Conservatives who loathe liberalism at universities

[_Morley]

Do the studies say that? Or is this your guess?

Read them again. Slowly. Sound out the words if you must.

So, instead of answering the question, you throw out an insult.

I read them. I didn't find what you claimed. You can't (or won't) show where they say what you claimed.

[_Buffalo]

So, instead of answering the question, you throw out an insult.

I read them. I didn't find what you claimed. You can't (or won't) show where they say what you claimed.

Where were you when Big Tobacco was trying to dispute the assertion that cigarettes cause cancer? I mean, just because smokers are more likely to contract lung cancer and that an increase in smoking correlates with increased cancer risk doesn't prove that...

Since you dispute these studies, perhaps you have an alternative hypothesis. Perhaps it's dorm food that is causing an increase in liberalism with each year of higher education. Perhaps it's from repeatedly listening to Bob Marley's greatest hits.

[_Morley]

So, instead of answering the question, you throw out an insult.

I read them. I didn't find what you claimed. You can't (or won't) show where they say what you claimed.

Where were you when Big Tobacco was trying to dispute the assertion that cigarettes cause cancer? I mean, just because smokers are more likely to contract lung cancer and that an increase in smoking correlates with increased cancer risk doesn't prove that...

Since you dispute these studies, perhaps you have an alternative hypothesis. Perhaps it's dorm food that is causing an increase in liberalism with each year of higher education. Perhaps it's from repeatedly listening to Bob Marley's greatest hits.

I'm not disputing the studies or their conclusions. I'm not disputing the concussions in tobacco studies. I'm disputing your conclusions.

There are plenty of possible alternate explanations: maturation, culture, self-description, peer-pressure, etc. I think that the second or third paragraph of your linked article, Changes in Student Attitudes, lists some of these influences.

Many tobacco studies concluded that cigarettes caused cancer. No study you've cited concludes that education causes liberalism. There may, indeed, be studies that say this; it's just that you haven't shown any.

[_JAK]

As a late comer to this discussion, Buffalo is on the correct side of the issue. While it has likely all been said, the fact is that information, knowledge FREES individuals from the notion that the past was good enough and we don’t need to change our views or conclusions.

Liberal perspective is nearly always about change. It’s about revising a position or a view as a result of intellectual curiosity which uncovers new information and applies that new information to what was previously regarded as the final word.

Many examples have previously been cited which demonstrate this. For what we knew about the universe in which we are but a speck, the Hubble Space Telescope has offered enormous additional information/knowledge.

Those who invented the earliest telescope were liberals. They were open to more information, more knowledge than was offered by the past. Some were imprisoned. Some were killed. But they were liberals in that they challenged the status quo and the conservative view/perspective.

Hence, Buffalo has established that information/knowledge/education tend to make individuals more liberal in their perspective.

Again, I recognize that my entry here is late into the discussion. But the view that information tends to liberalize is well established.

What the alternative is would be that information/knowledge/education tends to make individuals MORE conservative in their perspective and their view.

Religious pronouncements/dogmas are revised in the face of compelling information/knowledge. It is not the other way around. That is, greater information does not confirm dogma manufactured from superstition or out of ignorance.

Some people tend to dislike (I don’t know about “loathe”) new information which challenges previously held “conservative” views.

Science is inherently liberal. That is, science is open to new information including information that alters previously held conclusions of scientists themselves. Generally, science insists on compelling evidence to revise a previous tentative conclusion. But, once such evidence is established (tested, challenged, investigated), it is the liberal who is willing and ultimately able to assimilate that evidence and apply it.

JAK

[_Morley]

As a late comer to this discussion, Buffalo is on the correct side of the issue. While it has likely all been said, the fact is that information, knowledge FREES individuals from the notion that the past was good enough and we don’t need to change our views or conclusions.

Liberal perspective is nearly always about change. It’s about revising a position or a view as a result of intellectual curiosity which uncovers new information and applies that new information to what was previously regarded as the final word.

Many examples have previously been cited which demonstrate this. For what we knew about the universe in which we are but a speck, the Hubble Space Telescope has offered enormous additional information/knowledge.

Those who invented the earliest telescope were liberals. They were open to more information, more knowledge than was offered by the past. Some were imprisoned. Some were killed. But they were liberals in that they challenged the status quo and the conservative view/perspective.

Hence, Buffalo has established that information/knowledge/education tend to make individuals more liberal in their perspective.

Again, I recognize that my entry here is late into the discussion. But the view that information tends to liberalize is well established.

