Researchers from the University of Oxford say conservative skepticism justified

Watermark said:
Climate change is a conclusion of the natural sciences. .
Click to expand...
Of course it is.. It's always changing. Why can't you explain to me how much humans cause the change?
I know the earth has been warming. Glaciers in Alaska have been receding since they were first observed by Russians in 1741.
 
Havana Moon said:
Can't imagine that anyone ought to be surprised about this, still it's good to see it acknowledged all the same.

Conservative skepticism of scientific establishments is largely justified, given the prevalence of left-leaning "scholar activism" in fields like sociology and political science. Nathan Confas and his team argue that conservatives are primarily opposed to so-called "impact scientists" who conduct research with the explicit purpose of advancing liberal policy goals.

A new study by University of Oxford researchers suggests conservatives are right to be skeptical of scientific establishments, given the history of “scholar activism” in fields like sociology and political science. Led by Nathan Confas, the study “Does Activism in the Social Sciences Explain Conservatives’ Distrust of Scientists?” can be found in the recent issue of the American Sociologist, a special edition dedicated to ideological diversity and conservative issues.

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11...ail&utm_term=0_8f98a37810-133e67ca37-20198617
Click to expand...
Well who the hell really considers sociology or political science, real sciences?
 
This OP is a pig with lipstick

Right wing propaganda published by a Fox News, The New York Post, and The Washington Examiner 'contributor' is highly suspect right out of the gate

Personally I always check the sources before jumping down a 'conservative' rabbit hole and 'debating' with right wing ideologues
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well who the hell really considers sociology or political science, real sciences?
Click to expand...

That's actually the whole point, the likes of Lewandowsky and Oreskes feel qualified to wade on and pontificate, calling anybody that they disagree with deniers and mentally deficient. Not really sure why that is in the least bit contentious, maybe somebody can tell me?
 
reagansghost said:
This OP is a pig with lipstick

Right wing propaganda published by a Fox News, The New York Post, and The Washington Examiner 'contributor' is highly suspect right out of the gate

Personally I always check the sources before jumping down a 'conservative' rabbit hole and 'debating' with right wing ideologues
Click to expand...

Sorry, we have fulfilled our mentally impaired quota for this year, feel free to try next year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top