Science Denial Runs Red and Blue

[cancel2 2022]

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.

The Silent Spring, written by that arrogant bitch Rachel Carson, caused the deaths of millions of children in Africa and Asia. Yet the left learns nothing, each generation is more extreme and ill informed seemingly than the last.

 

[anonymoose]

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).

consensus[kuh n-sen-suh s]noun, plural con·sen·sus·es.
majority of opinion:
Example.: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
general agreement or concord; harmony.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consensus

So I'd define "scientific consensus" as a majority of opinion on a scientific matter which has yet to be tested with predictable results. An opinion is something that has yet to be proved or it wouldn't be an opinion.

Definition of opinion
1a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
We asked them for their opinions about the new stadium.
b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
I have no great opinion of his work.
2a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
a person of rigid opinions
b : a generally held view
news programs that shape public opinion
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion

Once an Observation or Hypothesis is tested with predictable and repeatable results the Hypothesis becomes Theory. Once the Theory is proven beyond all doubt, Theory becomes Scientific Law. As one who is educated and trained in science, I would think you understand this.
I find that most on the left do not understand this but believe that "consensus " is proof and I'd argue that some laymen actually believe scientific consensus is Scientific Law. Nothing could be further than the truth.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

I come from a family of Chiropractors....most of the folks I know in that circle are anti-vaxers and THEY ARE well educated in science. I have argued with them that when the statistical odds of a vaccine having a dangerous adverse side affect is greater than the statistical probability of risk of a non-endemic virus than it should not be used but other than that the benefits far outweigh the risks....but they go way beyond that and argue myths that have been debunked, such as, an association of vaccines with autism or that vaccines contain formaldehyde, etc.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

Preventing the statistical analysis of gun injuries and death by public health institutions, such as, CDC.

 

[Truth Detector]

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.

STRAWMAN warning. Who is denying science?

 

[Truth Detector]

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.

STRAWMAN alert! Who is denying that the climate has changed?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

So I'd define "scientific consensus" as a majority of opinion on a scientific matter which has yet to be tested with predictable results. An opinion is something that has yet to be proved or it wouldn't be an opinion.


Once an Observation or Hypothesis is tested with predictable and repeatable results the Hypothesis becomes Theory. Once the Theory is proven beyond all doubt, Theory becomes Scientific Law. As one who is educated and trained in science, I would think you understand this.
I find that most on the left do not understand this but believe that "consensus " is proof and I'd argue that some laymen actually believe scientific consensus is Scientific Law. Nothing could be further than the truth.

Scientific consensus is what most scientists in a particular field of study agree is true on a given question, when disagreement on the question is limited and insignificant. Though it does not mean unanimity.

The consensus may or may not turn out to be confirmed by further research. When it is, a hypothesis becomes known as a (lower-case) theory, or, given enough time and evidence, an (upper case) Theory, such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Numerous times in the history of science one theory has been superseded by another as anomalies or counter-examples accrued over time and the scientific community has discarded an older theory in favor of a new theory which accounted for more of the data in a more satisfactory way. This often occurs as the result of improvements in the accuracy of the instruments used to observe, record and measure phenomena.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

 

[Truth Detector]

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.

Where does the Constitution say that it is the Federal Governments responsibility to fund R&D in the sciences?

 

[Truth Detector]

I don't see .....

So true; you don't see a LOT.

 

[Truth Detector]

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

More evidence of your lunacy. Yay you!

 

[Truth Detector]

'favour'?

learn English in England perchance comrade?

This from a moron who doesn't know how to construct a basic sentence. STFU you willful idiot.

 

[Truth Detector]

Preventing the statistical analysis of gun injuries and death by public health institutions, such as, CDC.

LINK?

 

[cancel2 2022]

oh, that makes perfect sense wanker!

Is your arse jealous of the amount of shit that comes out of your mouth?

 

[Cypress]

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 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.

According to polling by Pew, about 9 percent of Americans could be characterized as anti-vaxers, and there is no partisan distinction between Republicans and Democrats - who statistically speaking are both about as likely to be anti-vaxers.

My take-away is that anti-vaxers are not a good candidate to illustrate science denial on the left.

