Researchers from the University of Oxford say conservative skepticism justified

katzgar said:
I suggest you reread your own post and try and understand at this time. The only group in question are the social sciences
Click to expand...
I suggest you read the link:

The distrust is not driven by all scientists, but rather by what Confas and his team refer to as “impact scientists.” These are researchers, typically working in the social sciences and environmental science, who often conduct research with the stated goal of raising awareness of left-liberal issues, or acceptance of left-liberal policy solutions.

“There is a strong possibility that conservatives are not opposed to, or skeptical of, science per se. Rather, they lack trust in impact scientists whom they see as seeking in influence policy in a liberal direction,” explains Confas.

“Conservatives are right to be skeptical,” he added. “Take any politicized issue that is connected to some disagreement about scientific fact. I do not believe there is a single case in the last couple decades where a major scientific organization took a position that went against the platform of the Democratic Party.”

“What an odd coincidence that ‘science’ always, without exception, supports the liberal worldview,” Confas observed.
 
anonymoose said:
I suggest you read the link:

The distrust is not driven by all scientists, but rather by what Confas and his team refer to as “impact scientists.” These are researchers, typically working in the social sciences and environmental science, who often conduct research with the stated goal of raising awareness of left-liberal issues, or acceptance of left-liberal policy solutions.

“There is a strong possibility that conservatives are not opposed to, or skeptical of, science per se. Rather, they lack trust in impact scientists whom they see as seeking in influence policy in a liberal direction,” explains Confas.

“Conservatives are right to be skeptical,” he added. “Take any politicized issue that is connected to some disagreement about scientific fact. I do not believe there is a single case in the last couple decades where a major scientific organization took a position that went against the platform of the Democratic Party.”

“What an odd coincidence that ‘science’ always, without exception, supports the liberal worldview,” Confas observed.
Click to expand...


you lost the chain of thought
 
Timshel said:
Oreskes (historian of science) and Lewandowsky (psychologist) are both in social science fields. Of course, the idiot Tom is trying to spin this to justify his denial of natural science and it does not support that conclusion.
Click to expand...

You're the fucking idiot, what do think Merchants of Doubt was all about Stringy? Judith Curry seem to agree with me as well. Now, fuck off back down the hole you crawled out from.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/03/15/bankruptcy-of-the-merchants-of-doubt-meme/
 
anonymoose said:
I suggest you read the link:

The distrust is not driven by all scientists, but rather by what Confas and his team refer to as “impact scientists.” These are researchers, typically working in the social sciences and environmental science, who often conduct research with the stated goal of raising awareness of left-liberal issues, or acceptance of left-liberal policy solutions.

“There is a strong possibility that conservatives are not opposed to, or skeptical of, science per se. Rather, they lack trust in impact scientists whom they see as seeking in influence policy in a liberal direction,” explains Confas.

“Conservatives are right to be skeptical,” he added. “Take any politicized issue that is connected to some disagreement about scientific fact. I do not believe there is a single case in the last couple decades where a major scientific organization took a position that went against the platform of the Democratic Party.”

“What an odd coincidence that ‘science’ always, without exception, supports the liberal worldview,” Confas observed.
Click to expand...

Pay Katgutz no mind, he's a senile old sod.
 
Timshel said:
Oreskes (historian of science) and Lewandowsky (psychologist) are both in social science fields. Of course, the idiot Tom is trying to spin this to justify his denial of natural science and it does not support that conclusion.
Click to expand...

Let's do a search and see how their products are distributed around the liberal media. Lewandowsky is the guy who claims skeptics are conspiracy theorists. This while they pass their own Big Oil theory. LOL
 
tinfoil said:
Let's do a search and see how their products are distributed around the liberal media. Lewandowsky is the guy who claims skeptics are conspiracy theorists. This while they pass their own Big Oil theory. LOL
Click to expand...

I used to have a modicum of respect for Stringy aka Timshel, but he's turned into a full-on jerk these days.
 
tinfoil said:
Let's do a search and see how their products are distributed around the liberal media. Lewandowsky is the guy who claims skeptics are conspiracy theorists. This while they pass their own Big Oil theory. LOL
Click to expand...

This guy has Lewandowsky's number.

Mr. Lewandowsky commits errors in reasoning that should have him immediately stripped of his university affiliation.

