Survey: Conservatives are less likely to accept the norms of science

[essentialsaltes]

Really?

Yes, the focus of the study was on the norms of science and the general population.

Your contributions could make their own thread, though.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Yes, the focus of the study was on the norms of science and the general population.

Your contributions could make their own thread, though.

Excluding the new study then.....you don't believe biological sex is a norm?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Excluding the new study then.....you don't believe biological sex is a norm?

It is not a norm on which the scientific endeavor is based, as discussed in the OP with specific reference to Merton's ideas.

 

[tas8831]

Really?

Yes.

Leftists seem to have great difficulty accepting the science of life in the womb beginning at conceptions

Conceptions. Were not sperm and egg alive? That Ben Shapiro's wife - who is a doctor - believes that "life" begins at conception does not negate the refusal of rightists to dismiss the fact that egg and sperm are alive.

and of biological sex. Not to mention changing genders is a biological impossibility.

Please explain the 'biological impossibility' of 'changing genders.' You seem to imply that the norms of science are on your side.

As well as lots of other areas:
The new study, by University of Texas-Brownville sociologist Mark Horowitz and two colleagues, surveyed 155 academic sociologists. 56.7 percent of the sample was liberal, another 28.6 percent was identified as radical, and only 4.8 percent were conservative.

Say - you are so right! That only 4.8% of academic sociologists were conservative totally proves that it is LEFTISTS!!!! are less likely to accept th norms of science! Or something.

Horowitz, who describes himself as a politically radical, social-justice oriented researcher, said he wanted to probe their views of the possible evolutionary underpinnings of various human behaviors. "I wanted to get at the really ideological blank slate view, it’s sort of a preemptive assumption that everything is taught, everything is learned," he explained.

Sure enough, the study found that these liberal academics showed a pretty high level of resistance to evolutionary explanations for phenomena ranging from sexual jealousy to male promiscuity.

In fairness, the sociologists were willing to credit some evolutionary-style explanations. Eight-one percent found it either plausible or highly plausible that "some people are born genetically with more intellectual potential than others," and 70 percent ascribed sexual orientation to "biological roots." Meanwhile, nearly 60 percent of sociologists in the sample considered it "plausible" that human beings have a "hardwired" taste preference for foods that are full of fat and sugar, and just under 50 percent thought it plausible that we have an innate fear of snakes and spiders (for very sound, survival-focused reasons).


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/28/liberals-deny-science-too/

Yes, sociologists are a strange breed.

But thanks for the whataboutism.

 

[durangodawood]

Excluding the new study then.....you don't believe biological sex is a norm?

Definitely a norm. But not the absolute some people think

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Possibly also some confusion here about the difference between biological sex and gender - neither of which are absolute (binary), but biological sex seems to have the smaller variance...

 

[Tom 1]

Ok.. I think if one went back 2 years and then post all the things Dr. Fauci, CDC, WHO and then the media have said. Yeah.. gee who wouldn't then just blindly trust ...oh here it is.. "norms of science"

Do we see it? "norms"? Lol is it Science or what some are saying is the NORMS of Science. Hard to trust.. well as of late we have those BIKERS "super spreaders".. didn't happen last year. Then we have HUGE open concert? In Chicago. Yet shh not a word. Then Obama house party where the left said all were vaccinated. <--not even true but ok. Both no masks shoulder to shoulder yet it was ok. But the bikers were the super spreader..ok.

Toss in the word NORM. Its what the left are calling norm Science is what more then 1/2 of America won't blindly except.

So have we searched on "norms of Science"? Its HUGE read but.. nothing like were being told by some news media on TV lol.

Wanted to add.. with "norms of Science" a key factor "assumption of honesty"

It’s unfair to blame your own misunderstandings on other people.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Yes.

Conceptions. Were not sperm and egg alive? That Ben Shapiro's wife - who is a doctor - believes that "life" begins at conception does not negate the refusal of rightists to dismiss the fact that egg and sperm are alive.


Please explain the 'biological impossibility' of 'changing genders.' You seem to imply that the norms of science are on your side.

Say - you are so right! That only 4.8% of academic sociologists were conservative totally proves that it is LEFTISTS!!!! are less likely to accept th norms of science! Or something.

Yes, sociologists are a strange breed.

But thanks for the whataboutism.

It's called pointing out the hypocrisy, not whataboutism.

No leg to stand on here, with the "conservatives ignore science" nonsense.

 

[durangodawood]

I think people tend to reject science when it conflicts with cherished ideologies.

One of the most precious ideologies is Biblical literalism - a conservative position which flies in the face of all sorts of solid science.

There must be counterparts to this on the liberal "side". But I cant think of any that have quite that firm a grip on minds. Am I overlooking something?

 

[Tom 1]

I think people tend to reject science when it conflicts with cherished ideologies.

One of the most precious ideologies is Biblical literalism - a conservative position which flies in the face of all sorts of solid science.

There must be counterparts to this on the liberal "side". But I cant think of any that have quite that firm a grip on minds. Am I overlooking something?

Progress is always good, maybe? Although I tend to think that's generally true, there might be some arguments against it.

