Does science have a liberal bias?

[Buzz Clik]

Everyone knows that the truth has a liberal bias.

---Stephen Colbert

Colbert's tongue-in-cheek declaration about the truth is too often taken literally by progressives. Partisanship being what it is, we often are convinced that the truth is on our side.

Is the same true of science? Do scientific facts support our liberal causes? Examples:

• Global climate change (and the human influence)
  
• Anti-GMO movement
  
• Rejection of all pesticides
  
• The dangers of nuclear energy
  
• Anti-vaccinations

The answer, of course, depends upon your position on these issues. For example, although anti-vaxxers originate from within the left, progressives as a whole do not embrace the anti-vaccination stance, and the science tends to support vaccinations as being safe.

What is your attitude? Are you willing to accept scientific evidence -- scientific consensus -- when the science is contrary to the personal opinion that you passionately embrace?

[NuclearDem]

1. Some can't separate bad business practices and the science involved in those businesses.

Pharmacology, vaccinations, fission energy, and genetic modification are all scientifically-sound, but the bad behavior of the companies working in those respective fields does need to be reined in.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Bingo. We have a winner with the very first reply.

[RobertEarl]

44. heh

First two.... both deniers of the factual science that releases of radiation from nuke plants is deadly to life on this planet. Deny all you want, but the science is clear.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

3. I've tried to express this same sentiment a million times over...

Yet, I'm always called a shill for whichever industry/corporation is the boogeyman of the day (9/10, it's Monsanto).

[SwissTony]

15. I've been called a shill for "Big Pharma" because I take on anti-vaxxers.

Don't shills get paid? I've never received a penny!

[Buzz Clik]

17. Your check's in the mail.

[underpants]

4. I, being a liberal, use evidence to form my opinion

We are not dogmatic like conservatives.

[Buzz Clik]

18. Excellent. But, there's evidence and there's evidence.

The anti-vaxxers, for instance, are convinced that they have rock solid evidence that the mercury contamination in vaccines causes autism. The position is not supported by the consensus of an abundance of medical studies.

[underpants]

40. Exactly my point. They are convinced which takes belief

Not facts. The scientific model requires a hypothesis or a guess, speculation then you prove or disprove it. At the end you have facts. If you choose to ignore them or weigh more heavily your beliefs then that is their choice but facts don't support it.

That was what I was trying to say.

[Buzz Clik]

41. Very good. Thanks.

[DetlefK]

5. Science is apolitical and that's why Republicans don't trust it:

They perceive the world as a network of facilitators/manipulators/(divine) creators with agendas. Agendas that can predicted, manipulated, bargained with. Science has no agenda and that's what makes it so shady to Republicans: They don't believe that someone/something is without a bias. If science had a predictable agenda, well, let's talk about it, maybe we can change your mind. But science claiming to have no agenda? Well, this can only mean that science is hiding something sinister.



Not accepting scientific consensus would be egotistical: It would mean denial for the sake of not having to admit to being wrong. There is a difference between rejecting an explanation out of curiosity (more questions, please) and rejecting it out of vanity (no questions, please).

[Buzz Clik]

19. I agree totally with your second paragraph. Addressing your first paragraph:

I find the conservatives' approach to science something of an enigma. They are quick to quote totally bogus claims about climate change, but stand idly by the raging debate over GMOs -- they don't seem to fall cleanly on either side of the debate.

[okaawhatever]

6. Science has a liberal bias in that only liberals believe in science. Remember, science hasn't proven

than vaccinations are unsafe or cause autism. All energy is dangerous. More people are killed by electricity than by nuclear energy. Science is on both sides of GMOs, it depends on what you consider more important.

[Buzz Clik]

21. Not sure that conservatives don't believe in science...

... I think they pick and choose which scientific findings to endorse. That approach, sadly, is bipartisan.

Otherwise, I agree entirely.

As for myself: I am pro-nuke but anti-nuclear waste until a solution is found and put into play.

[alarimer]

7. Science does not support the anti-GMO or anti-vaccine position AT ALL.

The left is every bit as much invested in science denial as the right is, most of it on the environmentalist side of things.

The anti-vaccine movement seems to cross ideological lines. A lot of it is rich, white liberals with their woo-woo bullshit, but some is just in keeping with anti-government stances on the right.

I work in the scientific field and have been at odds with other liberals over a lot of these things. I would add that a lot of environmental activism is not scientifically based. Some of it is, but a lot of if is just touchy-feely nonsense. I do believe a pro-active approach to protecting the environment is important, but it should be science-based. Commercial and recreational fishing is often vilified on the left. I profoundly disagree with that. It can be (but isn't often, for a variety of political reasons) done in a sustainable way, based on sound science. So can hunting (but not, you know, endangered species) because sometimes giving a value to a species can actually serve to protect it, if managed correctly.