First of all, the idea that the critics of a dominant paradigm should be coherent among themselves, is not only false or ludicrous, but comical. At every step of the formidable development of science in the history of the West, we find a myriad of parallel and concomitant challenges to the dominant paradigm. That is, before one of them finally takes over. Were all the critiques of Newton, Kepler, Einstein or Heisenberg coherent between themselves? See the present state of physics, with several theories in the quest of the last particle, theories that are perfectly coherent as such, but mutually incoherent.

Lewandowsky is conscious of this slight monstrosity of his (only) argument since he writes (in the end): “Our analysis was performed at the aggregate level; that is, we considered the incoherence of collective argumentation among a “community” of like-minded individuals as if it were a single intellectual entity. It is possible, therefore, that individuals within this community would only hold one or the other of two incoherent views, and that each person considered in isolation would not be incoherent. In that case, one could argue that there is merely a heterogeneity of views in the “community” of denialists, which might in turn be interpreted as being an indication of “healthy debate” or “scientific diversity” rather than incoherence.” (page 16), only to reject it: ” the argumentative incoherence that we analyzed in this article also arises within arguments offered by the same individual.” Lewandowsky then gives a few samples of such individual incoherences, then concludes: “This sample is far from exhaustive but is sufficient to establish the existence of argumentative incoherence at the level of the individual in addition to the denial movement in the aggregate.”



https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09...ad-case-of-stephan-lewandowsky/?cn-reloaded=1
 
Last edited:
lol like you really only have disagreements with shoddy polsci studies

climate change
evolution
transgenderism

all of these rightists choose their ideology over factual evidence
 
anonymoose said:
I suggest you read the link:

The distrust is not driven by all scientists, but rather by what Confas and his team refer to as “impact scientists.” These are researchers, typically working in the social sciences and environmental science, who often conduct research with the stated goal of raising awareness of left-liberal issues, or acceptance of left-liberal policy solutions.

“There is a strong possibility that conservatives are not opposed to, or skeptical of, science per se. Rather, they lack trust in impact scientists whom they see as seeking in influence policy in a liberal direction,” explains Confas.

“Conservatives are right to be skeptical,” he added. “Take any politicized issue that is connected to some disagreement about scientific fact. I do not believe there is a single case in the last couple decades where a major scientific organization took a position that went against the platform of the Democratic Party.”

“What an odd coincidence that ‘science’ always, without exception, supports the liberal worldview,” Confas observed.
Click to expand...

Climate change is a conclusion of the natural sciences. This article itself is a social science article. It's practically philosophy. Ridiculous.
 
Kacper said:
skepticism used to be the backbone of science. Now we live in an age where skepticism will get you 500 reddit downvotes inside 3 minutes.
Click to expand...

Politically motivated conspiracy theories by amateurs on the internet have never been the backbone of science. True skepticism is skeptical of ideological conspiracy theories.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology

Climatology (from Greek κλίμα, klima, "place, zone"; and -λογία, -logia) or climate science is the scientific study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time.[1] This modern field of study is regarded as a branch of the atmospheric sciences and a subfield of physical geography, which is one of the Earth sciences.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_science

Earth science or geoscience is a widely embraced term for the fields of natural science related to the planet Earth.
 
Why does science have to agree with "conservatives"? Is it their fault "conservatives" have chosen to live in the realm of conspiracy theories and totalitarian ideology rather than truth and reason? Science is only concerned with the truth, it should pay no attention at all to satisfying some conspiracy theorists who are immune to logic, evidence, and reason. Furthermore, it's only American "conservatives" who largely have embraced these conspiracy theories.

World wide, where saner ideologies typically prevail on the right, right wing parties usually acknowledge science. So science should bend over backwards to lick the boots of conspiracy theorists in America who constitute maybe 1% of the population of the world, just because of the political power they seized without the consent of the people? It would make as much sense to bend over backwards to satisfy the Lysenkoism just because the Communist party of the Soviet Union had seized for itself undeserved power and control of a superpower. Modern American "conservatism" is not a conservative ideology at all, it's a neo-fascist totalitarian conspiratorial ideology like Nazism, where the entire world view is seen through the lens of ideology, it bears no relation to the traditions of conservatism. Like other totalitarian ideologies such as Nazims and Communism, American Rightism naturally comes into conflict with science, as their ideology conflicts with reality, but they refuse to acknowledge anything other than their ideology.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top