83% Say Measles Vaccine Is Safe for Healthy Children

No Partisan Differences in Views of Vaccine Safety

http://www.people-press.org/2015/02/09/83-percent-say-measles-vaccine-is-safe-for-healthy-children/

I think you might be onto something with the anti-GMO crowd being more liberal though. Conservatives seemingly tend to be fatter, eat less healthy, and are less concerned with nutrition and what they put into their bodies than lefties.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

.


According to polling by Pew, about 9 percent of Americans could be characterized as anti-vaxers, and there is no partisan distinction between Republicans and Democrats - who statistically speaking are both about as likely to be anti-vaxers.

My take-away is that anti-vaxers are not a good candidate to illustrate science denial on the left.


I think you might be onto something with the anti-GMO crowd being more liberal though. Conservatives seemingly tend to be fatter, eat less healthy, and are less concerned with nutrition and what they put into their bodies than lefties.

LOL You'll have to show me a correlation between GMO foods and eating more to validate that hypothesis.

 

[anonymoose]

Conservatives seemingly tend to be fatter, eat less healthy, and are less concerned with nutrition and what they put into their bodies than lefties.

Not all is what it seems.

Well-Being
Republicans have higher well-being than Democrats or Independents. A well-being survey looks at things like workplace perceptions, access to basic necessities and physical health. Interestingly, the one area Democrats outperformed Republicans in one such study was in life evaluation — meaning that Democrats may be doing worse than Republicans in terms of well-being, but they aren’t bothered by it as much as Republicans.
https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demographics-republicans/

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

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.

Fuck off idiots rightist

The overwhelming medical consensus is that transgender people exist and are real. You have no authority to contradict the medical establishment with your pseudoscientific theories of trans-denial. There is an established scientific consensus that gender is NOT binary. Find me one legitimate modern scientific source that says otherwise. There are none. Because you are a pseudoscientist fascist.

And by "evolution" I'm sure you mean pseudosciences like evolutionary psychology, which just like social darwinism are attempts to create shields for fascism by combining evolution and social sciences and using that to defend the social status quo. They are all garbage with no scientific validity. You are an enemy of science and should burn your degree. I am an educated computer scientist and I am a thousand times more knowledgable about biology and medicine than you are, you stupid ignorant fascist boomer.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Fuck off idiots rightist

The overwhelming medical consensus is that transgender people exist and are real. You have no authority to contradict the medical establishment with your pseudoscientific theories of trans-denial. There is an established scientific consensus that gender is NOT binary. Find me one legitimate modern scientific source that says otherwise. There are none. Because you are a pseudoscientist fascist.

And by "evolution" I'm sure you mean pseudosciences like evolutionary psychology, which just like social darwinism are attempts to create shields for fascism by combining evolution and social sciences and using that to defend the social status quo. They are all garbage with no scientific validity. You are an enemy of science and should burn your degree. I am an educated computer scientist and I am a thousand times more knowledgable about biology and medicine than you are, you stupid ignorant fascist boomer.

Blimey, wrong time of the month?

 

[anonymoose]

I am an educated computer scientist ...

Received a basic Microsoft certification. lol

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Scientific consensus is what most scientists in a particular field of study agree is true on a given question, when disagreement on the question is limited and insignificant. Though it does not mean unanimity.

The consensus may or may not turn out to be confirmed by further research. When it is, a hypothesis becomes known as a (lower-case) theory, or, given enough time and evidence, an (upper case) Theory, such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Numerous times in the history of science one theory has been superseded by another as anomalies or counter-examples accrued over time and the scientific community has discarded an older theory in favor of a new theory which accounted for more of the data in a more satisfactory way. This often occurs as the result of improvements in the accuracy of the instruments used to observe, record and measure phenomena.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

AND THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS THAT GENDER IS NOT BINARY

The XX and XY chromosomes are *signalling mechanisms*. They are not *gender*. Every human being has the full genetic code to construct both a woman and a man. The Y chromosome is a stump chromosome with almost no genetic information, it does not contain the genetic code for a penis and such. It is just a signalling mechanism that is supposed to signal the expression of gender changes elsewhere. So the penis becomes a clitoris, the balls labia, as well as a spectrum of possible expression in between those two. IT IS NOT ALWAYS FULLY SUCCESSFUL. That is where transgenderism arises, the failure of this signalling mechanism to force expression of gender changes in the brain and elsewhere in the body.

This is basic science. You are an ignorant cranky fool.