 

[durangodawood]

Progress is always good, maybe? Although I tend to think that's generally true, there might be some arguments against it.

I could see that being a notion liberals cling to over-tightly.

But I'm really looking for something that flies in the face of the norms of science.

 

[pitabread]

There must be counterparts to this on the liberal "side". But I cant think of any that have quite that firm a grip on minds. Am I overlooking something?

The only thing I can think of is maybe equating social equality with biological equality? Some people do seem to bristle at the notion there are biological differences in different population groups.

 

[tas8831]

Ok.. I think if one went back 2 years and then post all the things Dr. Fauci, CDC, WHO and then the media have said. Yeah.. gee who wouldn't then just blindly trust ...oh here it is.. "norms of science"

Assuming you are a Trump cultist - shall one direct you to all of the times Trump contradicted himself? Not to play whataboutism, but there is a difference in changing positions when learning more and changing positions because you said something really stupid.

Do we see it? "norms"? Lol is it Science or what some are saying is the NORMS of Science. Hard to trust.. well as of late we have those BIKERS "super spreaders".. didn't happen last year.

Warnings About the Sturgis Rally Have Come Tragically True

"Kurra added that hospitals in the area had 58 patients battling COVID-19 as of early this week. Before the rally, they had “a handful, five to 10,” he said."​

Then we have HUGE open concert? In Chicago. Yet shh not a word.

Same article as above:

"Take Lollapalooza, for instance. The largely (but not entirely) outdoor four-day music festival in Chicago was held July 29 through Aug. 1, but catered to a very different demographic than the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally.

Despite hosting over 100,000 individuals on each day of the festival, all signs suggest that Lollapalooza didn’t result in a superspreader event. This may be thanks to the fact that Lollapalooza organizers—working in active partnership the Chicago Department of Public Health (CDPH)—required either proof of vaccination or a negative COVID-19 test within 72 hours prior to attendance, and 90 percent of attendees were fully vaccinated. Moreover, masks were required in indoor spaces for the last two days of the event (once more, under the advisement of the CDPH)."​

I know it is hard to understand for some, but not all people are the same. The tribe that attended the biker rally are not of the same tribe that attended Lollapalooza. The organizers of the biker fest had no Covid mitigation factors required at all - because, you know, "freedom."

The HUGE open concert? In Chicago? Shhhhhh - they required proof of vaccination and mask wearing.

I know it is hard, so hard, for the right to understand these differences. Poor things.

And of course Trumper governors control states with the highest Covid infection and death rates. Noem is among the worst - despite her blatant lying at CPAC when she claimed her 'freedom'-based efforts were working.

Stop getting information from right-wing media. They lie.

 

[tas8831]

It's called pointing out the hypocrisy, not whataboutism.

If you say so.

No leg to stand on here, with the "conservatives ignore science" nonsense.

No leg to stand on here, with the 'liberals do it too!!" nonsense.

 

[tas8831]

I think people tend to reject science when it conflicts with cherished ideologies.

One of the most precious ideologies is Biblical literalism - a conservative position which flies in the face of all sorts of solid science.

There must be counterparts to this on the liberal "side". But I cant think of any that have quite that firm a grip on minds. Am I overlooking something?

Not really.
As we've seen in this thread, the right likes to take specific examples and extrapolate them into universals, whereas the 'left' tends to take very broad examples and extrapolate them. For example, polling over many decades shows that conservatives are more likely to be religious fanatics and to be 'against' science than are liberals. So liberals say 'religious conservatives are against science.' Not perhaps 100% accurate, but pretty close. Retorts to this are typically either of the 'well, THIS religious conservative won a Nobel Prize, so you're wrong' sort, or the 'well a very small specific group of liberals don't like X, therefore both sides!' sort.

Many years ago, I took umbrage to a group of liberal scholars - possibly the same group referenced here recently (sociologists) - who were anti-evolution because they felt it implied racism, or some such nonsense. But this is/was a very small, specific group who have virtually no influence in academia in general or especially in science and society. So who cares - these are not people being elected to Congress.

 

[durangodawood]

Not really.
As we've seen in this thread, the right likes to take specific examples and extrapolate them into universals, whereas the 'left' tends to take very broad examples and extrapolate them. For example, polling over many decades shows that conservatives are more likely to be religious fanatics and to be 'against' science than are liberals. So liberals say 'religious conservatives are against science.' Not perhaps 100% accurate, but pretty close. Retorts to this are typically either of the 'well, THIS religious conservative won a Nobel Prize, so you're wrong' sort, or the 'well a very small specific group of liberals don't like X, therefore both sides!' sort.

Many years ago, I took umbrage to a group of liberal scholars - possibly the same group referenced here recently (sociologists) - who were anti-evolution because they felt it implied racism, or some such nonsense. But this is/was a very small, specific group who have virtually no influence in academia in general or especially in science and society. So who cares - these are not people being elected to Congress.

Yeah and the Soviets took certain anti science notions pretty far out in service of ideology.

 

[Strathos]

I don't think anyone really argues that a zygote or embryo isn't alive, just that it's not a person.