Left vs. Right on Science & Honesty

[_Res Ipsa]

So much nonsense to address in the OP and so little time. Let’s start with what he claims “everyone knows” that women are more dishonest than men. He quotes from an article in a British tabloid about a survey taken for a campaign to market iced tea. And it’s a bunch of questions about the white lies we tell each other. Which of course has “F” all to do with whether women are honest about being sexually assaulted. But there you go — this is Dog’s evidence that he’s on the side of science. Get it: he’s got science behind his claim that women can’t be trusted when they make sexual assault allegations based on a survey about white lies taken for a campaign to market iced tea.

Now, here’s the punchline. If you go to Dog’s link and scroll down, you’ll find a link to another article in the same tabloid about a survey that claims men lie more than women. Why does Dog cite one and not the other?

He answers it later in his post, where he gets all self righteous about confirmation bias. Dog’s confirmation bias is so strong that he didn’t bother to assess how strong his evidence was or look for contrary evidence.

Keep that in mind as he goes on to attack liberals for being anti-science.

[_subgenius]

Not sure how you are defining "left and right" here, but if you are keeping with the ambiguity of modern day American notions of right and left, then the Right has made waaaay more innovations and and progress in the field of science than has the Left.

Considering that most scientists identify as democrat it's hard to see how this would be true.
https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/most-scientists-in-this-country-are-democrats-that-s-a-problem.html

Science, in your mind, has been around for how long?...or did you think the poster was asking only about the scientific contributions made by Americans in the past 20 years?

...and I am guessing that you are defining Left=Democrat and Right=Republican - and all are American?...how colonial of you.

[_Xenophon]

So much nonsense to address in the OP and so little time. Let’s start with what he claims “everyone knows” that women are more dishonest than men. He quotes from an article in a British tabloid about a survey taken for a campaign to market iced tea. And it’s a bunch of questions about the white lies we tell each other. Which of course has “F” all to do with whether women are honest about being sexually assaulted. But there you go — this is Dog’s evidence that he’s on the side of science. Get it: he’s got science behind his claim that women can’t be trusted when they make sexual assault allegations based on a survey about white lies taken for a campaign to market iced tea.

One of the most disingenuous parts of trying to deny or counter the statistical evidence that people don't generally lie about sexual assault is that it doesn't just effect women. Men are sexually assaulted too (a fact a lot of people seem to be forgetting) and guess what, they aren't likely to lie about it either. No one is seriously claiming women are more honest than women. Only that sexual assault victims, regardless of gender/age/race/whatever, rarely make that horror up.

[_Maksutov]

So much nonsense to address in the opening post and so little time. Let’s start with what he claims “everyone knows” that women are more dishonest than men. He quotes from an article in a British tabloid about a survey taken for a campaign to market iced tea. And it’s a bunch of questions about the white lies we tell each other. Which of course has ____ all to do with whether women are honest about being sexually assaulted. But there you go — this is Dog’s evidence that he’s on the side of science. Get it: he’s got science behind his claim that women can’t be trusted when they make sexual assault allegations based on a survey about white lies taken for a campaign to market iced tea.

Now, here’s the punchline. If you go to Dog’s link and scroll down, you’ll find a link to another article in the same tabloid about a survey that claims men lie more than women. Why does Dog cite one and not the other?

He answers it later in his post, where he gets all self righteous about confirmation bias. Dog’s confirmation bias is so strong that he didn’t bother to assess how strong his evidence was or look for contrary evidence.

Keep that in mind as he goes on to attack liberals for being anti-science.

But this is Bro Science. It's superior to your mere effeminate science. Facts don't matter if you've got swagger and putdowns.

[_Water Dog]

Some? This poll from years ago suggest most republicans do not believe in evolution while most democrats do.
https://www.ajc.com/news/national/poll-republican-belief-evolution-the-decline/xF8JvlDbc9YA9ZoBbhCLoM/

Article I linked directly addresses this. Social sciences have been stacked with leftists who are caught in a confirmation bias loop. Put another way, polls like this are meaningless. It's a fallacy to cite them. All the assumptions are wrong. It's like asking Richard Bushman to answer the question, "is the church true?" He'll say, "yes." Does that mean all these other things you want it to mean? No, it doesn't. All it means is that he answered "yes" to that particular question at that particular time and place. It doesn't actually tell you much about his opinions at all. Evolution as a subject has been politicized. It's not that these people don't believe in evolution, or that they would somehow impede scientific research, or that they'd decline the counsel of a doctor when they or theirs get sick. It's that Richard Dawkins is a raging asshole. It's that when they get polled about "evolution" they know what they're really being asked about is whether the government should meddle in their affairs, like how they teach their kids.

This is just a small vocal minority. Much less a problem then larger groups of sexiest or racist people.

Umm, what? I know you weren't hiding in a cave the past 3 weeks, so what's this about. That's not a "vocal minority." I cannot read an article these days without a reference to "white men." Which predictably then gets mirrored here as well. On the other hand, where are these "larger groups" of "sexist" or "racist" people hiding? And don't you dare cite 4chan trolling, internet locker room culture. That doesn't count. Oh, wait, I know where. They are hiding as "liberals," all over Twitter "splaining" to blacks like Kanye West who a proper house n****r should vote for. They know what's in his best interest, after all. Why, ever, would he want to leave the planation they've constructed for him. Raise your hand if my using the term "blacks" instead of "African American" got under your skin a little, and found this to be a tell of sorts, an example of my inner racist.

