Liberal Bias Is Killing Social Science

[rabbitcaebannog]

I suggest you spend some time sorting out your thoughts.

Why? That is the truth. There is no one view. Economist prefer one approach over the other.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

If there is one thing that the structuralist and poststructuralists taught us, it is that empirical evidence is highly influenced by our understandings of the world. They are a lot more fragile than we'd otherwise think.

The Cato Institute proved that with their interpretation of "Freest country" of the world.

 

[Fiddytree]

The Cato Institute proved that with their interpretation of "Freest country" of the world.

Without a doubt. FreedomHouse and amnesty international.

 

[Fiddytree]

But I will add that I am agreeing with you because at that base level we are all guilty of seeing reality differently, thus influencing our ability to create and interpret empirical data.

I am presuming you were using Cato because it collided with (thus far as I know you) your fairly contemporary American liberal views, rather than an acknowledgment that empiricism found in the academy is on shakier ground than you ascribed it earlier.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

But I will add that I am agreeing with you because at that base level we are all guilty of seeing reality differently, thus influencing our ability to create and interpret empirical data.


When Chile was called a miracle by some economist, it was called a nightmare by others. It depended on if one is just looking at economic growth in general or if you were looking at such growth compared to how the people of the country as a whole were doing from said growth. For instance, if is stagnate at the top, I don't look at that growth as a miracle. That of course is my subjective view. A very rich person would disagree with me. Thus, you have two very different viewpoints of how that economy should be deemed. One from Paul Krugman vs. Cato Institute. Paul Krugman plays on these words "A Liberal with a conscience" for a reason.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

None with "doubts" was a serious candidate with a following worth thinking about. Your deflection to this side track is just another example of bias in play. And all that aside, views on evolution are actually irrelevant to much of social science.

Ah. And who was the #2 candidate, the one who drew the second-highest number of Republican votes next to Mitt Romney in the primary? Rick Santorum, who is (from the same reference): "a strong proponent of intelligent design, has called evolution one of the "controversial issues in science" and claims there are "legitimate problems and holes in the theory of evolution."

But you say he wasn't a serious candidate.

 

[joG]

But I will add that I am agreeing with you because at that base level we are all guilty of seeing reality differently, thus influencing our ability to create and interpret empirical data.


When Chile was called a miracle by some economist, it was called a nightmare by others. It depended on if one is just looking at economic growth in general or if you were looking at such growth compared to how the people of the country as a whole were doing from said growth. For instance, if is stagnate at the top, I don't look at that growth as a miracle. That of course is my subjective view. A very rich person would disagree with me. Thus, you have two very different viewpoints of how that economy should be deemed. One from Paul Krugman vs. Cato Institute. Paul Krugman plays on these words "A Liberal with a conscience" for a reason.

I am not sure the interpretation of the data is in question in these cases. It is more the valuation ie how you like, what you measure.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

You are missing the entire point of the thread. Whether evolution was or was not a marginal issue among GOP presidential candidates in 2012 does not bear the slightest relevance to this discussion. Nor does global warming have anything to do with this discussion. This is about social science; I suggest that a researcher's view on climate questions is irrelevant. Here's a hypothetical: Hindus believe in reincarnation while most scientists do not. Is it your claim that there can be no Hindu scientists? How about Hindu social scientists?

It is ABSOLUTELY relevant to this thread. The fact that the evolution question was asked at all, that the one who finished second in the GOP primary was an evolution denier speaks volumes about modern "conservatism" in America.

That, and the GOP flat-out rejects those who say AGW is true, so what the heck are American scientists supposed to think of a political party when that political party is telling them (the scientists) that NO, your documented scientific research showing evidence of AGW must be wrong because {insert conspiracy theory here}?

If you want scientists to support the conservatives, then the conservatives must learn to LISTEN to the scientists...starting with AGW.

 

[joG]

It is ABSOLUTELY relevant to this thread. The fact that the evolution question was asked at all, that the one who finished second in the GOP primary was an evolution denier speaks volumes about modern "conservatism" in America.

That, and the GOP flat-out rejects those who say AGW is true, so what the heck are American scientists supposed to think of a political party when that political party is telling them (the scientists) that NO, your documented scientific research showing evidence of AGW must be wrong because {insert conspiracy theory here}?

If you want scientists to support the conservatives, then the conservatives must learn to LISTEN to the scientists...starting with AGW.

I do not believe I have ever met anyone that would earnestly dispute the reality of evolution.

