Science Denial Runs Red and Blue

Mott the Hoople

Mott the Hoople

Sweet Jane
I think this is a good way of discussing the dangers of politicizing science. Certainly when the discussion of science denial is brought up it is used pejoratively to accuse conservatives of denying scientific consensus. Teaching evolutionary theory and climate change are probably the big two hot button topic that most are familiar with.

However my readings on many posters in political message boards and listening and reading political polemicist I've found that science denial often has more to do with a person being, not well informed on science or how to evaluate scientific data is or understanding what a scientific consensus is (it's not a popularity contest, that's for sure). I've also found that it has a lot to do with a persons personal politics being ideologically driven. In that respect I find liberals just as guilty of science denial as conservatives are about evolution, astronomy, climate change, gun violence, etc,.

Don't believe me? Talk to a liberal ideologues about vaccinations, gender, GMO Food safety, the evolutionary basis of social behavior, etc,.

Take Gender identity issues. The social theories on gender identity are simply not supported by science. Both sex and gender are binary. That's an established scientific fact which has scientific consensus. GMO Food Safety - The vast majority of peer reviewed literature and most relevant scientific associations have concluded that GMO Foods are safe. The same is true with vaccinations. The scientific consensus is that the benefits of vaccinations far out weigh the risk. Yet many liberals are hostile to these scientific consensus.

This is why as a person educated and trained in science why I'm careful about politicizing science. Often when that happens the facts and the consequences of those facts are relegated to secondary status to what is either politically popular or politically expedient.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I think this is a good way of discussing the dangers of politicizing science. Certainly when the discussion of science denial is brought up it is used pejoratively to accuse conservatives of denying scientific consensus. Teaching evolutionary theory and climate change are probably the big two hot button topic that most are familiar with.

However my readings on many posters in political message boards and listening and reading political polemicist I've found that science denial often has more to do with a person being, not well informed on science or how to evaluate scientific data is or understanding what a scientific consensus is (it's not a popularity contest, that's for sure). I've also found that it has a lot to do with a persons personal politics being ideologically driven. In that respect I find liberals just as guilty of science denial as conservatives are about evolution, astronomy, climate change, gun violence, etc,.

Don't believe me? Talk to a liberal ideologues about vaccinations, gender, GMO Food safety, the evolutionary basis of social behavior, etc,.

Take Gender identity issues. The social theories on gender identity are simply not supported by science. Both sex and gender are binary. That's an established scientific fact which has scientific consensus. GMO Food Safety - The vast majority of peer reviewed literature and most relevant scientific associations have concluded that GMO Foods are safe. The same is true with vaccinations. The scientific consensus is that the benefits of vaccinations far out weigh the risk. Yet many liberals are hostile to these scientific consensus.

This is why as a person educated and trained in science why I'm careful about politicizing science. Often when that happens the facts and the consequences of those facts are relegated to secondary status to what is either politically popular or politically expedient.
Click to expand...

All good insights.

The thing is, I personally do not even know any liberals who are anti-vaxers, and very few who are anti-GMO. I certainly am not, and I think to the extent that kind of science denial exists on the left, it is not ubiquitous, is relatively rare, and is pretty fringe. I also am not aware of any reputable studies that pins anti-vaxers as being a left wing issue. Are there not anti-vaxers on the reich wing?

When it comes to climate denial, evolution denial, creation science, young Earth - those types of denial are widespread and ubiquitous on the right. So it is really not a fair comparison, or fair analogy to compare anti-vaxers to climate deniers. They are orders of magnitude different in proportion and scope. And proportion and scope matter when one talks about public policy and legislative priorities.
 
I agree with you 100%. I don't concern myself much with the whole climate change debate though. What I believe is that if it exists(and I lean toward yes, it does)what can WE do about it? My view is not a damn thing. Especially if it's androgenic. By 2050, science says we'll have 9 billion humans running around this planet, and 10 billion is what they say is "carrying capacity". We're living longer, consuming more stuff(and making a mess of the place while we make more stuff to consume), and constantly looking for ways to live longer so we can continue to make a bigger mess and consume more stuff.
 
evince said:
two different subjects


is vaccine denial a Democratic party platform issue?
Click to expand...

Excellent question Desh. No it is not. Then again neither is Climate Change for the GOP. They dropped it from their 2016 platform and stated that it's not a pressing national security issue. Which says about as much as it actually being on their platform.
 