Considering that most scientists identify as democrat it's hard to see how this would be true.
https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/most-scientists-in-this-country-are-democrats-that-s-a-problem.html

Here we go again. The religious equivalent of citing the Bible. A study, a poll, a slate article! Oh, well, it says so right there, so it must be true.

Or perhaps the situation is a bit more complex.

...data show that, in certain medical fields, large majorities of physicians tend to share the political leanings of their colleagues, and a study suggests ideology could affect some treatment recommendations. In surgery, anesthesiology and urology, for example, around two-thirds of doctors who have registered a political affiliation are Republicans. In infectious disease medicine, psychiatry and pediatrics, more than two-thirds are Democrats.

Huh. So being as fair as I can possibly be, we have a pool of people who are the same intelligence, same education, and so on. They all are scientists. They all have the same basic approach to considering data which has been collected. And yet, when it comes to politics, very different results. Which, oddly enough, seems to correlate more with culture than anything else. Kind of like what religion people identify with in Provo or Brooklyn.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/upsh ... ocrat.html

I have no idea where all these majority democrat scientists are. I don't see them in my field. There is a democrat from time to time. Lots of them among non-technical support staff. But the actual scientists, the engineers, the technical hands on labor, they're all #MAGA.





Something else is going on here. This notion that Republicans are stupid or ignorant, just doesn't seem to fit the data. Smart, highly educated, highly competent people could be either Democrat or Republican. Or Neither. There are outliers on all sides. Dumb people. Insane people. Evil people. Does one side or the other have more bad apples? Does one side or the other tend to rely more on emotional vs. intellectual persuasion?

http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/

[_canpakes]

Not sure how you are defining "left and right" here, but if you are keeping with the ambiguity of modern day American notions of right and left, then the Right has made waaaay more innovations and and progress in the field of science than has the Left.

Considering that most scientists identify as democrat it's hard to see how this would be true.
https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/most-scientists-in-this-country-are-democrats-that-s-a-problem.html

Science, in your mind, has been around for how long?...or did you think the poster was asking only about the scientific contributions made by Americans in the past 20 years?

...and I am guessing that you are defining Left=Democrat and Right=Republican - and all are American?...how colonial of you.

Holy crap, you can’t even keep current with your own previous post. Lol.

[_EAllusion]

You know, testimony from victims as the exclusive evidence of guilt is routinely used to convict people in court when the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Sexual crimes against women traditionally have had a higher bar. There used to even be laws on the books that prevented defendants from being convicted of sexual crimes on witness testimony from the victim alone just like there used to be laws that prevented assailants who were co-habitating with their victims from being convicted for raping them. And this wasn't that long ago.

It's true that witness testimony is a weak form of evidence, but it's also uniquely persuasive juries and leads to a lot of convictions. Since Water Dog seems to now agree that witness testimony from the victim alone has no business leading to convictions of people, unless maybe the defendant could be shown to have repeatedly lied about facts surrounding the allegation, I look forward to his social advocacy on behalf of all the people convicted on that basis currently in prison and for reform in our criminal justice system so it doesn't happen any more.

I'll just wait right over here:

[_Themis]

Article I linked directly addresses this. Social sciences have been stacked with leftists who are caught in a confirmation bias loop. Put another way, polls like this are meaningless. It's a fallacy to cite them. All the assumptions are wrong.

All you are saying is you reject what you don't like. Evolution is only politicized because of the religious right which interprets the Bible literally and tends to support republicans in large numbers. Climate science is similar in that the far right thinks it's some leftist plot. Other sciences like engineering are not confrontational. Sure there are some areas where democrats are more skeptical of the science, but evolution and climate science are the big ones, and climate has the most impact on our lives.

Umm, what? I know you weren't hiding in a cave the past 3 weeks, so what's this about. That's not a "vocal minority." I cannot read an article these days without a reference to "white men."

Ya it's a vocal minority, but you cannot see this because of where you get your information and their highly biased motivations to promote these kind of messages.

Something else is going on here. This notion that Republicans are stupid or ignorant, just doesn't seem to fit the data. Smart, highly educated, highly competent people could be either Democrat or Republican. Or Neither. There are outliers on all sides. Dumb people. Insane people. Evil people. Does one side or the other have more bad apples? Does one side or the other tend to rely more on emotional vs. intellectual persuasion?

People can be highly educated on both sides and still be very stupid in many areas.

[_EAllusion]

Water Dog is correct that skepticism in evolutionary biology is more common on the right, but also is found in large numbers left of center as well. Just recently, as in the last 5-10 years, you're starting to see a noticeable drop in anti-evolution views, but it's still quite common. Because of how poll questions are asked, it's difficult to get exact numbers on positions that really nail down what people think. That said, roughly 40% of the country are young earth creationists. Another 20ish% are what can be called old-earth creationists. It is not exclusively a religious right phenemonon. Only about 20ish% of the United States explicitly adopts the scientific view that evolution via natural processes is sufficient to explain biodiveristy.

These numbers are now shifting towards pro-evolution views, probably due to the the rapid collapse of religious belief in the country. But you still find huge numbers of Democrats who are creationists. In the last poll I read, it was about 30% down from about 40%.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'd be curious where the political line is drawn with regard to anti-vaxxers.

- Doc