 

[Jack Hays]

Ah. And who was the #2 candidate, the one who drew the second-highest number of Republican votes next to Mitt Romney in the primary? Rick Santorum, who is (from the same reference): "a strong proponent of intelligent design, has called evolution one of the "controversial issues in science" and claims there are "legitimate problems and holes in the theory of evolution."

But you say he wasn't a serious candidate.

He was never going to be the nominee, and the topic is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Jack Hays]

It is ABSOLUTELY relevant to this thread. The fact that the evolution question was asked at all, that the one who finished second in the GOP primary was an evolution denier speaks volumes about modern "conservatism" in America.

That, and the GOP flat-out rejects those who say AGW is true, so what the heck are American scientists supposed to think of a political party when that political party is telling them (the scientists) that NO, your documented scientific research showing evidence of AGW must be wrong because {insert conspiracy theory here}?

If you want scientists to support the conservatives, then the conservatives must learn to LISTEN to the scientists...starting with AGW.

The thread is about social science, not climate science or evolutionary biology. Nor is it about the GOP. I also note that you ducked the question about Hindu scientists. Neither evolution nor climate science has the remotest relevance to social science.

 

[gunner]

I'm a tad perturbed by the papers contributors:

"the collaborators on this
article include one liberal, one centrist, two libertarians, one whose politics defy a simple
left/right categorization, and one neo-positivist contrarian who favors a don't-ask-don't-tell policy
in which scholarship should be judged on its merits. None identifies as conservative or
Republican."

It would, if for balance on its own, given a needed perspective.

Paul

 

[gunner]

:roll: very well - if we wish to be specific; the majority of social scientists exist in a groupthink due to shared political/ideological assumptions; one of the hallmarks of groupthink are that basic assumptions are not challenged and uncomfortable data get's sidelined.

Think: "Hide the Decline" (to steal a famous line from a "harder" science). That either there was an assumption that it needed to be hid, or that doing so would not immediately produce blasting critique from others indicates shared ideological purpose and assumptions, or, groupthink.

What "basic assumptions", do you mean to challenge the epistemology?

From my discipline (Philosophy) basic assumptions are what underpins an argument, but are defended/attacked rigorously. I will add, that is the analytical strain.

Paul

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I do not believe I have ever met anyone that would earnestly dispute the reality of evolution.

Then you don't know many evangelical "Christians".

 

[Glen Contrarian]

He was never going to be the nominee, and the topic is irrelevant to this discussion.

Sorry, Jack, but the millions who voted for Santorum would have disagreed with you...and so would those who held their nose and voted for Romney even though they preferred Santorum...because they knew that (like Hillary v. Warren) Romney stood a better chance of winning.

 

[Jack Hays]

Sorry, Jack, but the millions who voted for Santorum would have disagreed with you...and so would those who held their nose and voted for Romney even though they preferred Santorum...because they knew that (like Hillary v. Warren) Romney stood a better chance of winning.

All of which has nothing to do with this thread topic.

 

[Jack Hays]

Then you don't know many evangelical "Christians".

Why your special animus against Christians? Many Muslims and Hindus don't accept evolution either.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The thread is about social science, not climate science or evolutionary biology. Nor is it about the GOP. I also note that you ducked the question about Hindu scientists. Neither evolution nor climate science has the remotest relevance to social science.

And yet you do not realize - or refuse to realize - the obvious reasons that most scientists don't want anything to do with modern conservatism (and note that (as before) I said *modern* conservatism). Why would they want to be part of a political spectrum that as dogma, as party doctrine, denies something that the vast majority of scientists worldwide agree upon? Especially when they know that particular something will adversely affect tens of millions of lives and may adversely affect civilization itself?

You think that this is some kind of 'liberal bias'...yet you don't seem to grasp that your line of thought requires that scientists are not much more independently minded than herd animals that can't think or speak for themselves.

Jack, those scientists are every bit as educated as (and often more educated than) you yourself. Are you able to think for yourself? Are you able to make decisions that run against the grain?

Of course you are.

And so can all those scientists, all of whom want to be the next Hawking or Pasteur or Curie or Mead...and they ALL know that great leaps in scientific knowledge and understanding cannot come from going with the herd. Scientists are the most independent thinkers out there...yet you seem to believe that they're not much better than herd animals.

 

[Empirica]

The paper causing all the fuss is linked within the OP article. It will be published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Cambridge University Press.

Liberal Bias Is Killing Social Science - Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, The Week

". . . That's why I was very gratified to read this very enlightening draft paper written by a number of social psychologists on precisely this topic, attacking the lack of political diversity in their profession and calling for reform. For those who have the time and care about academia, the whole thing truly makes for enlightening reading. The main author of the paper is Jonathan Haidt, well known for his Moral Foundations Theory (and a self-described liberal, if you care to know).