Cypress said:
All good insights.

The thing is, I personally do not even know any liberals who are anti-vaxers, and very few who are anti-GMO. I certainly am not, and I think to the extent that kind of science denial exists on the left, it is not ubiquitous, is relatively rare, and is pretty fringe. I also am not aware of any reputable studies that pins anti-vaxers as being a left wing issue. Are there not anti-vaxers on the reich wing?

When it comes to climate denial, evolution denial, creation science, young Earth - those types of denial are widespread and ubiquitous on the right. So it is really not a fair comparison, or fair analogy to compare anti-vaxers to climate deniers. They are orders of magnitude different in proportion and scope. And proportion and scope matter when one talks about public policy and legislative priorities.
Click to expand...
I would have to do some research into that but given the low levels of scientific literacy in this nation I'm not optimistic that you are correct. For example, I believe that the lefts stance on denying the binary facts of sex and gender is just as entrenched, pervasive and wrong as those on the right on Climate Change denial.

Having said that the climate change issue is certainly a far more consequential issue.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Excellent question Desh. No it is not. Then again neither is Climate Change for the GOP. They dropped it from their 2016 platform and stated that it's not a pressing national security issue. Which says about as much as it actually being on their platform.
Click to expand...

Because they want those Chinese green dollars.
 
Good post, Mott. I agree that both sides sometimes use or abuse science for political purposes. I recall during the 60s and 70s how science was distrusted and feared by many on the left. My dad was a scientist and occasionally ranted about this. At that time, the (R)s were the friends of science and didn't skimp on funding for R&D in dozens of scientific areas, including of course space exploration.

I'm going to take issue with your statement here. "Both sex and gender are binary. That's an established scientific fact which has scientific consensus." This is not true. As we know, in some species gender can be transformed depending on the scarcity or abundance of the opposite sex.

"Clownfish, wrasses, moray eels, gobies[2] and other fish species are known to change sex, including reproductive functions. A school of clownfish is always built into a hierarchy with a female fish at the top. When she dies, the most dominant male changes sex and takes her place.[3] In the wrasses (the family Labridae), sex change is from female to male, with the largest female of the harem changing into a male and taking over the harem upon the disappearance of the previous dominant male. " (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_change)

In many reptiles, sex at birth is determined by the temperature of the egg while incubating. It is not an innate XX/XY given.

As for humans:


"Humans are born with 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs. The X and Y chromosomes determine a person’s sex. Most women are 46XX and most men are 46XY. Research suggests, however, that in a few births per thousand some individuals will be born with a single sex chromosome (45X or 45Y) (sex monosomies) and some with three or more sex chromosomes (47XXX, 47XYY or 47XXY, etc.) (sex polysomies). In addition, some males are born 46XX due to the translocation of a tiny section of the sex determining region of the Y chromosome. Similarly some females are also born 46XY due to mutations in the Y chromosome. Clearly, there are not only females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of chromosome complements, hormone balances, and phenotypic variations that determine sex." (Source: https://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html)
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I would have to do some research into that but given the low levels of scientific literacy in this nation I'm not optimistic that you are correct. For example, I believe that the lefts stance on denying the binary facts of sex and gender is just as entrenched, pervasive and wrong as those on the right on Climate Change denial.

Having said that the climate change issue is certainly a far more consequential issue.
Click to expand...

This is anecdotal but Marin County is the other side of the Golden Gate Bridge and is a well educated, economically successful, largely white and very liberal area. It is also home to many anti-vaxers. I can’t explain why that is but it just is.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well Billy you know how it goes. If the left thinks you're a Nazi and the right thinks you're a communist you're probably in the right of things.
Click to expand...

that's a ridiculous false equivalency

which end of the political spectrum is flush with domestic terrorists, climate change deniers, anti vaxers, anti bank regulation dolts, and has an absolute hatred for 'the other' - as in of ALL non-white races?

hint, it ain't those on the left
 
cawacko said:
This is anecdotal but Marin County is the other side of the Golden Gate Bridge and is a well educated, economically successful, largely white and very liberal area. It is also home to many anti-vaxers. I can’t explain why that is but it just is.
Click to expand...