What the alternative is would be that information/knowledge/education tends to make individuals MORE conservative in their perspective and their view.

Religious pronouncements/dogmas are revised in the face of compelling information/knowledge. It is not the other way around. That is, greater information does not confirm dogma manufactured from superstition or out of ignorance.

Some people tend to dislike (I don’t know about “loathe”) new information which challenges previously held “conservative” views.

Science is inherently liberal. That is, science is open to new information including information that alters previously held conclusions of scientists themselves. Generally, science insists on compelling evidence to revise a previous tentative conclusion. But, once such evidence is established (tested, challenged, investigated), it is the liberal who is willing and ultimately able to assimilate that evidence and apply it.

JAK

Please define what you mean by 'liberal.'

[_JAK]

“Liberal” can, of course, be applied to politics, religion, etc. In my comments, I did implicitly define the term. To be open to new information and willing to adjust previously held conclusions is to be liberal.

“One of the first recorded instances of the word liberal occurs in 1375, when it was used to describe the liberal arts. The word's early connection with the classical education of a medieval university soon gave way to a proliferation of different denotations and connotations. Liberal could refer to ‘free in bestowing’ as early as 1387, ‘made without stint’ in 1433, ‘freely permitted’ in 1530, and 'free from restraint'—often as a pejorative remark—in the 16th and the 17th centuries.” Source for the preceding

Certainly, “liberal” can be understood in a wide context. We can observe it in the arts including music, painting, literature, etc.

“Classical liberals, who broadly emphasized the importance of free markets and civil liberties, dominated liberal history for a century after the French Revolution.” Source for this quote.

These sources expand somewhat my comment. The willingness to be open to new discoveries, new information, and new conclusions was the essential context of my illustrations.

JAK

[_richardMdBorn]

Science is inherently liberal. That is, science is open to new information including information that alters previously held conclusions of scientists themselves. Generally, science insists on compelling evidence to revise a previous tentative conclusion. But, once such evidence is established (tested, challenged, investigated), it is the liberal who is willing and ultimately able to assimilate that evidence and apply it. JAK

Is this true with liberals and the theses that
1) global warming is occurring
2) It is caused by humans.

[_Bond James Bond]

I think much of the American academy is perceived as liberal because of the college protests of the late 1960s-70s when teachers were as much a part of the movement as students were. However many of those profs have retired, and in my opinion at least there is some conservative elements on college campuses. In total I'd say more liberal than conservative, but it's not 100% liberal either. Probably 60/40 or 70/30.

A grad student who talks to college profs~just an opinion.

[_JAK]

Post Reference

BJB,

There is likely very little link to the time of the “1960s-70s” in the context of this discussion. The academic world is inherently open to information that can be established as reliable. That was the case with early scientists such as Galileo. He clearly played a most significant role in the Scientific Revolution which dates to the 15th and 17th centuries. During that time early scientists were always searching, always open to new information and the discovery of that new information.

They were liberals in that they challenged old doctrines and beliefs with their newly discovered information. They were not of the 1960s. The term scientific revolution was “coined” in 1939. However, the tools of science and what we call today the scientific method was used in principle from the earliest times in human evolution. The earliest discoveries were often made by experimentation and even by accident. We have no knowledge of when the wheel was invented. It was a most important invention. At some point, that was a new idea or, if you like, a liberal idea. But it took little time for the idea/invention to be adopted by everyone.

Rolling heavy rocks on logs was an innovation which made use of the concept we call “the wheel.” Of course, it was not called the wheel centuries ago. But it worked, the idea worked, and it was used.

However, in response to your comment, the early “scientists” were not called scientists. The term was not in use then. Yet those early experiments were conducted by liberals who were open to testing, to experimenting, to challenging the status quo.

“Scientists assume an attitude of openness and accountability on the part of those conducting an experiment. Detailed record keeping is essential, to aid in recording and reporting on the experimental results, and supports the effectiveness and integrity of the procedure. They will also assist in reproducing the experimental results, likely by others.” Source for this quotation

JAK

[_Buffalo]

[

I'm not disputing the studies or their conclusions. I'm not disputing the concussions in tobacco studies. I'm disputing your conclusions.

There are plenty of possible alternate explanations: maturation, culture, self-description, peer-pressure, etc. I think that the second or third paragraph of your linked article, Changes in Student Attitudes, lists some of these influences.

Many tobacco studies concluded that cigarettes caused cancer. No study you've cited concludes that education causes liberalism. There may, indeed, be studies that say this; it's just that you haven't shown any.

"College Makes Students More Liberal." It was right in the headline, you know.