Although the paper focuses on the field of social psychology, its introduction as well as its overall logic make many of its points applicable to disciplines beyond social psychology.

The authors first note the well-known problems of groupthink in any collection of people engaged in a quest for the truth: uncomfortable questions get suppressed, confirmation bias runs amok, and so on.

But it is when the authors move to specific examples that the paper is most enlightening.

They start by debunking published (and often well-publicized) social psychology findings that seem to suggest moral or intellectual superiority on the part of liberals over conservatives, which smartly serves to debunk both the notion that social psychology is bereft of conservatives because they're not smart enough to cut it, and that groupthink doesn't produce shoddy science. For example, a study that sought to show that conservatives reach their beliefs only through denying reality achieved that result by describing ideological liberal beliefs as "reality," surveying people on whether they agreed with them, and then concluding that those who disagree with them are in denial of reality — and lo, people in that group are much more likely to be conservative! This has nothing to do with science, and yet in a field with such groupthink, it can get published in peer-reviewed journals and passed off as "science," complete with a Vox stenographic exercise at the end of the rainbow. A field where this is possible is in dire straits indeed. . . ."

And for this reason I'm skeptical of any consensus that's claim to validity is "published in peer-reviewed journals"_

Because reality has been subverted by the propaganda of a modern Orwellian style “Ministry of Truth” free-press_

SparkNotes: 1984: Important Quotations Explained
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
These words are the official slogans of the Party, and are inscribed in massive letters on the white pyramid of the Ministry of Truth, as Winston observes in Book One, Chapter I. Because it is introduced so early in the novel, this creed serves as the reader’s first introduction to the idea of doublethink. By weakening the independence and strength of individuals’ minds and forcing them to live in a constant state of propaganda-induced fear, the Party is able to force its subjects to accept anything it decrees, even if it is entirely illogical—for instance, the Ministry of Peace is in charge of waging war, the Ministry of Love is in charge of political torture, and the Ministry of Truth is in charge of doctoring history books to reflect the Party’s ideology.

The course we are now on appears very indicative of what could likely bring about an Orwellian world_

And anyone who doesn't believe this should read or re-read George Orwell's novel; 1984!

 

[Jack Hays]

And yet you do not realize - or refuse to realize - the obvious reasons that most scientists don't want anything to do with modern conservatism (and note that (as before) I said *modern* conservatism). Why would they want to be part of a political spectrum that as dogma, as party doctrine, denies something that the vast majority of scientists worldwide agree upon? Especially when they know that particular something will adversely affect tens of millions of lives and may adversely affect civilization itself?

You think that this is some kind of 'liberal bias'...yet you don't seem to grasp that your line of thought requires that scientists are not much more independently minded than herd animals that can't think or speak for themselves.

Jack, those scientists are every bit as educated as (and often more educated than) you yourself. Are you able to think for yourself? Are you able to make decisions that run against the grain?

Of course you are.

And so can all those scientists, all of whom want to be the next Hawking or Pasteur or Curie or Mead...and they ALL know that great leaps in scientific knowledge and understanding cannot come from going with the herd. Scientists are the most independent thinkers out there...yet you seem to believe that they're not much better than herd animals.

You are way out in left field. We are talking about the social sciences, not the natural or physical sciences. Your entire line of argument is irrelevant.

 

[cpwill]

What "basic assumptions", do you mean to challenge the epistemology?

The conflation of shared ideological convictions with "reality".

 

[joG]

Then you don't know many evangelical "Christians".

Probably not. But it certainly seems odd to believe that evolution does not occur. I mnean, we even use it in breeding.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Probably not. But it certainly seems odd to believe that evolution does not occur. I mnean, we even use it in breeding.

But many evangelical "Christians" believe precisely that - and they are what comprise the base of the Religious Right which wields such an influence on the GOP.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

You are way out in left field. We are talking about the social sciences, not the natural or physical sciences. Your entire line of argument is irrelevant.

Science is science is science. The scientific method is every bit as important in the social sciences as it is in astronomy.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Why your special animus against Christians? Many Muslims and Hindus don't accept evolution either.

Jack, I am a very strong Christian. I put the word "Christian" into quotes when I refer to the Evangelicals because they are not in my opinion truly Christian. I hold no "special animus" towards them, but I cannot call them truly Christian. If you want to discuss religion and why I believe as I do, we can do that. But that belongs in a different thread.

And I think you're going to have a very difficult time showing that there's a greater percentage of Hindu or Muslim politicians who disavow evolution than their are of evangelical "Christian" politicians who disavow evolution.