Conservatives who loathe liberalism at universities

[_Buffalo]

Sure. However, what Abman says remains true: Correlation is still not causation. You're suggesting a correlation as if it were the cause. Or am I misreading?

There could be other reasons university faculty tend to self-identify as 'liberal.' You know, other than that they have giant, throbbing, over-educated brains squirting out of their ears.

I never claimed that correlation is the same as causation. I am saying that education both causes and correlates with liberalism.

Some people, however, seem to wave this "correlation is not causation" phrase like a magic totem. Some people seem to use it as an argument that correlation is the opposite of causation. Which is, of course, a very silly thing to do.

[_asbestosman]

. I am saying that education both causes and correlates with liberalism.

You have failed to establish causation.

Some people seem to use it as an argument that correlation is the opposite of causation. Which is, of course, a very silly thing to do.

That would be silly. I wonder who would do such a foolish thing.

Look Buffalo, I'm not claiming that liberalism is the dumber position to hold or that there isn't a causal connection between education and liberalism I'm only claiming that such a causal relationship has yet to be established--at least in this thread.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I've explained this to you twice now.

I’m not sure you are understanding my question…

They self-identified as liberal

Did the researchers provide a definition of what they meant by “Liberal” before the participants self identified? If so, what was that definition?

which is as exact as any other way of detecting something as subjective as liberalism.

You don’t think a litmus test would be more objective than just self identification?

The only conclusion I can draw from your response (non-response?) is that liberals must be 100% effective in practice at applying their ideals (even when they don't have, for example, direct hiring responsibility), otherwise they forfeit word "liberal."

I don’t recall saying that, could you point out where I did?

You've made your first legitimate point. Yes, the alternative isn't hyper-conservatism.

Oh come on, this was legitimate too:

Lovely assertion. I'll respond to that by asserting that every secular university in the US is also completely free of nepotism and discrimination. What fun.

VS

Okay, but your own article contradicts that.

Speaking of dichotomies, how about the dichotomy of 100% perfect application of liberal ideals (conveniently ignoring, of course, the effect of administration vs faculty in the whole mess), otherwise it isn't liberal? Yeah, it's a no true Scotsman.

I pointed out necessity and not sufficiency, can’t have a true Scotsman without sufficiency.

Done and dusted.

Man I’m feelin’ pretty pwned right about now

[_MrStakhanovite]

Sure. However, what Abman says remains true: Correlation is still not causation. You're suggesting a correlation as if it were the cause. Or am I misreading?

I think Abman meant that correlation doesn't imply causation, correlation is easy to establish while causation is pretty hard. More to the point, this wasn't a survey of all PhD holders, just teaching staff.

[_Blixa]

.... Education is incompatible with conservatism. ....

This is quite a statement. Do you seriously believe it?

Dear lord. Buffalo. Please. Stop. Now.

Your sweeping generalizations and utter black and white thinking is embarrassing. One could list conservative philosophers and thinkers til the cows came home. Off the top of my head:

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Thomas Hobbes
Edmund Burke
Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Thomas Carlyle
Matthew Arnold
John Ruskin
Oswald Spengler
T.S. Eliot
John Henry Newman
G.K. Chesterton

Of course you are apparently thinking of a much smaller group of American pundits, but still...think, dude, think.

Also, "mild institutional hypocrisy" doesn't come close to describing the entrenched sexism that still persists in the academy.

[_Buffalo]

. I am saying that education both causes and correlates with liberalism.

You have failed to establish causation.

Causation lies in the material one encounters in the process of obtaining a degree.

[_Buffalo]

You don’t think a litmus test would be more objective than just self identification?

No. A litmus test would identify how closely they matched with the researchers' subjective idea of what liberalism is.

[_Buffalo]

[

Your sweeping generalizations and utter black and white thinking is embarrassing. One could list conservative philosophers and thinkers til the cows came home. Off the top of my head:

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Thomas Hobbes
Edmund Burke
Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Thomas Carlyle
Matthew Arnold
John Ruskin
Oswald Spengler
T.S. Eliot
John Henry Newman
G.K. Chesterton

Can you think of any with a pulse?

[_Buffalo]

The only conclusion I can draw from your response (non-response?) is that liberals must be 100% effective in practice at applying their ideals (even when they don't have, for example, direct hiring responsibility), otherwise they forfeit word "liberal."

I don’t recall saying that, could you point out where I did?

It's been the point of your whole tired denial throughout this thread. You don't want the American intelligentsia to be liberal, so you must invent reasons to disqualify them.

[Guest]

It's been the point of your whole tired denial throughout this thread. You don't want the American intelligentsia to be liberal, so you must invent reasons to disqualify them.

Do you consider those who dominate Wall Street to be liberal? Are they excluded from belonging to your 'American intelligentsia'?