[Buzz Clik]

23. +1!!!

Excellent, well considered post.

[3catwoman3]

8. Science has a...

...truth bias.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. Alas, humans do not and even assuming honesty (a big assumption, at that) accuracy is another issue.

[Buzz Clik]

24. Indeed, it does. The truth can be elusive, but science can point the way.

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. Unless "science" has at some point been proven to be infallible, "scientific consensus" seems to be

a very subjective proposition.

I look at things "scientific consensus" has been wrong about in the past, and shake my head.

[bananas]

12. Yup - current example: major shift in neuroscience going on right now.

Posted in Good Reads last month: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016120002

http://bjoern.brembs.net/2015/03/watching-a-paradigm-shift-in-neuroscience/

Watching a paradigm shift in neuroscience
by Björn Brembs, March 26

When I finished my PhD 15 years ago, the neurosciences defined the main function of brains in terms of processing input to compute output: “brain function is ultimately best understood in terms of input/output transformations and how they are produced” wrote Mike Mauk in 2000. Since then, a lot of things have been discovered that make this stimulus-response concept untenable and potentially based largely on laboratory artifacts.

For instance, it was discovered that the likely ancestral state of behavioral organization is one of probing the environment with ongoing, variable actions first and evaluating sensory feedback later (i.e., the inverse of stimulus response).

<snip>

As one would expect, this dramatic shift in perspectives from input/output to output/input has led to a slew of recent publications which were not thinkable a mere 15 years ago.

<snip>

In the most recent annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, where I usually only find very few presentations on ongoing activity and how it leads to variability, there now were several posters on exactly this topic, seemingly out of nowhere.

<snip>

[NuclearDem]

16. "Science" (whatever amorphous entity that refers to) has never been said to be infallible.

The conclusion is that the scientific method--observing, testing, independently testing, and then making predictions based on those observations--is the best method available to us to answer questions about the natural world.

I look at things "scientific consensus" has been wrong about in the past, and shake my head.

"Wrong", or drew conclusions based on the best available methods and tools at the time?

Germ theory is a given now, but before the microscope, the entire medical community was well in its right to not accept something like that.

Plate tectonics is a given now, but before the seismograph and deep sea oceanography, it was entirely rational to doubt it.

[Buzz Clik]

28. Wonderful response.

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. No matter how good The Scientific Method is, it can be subverted by just about anyone.

Anyone who is convinced of something and lacking the objectivity to see otherwise can use The Scientific Method to prove their theory correct.

Some of the most entertaining time I have spent on the internet was spent reading about what people were, once upon a time, convinced of. Better yet, what they were able to make others believe.

[ananda]

10. This is the wrong question.

The real question: can science be influenced by biases?

Yes, according to the scientist and the way the research is funded.

[Buzz Clik]

29. Without question! And sometimes, those biases are difficult to tease out.

IMHO, we eventually get to the proper scientific conclusions.

[FarPoint]

11. I think liberalism is grounded in science.

Our core beliefs focus on the humanitarian needs of people and society... So, we embrace science for the good of humanity.

[hifiguy]

32. Yep, Liberalism is grounded in evidence of what is.

Not what we wish to believe is true even in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary.

[Buzz Clik]

33. I disagree with this.

Many liberal points of view are based on trepidation of the unknown and settling in too quickly on unfounded conclusions.

Case in point: Most liberals are opposed to GMOs. This can be the result of a despise for the predatory business practices of companies like Monsanto, but it is also based on being fearful of not knowing with 100% certainty what will happen from consuming foodstuffs created from genetic manipulation. Unknown (and sometime notorious) "scientists" will toss up outrageous claims that are immediately embraced by the GMO community and never let go despite being disproved by experts in the field.

My observation is that liberals line up with science only coincidentally.

[Gothmog]

14. Conservatives and the GOP base do not believe in science

[Buzz Clik]

34. Hm. Not sure I've witnessed this. Do you have an example?

[Rex]

20. When a person insists that everything happens in a vacuum, they are as lost as the

person that insists everything happens for a reason. Both are wrong. The truth is unbiased and that seems to drive some crazy.

[HereSince1628]

22. I think the left invokes science when it helps and ignores it when it doesn't.

This is different in the conservative relationship with science mostly in degree. They have a few more places where science doesn't help.

[Buzz Clik]

35. +1!

[closeupready]

25. I don't know, but do know that DU's resident scientists are arrogantly biased.

Is that your question...?

For example, GMO's were once touted here as 'scientific', ergo, good. Now, we are seeing, no, they aren't.

Same thing with nuclear power.

Ditto pesticides.

Then again, DU is merely a discussion board, not a science institute or university. Anyone and everyone could pose as a 'scientist' here.