Most of the people in this country that have refused their children the MMR vaccine are middle class professionals.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I think this is a good way of discussing the dangers of politicizing science. Certainly when the discussion of science denial is brought up it is used pejoratively to accuse conservatives of denying scientific consensus. Teaching evolutionary theory and climate change are probably the big two hot button topic that most are familiar with.

However my readings on many posters in political message boards and listening and reading political polemicist I've found that science denial often has more to do with a person being, not well informed on science or how to evaluate scientific data is or understanding what a scientific consensus is (it's not a popularity contest, that's for sure). I've also found that it has a lot to do with a persons personal politics being ideologically driven. In that respect I find liberals just as guilty of science denial as conservatives are about evolution, astronomy, climate change, gun violence, etc,.

Don't believe me? Talk to a liberal ideologues about vaccinations, gender, GMO Food safety, the evolutionary basis of social behavior, etc,.

Take Gender identity issues. The social theories on gender identity are simply not supported by science. Both sex and gender are binary. That's an established scientific fact which has scientific consensus. GMO Food Safety - The vast majority of peer reviewed literature and most relevant scientific associations have concluded that GMO Foods are safe. The same is true with vaccinations. The scientific consensus is that the benefits of vaccinations far out weigh the risk. Yet many liberals are hostile to these scientific consensus.

This is why as a person educated and trained in science why I'm careful about politicizing science. Often when that happens the facts and the consequences of those facts are relegated to secondary status to what is either politically popular or politically expedient.
Click to expand...

Mott, do yourself a favour and read what Michael Shellenberg has to say, you might just learn something.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...Can%92t-Save-the-Planet&p=2920100#post2920100
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I think this is a good way of discussing the dangers of politicizing science. Certainly when the discussion of science denial is brought up it is used pejoratively to accuse conservatives of denying scientific consensus. Teaching evolutionary theory and climate change are probably the big two hot button topic that most are familiar with.

However my readings on many posters in political message boards and listening and reading political polemicist I've found that science denial often has more to do with a person being, not well informed on science or how to evaluate scientific data is or understanding what a scientific consensus is (it's not a popularity contest, that's for sure). I've also found that it has a lot to do with a persons personal politics being ideologically driven. In that respect I find liberals just as guilty of science denial as conservatives are about evolution, astronomy, climate change, gun violence, etc,.

Don't believe me? Talk to a liberal ideologues about vaccinations, gender, GMO Food safety, the evolutionary basis of social behavior, etc,.

Take Gender identity issues. The social theories on gender identity are simply not supported by science. Both sex and gender are binary. That's an established scientific fact which has scientific consensus. GMO Food Safety - The vast majority of peer reviewed literature and most relevant scientific associations have concluded that GMO Foods are safe. The same is true with vaccinations. The scientific consensus is that the benefits of vaccinations far out weigh the risk. Yet many liberals are hostile to these scientific consensus.

This is why as a person educated and trained in science why I'm careful about politicizing science. Often when that happens the facts and the consequences of those facts are relegated to secondary status to what is either politically popular or politically expedient.
Click to expand...

I think the absurdity is in those that have painted the extremes. For the Climate... the left paints anyone who disagrees or is unconvinced that man is the PRIMARY driver of the changes in the climate as 'climate deniers' and then pretend that anyone who disagrees/questions that man is the primary driver believes that the climate hasn't changed. They then pretend that the climate hasn't been changing for billions of years. They then pretend not to notice the non stop 'adjustments' of data to force it to fit the models they want.

As for the anti-vax crowd... are they really against ALL vaccinations or do most of them simply question the huge jump in the number of vaccines given to children? We went from the big 7 or 8 vaccines in the 70's and 80's to over 24 now. Add in the CDC recommendations on flu shots and other repeats and kids are now getting 50-60 shots by the time they are 2.

GMO is a fear mongering tactic like the AGW crowd. Most of them chant talking points that ignore actual data.

Add in studies on DDT etc... that the fear mongers went so far to the extreme that the near elimination of malaria in the 60's/70's in Africa has now turned back into millions being infected and dying every year. All because the idiots went to the extreme to ban it for everything (a partial ban would have made more sense, especially in developed nations).

The left ignores basic genetics when discussing abortion. They can't seem to stomach having the legal discussion, so they ignore science and pretend the life is something other than a life.

Side note... the science of gun violence???? please elaborate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top