti-intellectualism against science.

Click to expand...

Correct.

stevevw said:

What is being anti-intellectual against science. It by definition is using ideological beliefs as opposed to science. That usually happens through religious and political beliefs or any other ideology like Communism, Scientism, Postmodernism, Transgenerism, Mysticism, Marxism, Femisinism all the 'isms' that restricts thinking critically and rationally about the world and reality.

Click to expand...

But it is about the *specific* attacks on science. Marxism and communism certainly have at time attacked inconvenient science, but they are largely ideologies about the organization of the economy and the distribution of wealth. There is nothing about that that requires or even implies an attack on science.

I'm not even sure how feminism is an attack on science.

The term "scientism" itself is an attack on science.

stevevw said:

Politics by definition is an ideological belief about how the world is and should be.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Politics is perhaps more often about power, though it can be about ideology.

stevevw said:

Look at it this way. Which side of politics mostly denies the science on climate change? The Right side. Why, because of their political beliefs.

Click to expand...

Not really, the "right wing" attack on climate science is mostly the hijacking of the right by fossil fuel interests pumping propaganda aimed at the political right. (IOW, the climate science attack is commercially motivated, not ideologically.)

stevevw said:

Who denies biological sex,

Click to expand...

No one. No one denies the existence of biological sex.

stevevw said:

Transgender ideology. Why, because of their ideological belief.

Click to expand...

"Transgender" isn't an ideology. I really wish you would stop claiming that.

stevevw said:

Who mostly denies evolution? People of religious belief. Why, because of their religious belief.

Click to expand...

Usually.

stevevw said:

If you can show me how being anti-intellectual against science doesn't involve ideological beliefs then we can discuss that. But I cannot think of anything that doesn't involve ideological beliefs. Being anti science is about ideological beliefs because according to the science method belief is a non scientific way of seeing and and gaining knowledge about the world and deals in the subjective rather than the objective.

Click to expand...

In the post you were replying to my complaint was that you were *only* discussing the ideology and not even mentioning attacks on science. As I have tried to communicate, this is not a "woke/anti-woke" thread. If a post doesn't address science it isn't on topic.

stevevw said:

PS. I just did a quick check of other posts and noticed religion being used a lot as anti-intellectual thinking. This makes sense as the 2 topics that everyone says to not debate with science is religion and politics. Why, because they involve subjective thinking and not scientific thinking and no one can ever come to any objective conclusion.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

The majority of people (the silent majority) regardless of religion and politics dislike Woke and PC ideology.

Click to expand...

If they are silent how do you know they exist?

Hans Blaster said:

Correct.

But it is about the *specific* attacks on science. Marxism and communism certainly have at time attacked inconvenient science, but they are largely ideologies about the organization of the economy and the distribution of wealth. There is nothing about that that requires or even implies an attack on science.

Click to expand...

I certainly gave those *specific* attacks on science earlier such as Woke and PC ideology that believes there is no fixed nature, no biological sex, gender has no biological basis, CRT tenets claim there is absolutely no innate basis for race/ethnicity, climate change deniers who believe there is no human made climate becuase of their political beliefs.

So I am not sure what else there is. Can you give me other examples.

Hans Blaster said:

I'm not even sure how feminism is an attack on science.

Click to expand...

Feminism take a similar view as other ideologies like gender ideology in that there is no innate male or female or differences. They have disputed the science many time and feminist theory underpins government and workplace policy.

Feminism is a closed, partisan ideology designed to lobby for female advantage. Science is an open exploration designed to test and expand knowledge. Feminism and science are entirely incompatible.[1]
Feminism rejects biological knowledge about the differences of males and females.
Biology is rejected on the grounds that locating gender differences in biology has been used to oppress women.[3]

Is Modern Feminism Incompatible With Science?
Ideology is a double-edged sword. Dedication to a set of beliefs can be admirable, but when it leads to inflexibility and obstinance in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it is a dangerous thing. Such ideological rigidity -- often found among the adherents of various philosophical, religious, and political doctrines -- can lead to the rejection of evidence-based inquiry, which serves as the bedrock of modern science.

In an excellent essay for Quillette, former feminist Toni Airaksinen warns about the dangers of modern feminism, particularly as taught in women's studies classes, which she has described as a "rabbit hole" that leads to a "perverse wonderland where up is down."
Ms. Airaksinen's concern is that feminism has been built upon ideas that can neither be proven nor refuted, precisely the sort of evidence-free groupthink that typifies unscientific thinking.

Do you notice the similarities feminism has with CRT and gender and transgenderism. They all reject the biological basis (the science) for sex and gender and believe its a social construction. The concern is this thinking has permeated education and is being used as the basis for policy, even presented as science.

Hans Blaster said:

The term "scientism" itself is an attack on science.

Click to expand...

Yes so if scientism is an attack on science so are the other 'Isms' like marxism, liberalism, socialism, feminism ect. All 'isms' are ideological beliefs, philosophical positions, religions, social views which are subjective aned opposing objective science. If you are anti science you will occupy one of their 'isms'.