[Buzz Clik]

27. Actually, I'm surprised not to see more of your kind of comments.

GMOs are not "bad", though certain resulting management practices associated with them (e.g., overuse of glyphosate with Roundup Ready crops) are totally misguided.

Nuclear power is not a bad thing, but it is complicated and generates some nasty waste. As indicated upthread, nuclear energy is one of the safest forms of energy generation.

Ditto pesticides.

Interesting comment! For decades, organics farmers were using Bacillus thuringiensis as a natural control against devastating infestations of various caterpillars and worms. Highly endorsed; all natural! The synthetic pesticide alternatives were seen (often rightly so) as dangerous. So, Bt corn was developed; now, Bacillus thuringiensis is consider a tool of the devil.

Then again, DU is merely a discussion board, not a science institute or university. Anyone and everyone could pose as a 'scientist' here.

Yep! Luckily, it's not hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[closeupready]

31. DDT - remember that? It was touted as science! SCIENCE!

So safe, you could drink it (just like nukes were 'too cheap to even meter!').

And resulting fallout wasn't DDT's fault; it was failure to use it properly, misguided deployment, etc.

And an egg, prior to the 21st Century, sunny side up was 'a heart attack on a PLATE!' ditto Butter and wine.



ONE thing that doesn't ever change (as long as people have spoken) is the use of sophistry to mislead listeners. Part of why, I suppose, many adversaries tend to not participate in your side's silly threads is it's a waste of time.

Nothing personal, just saying.

[Buzz Clik]

36. DDT is still an effective and important insecticide.

I am not aware of any examples of scientists suggesting that DDT was safe to drink. Could you please provide a link to any resources you have that might demonstrate this?

ONE thing that doesn't ever change (as long as people have spoken) is the use of sophistry to mislead listeners. Part of why, I suppose, many adversaries tend to not participate in your side's silly threads is it's a waste of time.

Fascinating. What is "my side" exactly?

[closeupready]

43. Nah. If I thought members here were honestly trying to talk,

then maybe I'd do that. But I'm done, since these discussions never ever EVER go anywhere.

But thanks for the effort.

[NuclearDem]

47. Poster is confusing DDT and glyphosate.

The poster is also referring to an idiot (actual) Monsanto shill who essentially said you could drink a glass of Roundup and not be hurt by it, but subsequently refused to do so.

Anyone in the following discussion thread who didn't jump on the "boo hiss Monsatan" nonsense was challenged (by a now banned repeat troll) to take the Roundup Challege--drink a glass of glyphosate, or otherwise not be taken seriously.

Really one of the stupider fucking moments in DU history.

[Exilednight]

26. Let's look at each.

Climate change: yes, it does have a liberal bias. Above everything else, destroying our environment and ecosystem will literally kill mankind. This should be everyone's top priority. No point in arguing about bombs, economics or anything else if there is no one left.

GMO: somewhat. Science has proven some and disproven others.

Pesticides: All is a strong word. The EPA does need to be funded to meet the needs to determine which are and aren't.

Nuclear energy: the dangers are real, and there are other alternatives. If the government funded solar the same way it funded fossil and nuclear energy, we'd be a lot better off.

Vaccines: the greater good of vaccines greatly outweighs the minute risk.

[Buzz Clik]

37. Nicely balanced comments. Thanks.

[hifiguy]

30. It has a FACTUAL bias.

The scientific method is evidence based, peer-reviewed and subject to constant correction in light of new information.

Belief systems are not evidence-based, peer-reviewed, nor are they able to accept contradictory facts. They cannot be changed, ever. They are a piss-poor way to live in the world.

The thing about science is, as Neil deGrasse Tyson says, is that it works, whether you believe in it or not.

Climate change is a FACT and current nuclear energy has the clear downside of storing radioactive materials for centuries. That is a FACT. As for the other issues, I will accept whatever the best independent science done by people with no dog in the fight, conclude.

[Buzz Clik]

38. You and I see these issues in exactly the same way.

[hifiguy]

39. Thank you.

While science is always necessarily incomplete, its time-tested methodology is humanity's one proven tool for getting to the truth of how things from quarks to supernovae, the universe itself, and everything in between, actually work.

[Rex]

42. That's it right there.

Said it better than I ever could.

[Chathamization]

45. People who are only interested in using the word "science" as a rhetorical bludgeon should probably

reexamine what the word means. It's possible for people to agree on the scientific consensus and disagree on what we should do as a society. This is particularly true for the use of technology, where people are trying to juggle potential benefits, potential risks, the human propensity to make mistakes (or be intentionally malicious), and how a technology might grow in the future.

Anyone who thinks science is a perfect predictor of future technological growth or human self control really shouldn't be using the word science, since they have no idea what it means.

It's also interesting that fear about some technology is considered anti-science, while fear of other technology gets a pass. I've never seen Hawking, Gates, or Musk get labelled anti-science because of their fears regarding AI.