Researchers from the University of Oxford say conservative skepticism justified

C

cancel2 2022

Canceled
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
 
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.

servative 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...
Hopefully it's justified to be liberal and skeptical.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Understandable although sociology and political science are not really the "scientific establishment" at the same level as natural sciences. Studies of evolution don't carry the same kind of bias as social welfare policy because there are less preconceived policy preferences. A recent find of human bones found a person part Neanderthal and the other part an unknown species.
 
Flash said:
Understandable although sociology and political science are not really the "scientific establishment" at the same level as natural sciences. Studies of evolution don't carry the same kind of bias as social welfare policy because there are less preconceived policy preferences. A recent find of human bones found a person part Neanderthal and the other part an unknown species.
Click to expand...

I suggest you look up Naomi Oreskes and Stephan Lewandowsky. All they ever seem to do is claim that scepticism, which should be integral to the scientific method, is really a form of mental illness. They are exactly the sort of bottom feeding pond life that the Left has become.

https://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/604/html
 
Havana Moon said:
I suggest you look up Naomi Oreskes and Stephan Lewandowsky. All they ever seem to do is claim that scepticism, which should be integral to the scientific method, is really a form of mental illness. They are exactly the sort of bottom feeding pond life that the Left has become.
Click to expand...

The article you cite is primarily about science and not social science. I was only questioning the fact that since scientists are not involved in same kind of "scholarly activism" as social scientists, public skepticism of their results is not necessarily a result of the same perception of bias (although we tend to see more of that with climate science).
 
Flash said:
The article you cite is primarily about science and not social science. I was only questioning the fact that since scientists are not involved in same kind of "scholarly activism" as social scientists, public skepticism of their results is not necessarily a result of the same perception of bias (although we tend to see more of that with climate science).
Click to expand...

Can you tell me what words like denier, deliberately chosen to mimic Holocaust denial, are doing in a supposedly scholarly work?
 
Really?

Not every Oxford professor agrees with your report!

The British government owned BBC has hosted a talk from privileged Oxford Professor Danny Dorling, demanding that rich people (which includes everyone from the USA) be “controlled” for the good of the planet.

I’m Danny Dorling, I’m professor of Geography at University of Oxford, and in my very humble opinion one of the worst things about high economic inequality is it damages the environment.

High economic inequality is extremely damaging to the environment, because the greedy do not know how to control themselves.

Thomas Piketty, who is a brilliant economist from Paris, has done incredible detailed work recently, looking at the consumption and pollution patterns of the richest one percent, and he has shown that the richest one percent disproportionately contribute to greenhouse gasses and to carbon pollution which are damaging our planet.

This is because they buy so many things they do not need, because money is not an issue for them.

It’s because they have so many homes that they travel between, is because when they travel they don’t travel in a sustainable way. At the extreme they’re flying in private jets; there isn’t a better way to heat up the planet and damage our environment than to fly in a private jet and they need to learn the importance of this.

Because climate change is the biggest threat that we’re facing, and we’re partly facing it because we’re allowing the greedy people to carry on being greedy, and we’re not controlling them for the good of everyone.

…

Video: https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/opinion-the-super-rich-are-damaging-the-environmen/p064kjgj

If you listen further the professor extends his definition of “rich” people to include poor people in America, who are rich by global standards – so pretty much everyone in the USA is part of the target group the professor believes needs to be “controlled”. Professor Dorling blames the celebrity culture for driving poor people in rich countries to spend more on extravagances, to try to keep up with the rich people.

Professor Dorling’s solution is for everywhere to somehow become more like Germany and Europe, with government enforced redistribution of income and assets. This enforced equality would create fewer aspirational super rich cultural icons to excite poor people into trying to buy expensive stuff they don’t really need.
 
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...

That's bullshit, the likes of Oreskes and Lewandowsky have spent a decade or more trying to rubbish anyone that doesn't toe the party line on AGW. I wouldn't expect you to know as you're a doddering old fool. They have absolutely no background or training in any real scientific discipline.
 
Last edited:
Adolf_Twitler said:
Really?

Not every Oxford professor agrees with your report!

The British government owned BBC has hosted a talk from privileged Oxford Professor Danny Dorling, demanding that rich people (which includes everyone from the USA) be “controlled” for the good of the planet.

I’m Danny Dorling, I’m professor of Geography at University of Oxford, and in my very humble opinion one of the worst things about high economic inequality is it damages the environment.

High economic inequality is extremely damaging to the environment, because the greedy do not know how to control themselves.

Thomas Piketty, who is a brilliant economist from Paris, has done incredible detailed work recently, looking at the consumption and pollution patterns of the richest one percent, and he has shown that the richest one percent disproportionately contribute to greenhouse gasses and to carbon pollution which are damaging our planet.

This is because they buy so many things they do not need, because money is not an issue for them.

It’s because they have so many homes that they travel between, is because when they travel they don’t travel in a sustainable way. At the extreme they’re flying in private jets; there isn’t a better way to heat up the planet and damage our environment than to fly in a private jet and they need to learn the importance of this.

Because climate change is the biggest threat that we’re facing, and we’re partly facing it because we’re allowing the greedy people to carry on being greedy, and we’re not controlling them for the good of everyone.

…

Video: https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/opinion-the-super-rich-are-damaging-the-environmen/p064kjgj

If you listen further the professor extends his definition of “rich” people to include poor people in America, who are rich by global standards – so pretty much everyone in the USA is part of the target group the professor believes needs to be “controlled”. Professor Dorling blames the celebrity culture for driving poor people in rich countries to spend more on extravagances, to try to keep up with the rich people.

Professor Dorling’s solution is for everywhere to somehow become more like Germany and Europe, with government enforced redistribution of income and assets. This enforced equality would create fewer aspirational super rich cultural icons to excite poor people into trying to buy expensive stuff they don’t really need.
Click to expand...

??
 
Havana Moon said:
That's bullshit, the likes of Oreskes and Lewandowsky have spent a decade or more trying to rubbish anyone that doesn't toe the party line on AGW. I wouldn't expect you to know that and you're a doddering old fool.
Click to expand...


What I said was straight from your own article you stupid fuck
 
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.
 
Havana Moon said:
Save your breath, you'll be joining McCain soon.
Click to expand...


you need to read shit before you make an ass out of your self.

This is from your own article "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. "

now quit being stupid
 
katzgar said:
you need to read shit before you make an ass out of your self.

This is from your own article "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. "

now quit being stupid
Click to expand...

You need to stop being such an arsehole.
 
katzgar said:
you need to read shit before you make an ass out of your self.

This is from your own article "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. "

now quit being stupid
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top