People sometimes develop a set of beliefs about how the world is and how it ought to be. This is called an ideology. Ideology often aims to be both descriptive—what the world actually looks like—and prescriptive—how it should ideally be.
The political world is full of lots of ideologies, each with its own logic and set of beliefs. A lot of them end in “ism,”

Ideologies and Isms

2012books.lardbucket.org

Hans Blaster said:

Not necessarily. Politics is perhaps more often about power, though it can be about ideology.

Click to expand...

The question is why is it about power. Its about power because its about ideology. Its a belief and assumption about how the world is and how it should be ordered. How one 'orders' society and the world is based on power relationships. Power is the aim but at the heart of politics public servants have a strong belief and philosophy about how we can best order society that it motivates them to take action.

Hans Blaster said:

Not really, the "right wing" attack on climate science is mostly the hijacking of the right by fossil fuel interests pumping propaganda aimed at the political right. (IOW, the climate science attack is commercially motivated, not ideologically.)

Click to expand...

Yes money is a powerful motivator. But even that is a ideological belief that 'money is the key to happiness and a better life' such as Capitalism as opposed to socialism. But I think its cynical to say that all politicians and politics itself is purely about money. Though todays politicians sure don't seem like they care.

But the basis for why the Right are supporting big business in the first place to succeed is because of their philosophical belief about free market enterprise aned capitalism over all else including social welfare. Thats almost a moral position as it is putting profits before people.

Hans Blaster said:

No one. No one denies the existence of biological sex.

Click to expand...

I thought we already went through this. Gender and transgenderism deny biological sex and gender having any biological basis. Queer theory is the basis for ideologies like Feminism, gender and transgenderism. Like CRT it developeed out of the cultural revolutions of the 60's and 70's and became popular in academia in the 90's and is underpinned by postmodernism and post-structuralism.

Science destroys its credibility by embracing critical theory
“Queer Theory” is the academic discipline that birthed the increasingly popular understanding of sex and gender. Its adherents deem any conventional idea about sexuality — say, that “male” and “female” are fixed categories rooted in biology — as oppressive. “Queer Theory is dominated by… the deconstruction of categories, and a profound skepticism of science.”

Biomedical and social scientists are increasingly calling the biological sex into question, arguing that sex is a graded spectrum rather than a binary trait. Leading science journals have been adopting this relativist view, thereby opposing fundamental biological facts.
Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles: Denying biological sex is anthropocentric and promotes species chauvinism: Denying biological sex is anthropocentric and promotes species chauvinism - PubMed

Hans Blaster said:

"Transgender" isn't an ideology. I really wish you would stop claiming that.

Click to expand...

Well this is what is commonly used even in science articles. Everyone uses it. It accurately describes transgenderism. What else could we call it. Its not science and its more about subjective feelings, belief and assumptions about human nature and the nature of the world. Its not just speaking about self but is a worldview about how society and the world is and should be. Or at least it has become that similar to feminism has become an all encompassing position. Thats what ideology is.

Hans Blaster said:

In the post you were replying to my complaint was that you were *only* discussing the ideology and not even mentioning attacks on science. As I have tried to communicate, this is not a "woke/anti-woke" thread. If a post doesn't address science it isn't on topic.

Click to expand...

OK I get you now. Well I did discuss the attacks on science by ideology such as Woke and PC earlier and have referreed back to this several times ie there is no fixed nature, no biological sex, gender has no biological basis, CRT claim there is absolutely no innate basis for race/ethnicity, climate change deniers who believe there is no human made climate change or climate change exaggerators who claim the world will end in 5 years ect. Even religious belief. All ideological positions and not science.

What else is there to discuss that is not an ideological position but also anti science and anti intellectual.. You gotta come up with something as I also don't want to talk about PC and Woke anymore either. Only to say that we can agree that ideological thinking is a way to deny science generally.

Larnievc said:

If they are silent how do you know they exist?

Click to expand...

Through the surveys just like they do for most research or at election time to guage voter views on specific issues. The silent majority don't make the noise like the radicals do at the extreme ends of the political spectrum so you usually don't hear their views. But surveys are designed to capture their views.

W

stevevw said:

Through the surveys. The silent majority don't make the noise like the radicals do at the extreme ends of the political spectrum so you usually don't hear their views. But surveys are designed to capture their views.

Click to expand...

Which surveys?

Larnievc said:

W

Which surveys?

Click to expand...

I posted a couple earlier.

Political Correctness Isn’t as Popular as You Think
Despite the real differences between liberals and conservatives, even liberals are not uniformly supportive of the rise of PC culture. We now know that people, even many liberal ones, are worried that we are too politically correct, and the public does not want this toxic movement to grow further.
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/political-correctness-isnt-as-popular-as-you-think/

Study: 80% of Americans Believe Political Correctness Is a Problem
Except among a tiny minority of far-left Americans, political correctness (P.C.) is deeply unpopular. Including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24 and the vast majority of black people, etc. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages."

Poll: 71% of Americans Say Political Correctness Has Silenced Discussions Society Needs to Have, 58% Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share

Australians say 'political correctness has gone too far' — but it's complicated